2957 
Burk, Kathryn 
HP 2008 
ALMAr oJ /07 
THE OREGON STATE FAIR POULTRY BUILDING: A TANGIBLE 
REPRESENTATION OF THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE OF 
POULTRY AGRICULTURE IN OREGON, 
LA TE 19TH CENTURY - EARLY 20TH CENTURY. 
UO PDX LIBRARY RESERVES 
IN LIBRARY USE ONLY 
FINES: $3.00/hour overdue 
RETURN TO UO POX LIBRARY 
by 
KATHRYN M. BURK 
A TERMINIAL PROJECT 
Presented to the Historic Preservation Program 
and the School of Architecture and Allied Arts 
of the University of Oregon 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of 
Master of Science 
December, 2008 


-
I •.- .,..,-,,~1-111~:1lbu~ •:; 1-·. -,, -----
. t l_._____ 
ii 
"The Oregon State Fair Poultry Building: A Tangible Representation of the Social 
Importance of Poultry Agriculture in Oregon, Late 19th Century- Early 20th Century," a 
terminal project prepared by Kathryn M. Burk in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 
the Master of Science degree in the Historic Preservation Program. This terminal project has 
been approved and accepted by: 
Donald L. Peting, Chair of the Examining Committee 
Date 
Committee in Charge: Donald L. Peting, Chair 
Leland M. Ross 
Ross Curtis 
-
I ·.i-!'~i-1!1-:1,-tl,.:-,,,,:-1·,, -------
 
iii 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of a number of people to whom I am particularly 
grateful. Thanks to the staff at the Oregon State Fairgrounds who answered all my questions 
with professionalism and good humor, especially Brent Holmdahl, who took me up to the roof 
of the poultry building and did not laugh at my fear of heights. A special thanks to Ross Curtis 
who shared with me the records at the SHPO and some Sonoma County history. Thanks to the 
employees of the Oregon Historical Society, Oregon State Archives, Oregon State Library, and 
in Special Collections at Valley Library and Knight Library who were so helpful in my search 
for documents when few were easily found. I would like to thank the members of my 
committee, Leland M. Roth and Ross Curtis, for their aid and support of this project. I wish to 
express my deep appreciation to Don Peting, my advisor and committee chair, for guiding me 
to this topic, and for his encouragement, humor and assistance. His sage and insightful advice 
is evident in the best of my work. 
Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their relentless support that saw 
me through some challenging times. Melissa Stoller, whose sense of humor, friendship and 
encouragement helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel. To my parents, sisters, 
brothers, brothers- and sisters-in-law, and Kristy and Chris, thanks for always cheering me on. 
To Forrest, Josh and Kindra, their constant upbeat support kept me going. And, lastly, to the 
love of my life, Ron Hise, I owe a debt of gratitude for his love, optimism and level-
headedness. This would never have been realized without him. 

iv 
To the men in my life: 
Forrest and Josh, 
and Ron. 

V 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Chapter Page 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. . 
I. OREGON'S POULTRY FARMING HISTORY 
A Brief History of Oregon . ..... ....... .. .. .......... .... .. ... ....... ....... .. ...... .. .... .. ... ....... 6 
The Development and Progression of the Poultry Industry.......................... 9 
The Evolution of Poultry's Importance ................................................... 9 
The Transformation of an Industry .......................................................... 12 
The History of the Poultry Industry in Oregon.............................................. 17 
Oregon Agricultural College & Oregon Agricultural Experiment 28 
Stations ................................................................................................... . 
II. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF THE POULTRY BUILDING 
A Brief History of American Architecture, 1919-1930 ................................ 36 
Folger Johnson, Poultry Building Architect ................................................. 40 
The Oregon State Fair and Construction of the Poultry Building ................ 44 
The Era of the Poultry Building . ....... ... ... ........ ....... ..... .... .. . . ... .... .. .. ...... .... 45 
Ill. THE OREGON STATE FAIR POULTRY BUILDING 
Physical Description .... ...... .. ..... ......... .... ...... ... ...... .... ...... ... ..  .. .. .... ................. 54 
Description of the Site .............................................................................. 54 
Exterior Description ........ ... ...... ... .. .......... ........... ... ................ .. .. .... .. .. ....... 57 
Interior Description ....................................... ........................................... 64 
Changes to the Poultry Building and Changes in its Use.............................. 74 
Current Condition of the Poultry Building .................................................... 79 
IV. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE POULTRY BUILDING 
Ideas for the Use of the Poultry Building ..................................................... 85 
V. CONCLUSION 
What now for the Poultry Building?.............................................................. 91 

vi 
APPENDICES 
A. Character Defining Features Table.................................................................. 97 
B. Field Notes ...................................................................................................... 101 
C. Site Map .......................................................................................................... 105 
D. 1990 Plans & Elevations -Hanns Associates, Salem..................................... 106 
E. Sanborn Maps - 1926 and 1926 + 1950 Overlay ............................................ 109 
F. 1914 Poultry Raising Project Report ............................................................... 112 
G. Terracotta Tile Blocks...................................................................................... 115 
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 119 

vii 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
Figure Page 
l. Indians Fish at Willamette Falls .... .......................... ... ...... .... ................... ..... 6 
2. Sally Bush and Mrs. Nolan near side porch .................................................. 8 
3. The Golden Rules.......................................................................................... 13 
4. Site of the first exclusively poultry show...................................................... 14 
5. Chicks hatched in brooder ..  .. .  ..  .. . .. . . . .. .  .. .  .. .  ..  .. .  .. . . ..  .. .  .. ..  ..  .. .  ..  ..  ..  .. .  .. .  . ..  .. .  ..  .. .  .. . . .. .  16 
6. Wheat Harvest, Sherman County................................................................... 19 
7. Northwest Poultry Journal cover ... ............................................................... 23 
8. Map of Poultry land rail lines ........................................................................ 25 
9. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station ..................................................... 30 
10. Folger Johnson.............................................................................................. 40 
11. The A.E. Rockey House................................................................................ 42 
12. The Albertina Kerr Nursery .......................................................................... 43 
13. Historic Horse Stadium .. ........ ........ ........... ........ ........... ... .. ......... ...... ............. 46 
14. Historic Poultry Building and Horse Stadium .............................................. 51 
15. Poultry Building and Natural Resources Center............ .... ........................... 55 
16. The Roof ........................................................................................ ............... 57 
17. Wall of the East Fa<yade ................................................................................ 58 
18. Doorway in the West Fa<;ade ........................................................................ 60 
19. Windows in the West Fa<yade ........................................................................ 62 
20. Rooster Medallion ......................................................................................... 63 
21. Poultry Building Interior . .. ... .... ... .. .. ... .... ... .... .... ..... ...... ..... ... .. ... .... .. ......... ..... 64 
22. Interior of Clerestory...................................................................................... 66 
23. Arch Connection to Post Detail Drawing.................................................. .... 67 
24. Partial Section Drawing................................................................................. 67 
25. Erny's Arch System............................... ........................................................ 68 
26. Interior Post-and-Beam System..................................................................... 69 
27. Arch Top Fanlight Window Detail................................................................ 70 
28. Window Detail............................................................................................... 70 
29. Concrete Floor............................................................................................... 71 
30. Superintendent's Office................................................................................. 73 
31. Interior of Office............................................................................................ 73 

viii 
32. Lewis Irvine Thompson's Drawing of the Horse Stadium............................ 77 
33. 1930s View of the Fairgrounds...................................................................... 78 
34. 1954 View of the Fairgrounds....................................................................... 78 
35. Late 1950s View of the Fairgrounds.............................................................. 78 
36. Interior View of Wisconsin State Fair Poultry Building............................... 89 
37. Indiana State Fair Poultry Building............................................................... 94 
38. Ohio State Fair Poultry Building................................................................... 94 

INTRODUCTION 
This project grew out of an almost casual question by my advisor, Don Peting. He asked 
if I was confident that I had chosen the right topic for my terminal project. My interest was 
piqued as soon as I saw his photographs of a building. With its classically beautiful architecture, 
the poultry building spoke to my personal history. Having grown up in Petaluma, California, 
which was the nineteenth century "Chicken Capital of the World," I observed numerous poultry 
industry related buildings and structures throughout the town and countryside. Older family 
members had worked as teenagers in the industry sorting and candling eggs. The Oregon State 
Fair Poultry Building was a perfect fit for my terminal project. 
The west fa~ade of the poultry building at the Oregon State Fairgrounds, Salem, Oregon. 
Photograph by author, 2008. 

2 
The poultry building at the Oregon State Fairgrounds in Salem represents in physical 
form the significance of poultry agriculture in the early twentieth century. Constructed in 1921 in 
the Spanish Colonial Revival style, the poultry building was designed and constructed 
specifically as a poultry exhibition hall for use during the week-long State Fair. The poultry 
building reveals the region's identification with agriculture in an elegant and traditional way. 
The core evidence of this project has been 
a three-fold investigation: a socio-poultry farming 
history, an interpretive architectural history, and 
an analysis of the building as artifact. Historian 
David Peterson del Mar defines interpretation as 
an "imposition of some sort of order on a welter 
of facts and events and processes that would 
otherwise amount to a procession of tiresome and 
disconnected minutiae."1 To interpret the history 
of the poultry building, one must follow an 
The poultry building's main entrance fa~ade, 
the south side. Photograph by author, 2008. 
investigative theme that orders the sequence of 
topics to be studied. The theme here is the link between architecture and agriculture. The elegant, 
classic design of the poultry building represents the apex of success of the poultry industry in the 
early 1920s. 
For research I used primary and secondary sources, pictorial and graphic documentation, 
periodicals and rare books, all found within a variety of collections. The Oregon Historical 
Society, Oregon State Archives, Oregon State Library w~re important sources for primary 
1 David Peterson de! Mar, Oregon's Promise: An Interpretive History, (Corvallis, Oregon: 
Oregon State University Press, 2003), 9. 

documents. Knight Library and Special Collections at the University of Oregon and Valley 
Library and its Special Collections at Oregon State University were of premium importance to 
this work. Several websites were consulted on state fairgrounds. 
Valuable works on the settlement history of Oregon were referenced. I found David 
Dary's The Oregon Trail, and the Historic Context Statement: Salem, Oregon, by Marianne 
Kadas, particularly informative. However, it is David Peterson del Mar's Oregon's Promise: An 
Interpretive History, that remains my principal resource for Oregon history for its remarkable 
range and detail. 
Sources on the history of the poultry industry were readily obtainable, even though most 
were generated by the industry itself. Oscar A. Hanke, John L. Skinner and James Harold Florea 
produced American Poultry History, 1823-1973: An Anthology Overview of 150 Years. This 
collection of essays on many different aspects of the poultry was an important resource, although 
it tends to be Eastern-centric. I found Gordon Sawyer's The Agribusiness Poultry Industry: A 
History ofI ts Development, to be an invaluable source of information. A thesis by Paul Louis 
Smithers on the History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers and an 
Oregon State University publication J 00 Years ofP rogress: The Oregon Agricultural 
Experiment Station were both filled with very useful data, as well. 
Researching architectural history, I relied heavily upon Leland M. Roth's American 
Architecture: A History, Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning and 
America Builds: Source Documents in Architecture and Planning, Draft for Second Edition and 
upon David P. Handlin's American Architecture. Also useful was the McAlesters', A Field 
Guide to American Houses as a basic style guide. 

4 
There is a dearth of information on poultry exhibition halls, fair exhibition buildings, and 
fair buildings in general. Search results listed books on such topics as fair rides and amusement 
parks, or photo montage books which are good for a general overview but slim on specific 
information. One such example is, Steven Robert Heine's The Oregon State Fair, in which the 
photographs inform particularly well of the building's historic site composition; especially 
interesting is the open plaza to the south of the poultry building (now the Natural Resources 
Center). Perhaps it is due to the transient nature of such buildings - when an exhibition hall has 
grown too small or lived past its useful years, it is reused for another purpose or more typically 
tom down to make way for something bigger and better. Many were of wood construction and 
burned; those of more permanent construction demolished. Many of the fair buildings that I 
looked at were of the steel pole barn variety with sheet metal siding and roofs. 
Useful sources informing the tenets of adaptive reuse are Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Z. 
Melnick's Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America, Contemporary Theory ofC onservation 
by Salvador Munoz Vifias and Conserving Culture: A New Discourse on Heritage, edited by 
Mary Hufford. Additionally, Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies, edited by 
Marta de la Torre, proved an interesting and informative read. 
The first chapter of this terminal project looks quickly at the settlement of Oregon as a 
way to contextualize the people in the state and then builds a rather extensive context for the 
building through an investigative study of the history of the poultry industry. At first, the 
analysis paints a broad history of poultry in the U.S., and then narrows to specifically look at the 
evolution of Oregon's poultry industry. The Willamette Valley receives the most attention as it 
had the highest number of poultry farms in the state. Then research moves to the educational and 
-
. ' 
_____II__LJ ] 
.. I 

scientific aspects through the involvement of the Oregon Agricultural College, the Agricultural 
Experiment Stations and the Oregon Extension Service. 
Chapter two adds the layer of architectural history to the story. It considers the post-WWI 
era with its social estrangement and the search for comfort and safety as expressed through its 
architecture. How was this building the embodiment of collective ideals? In this chapter we also 
examine the architect, Folger Johnson, his life and his work. Also considered is the role of the 
Oregon State Fair Board, its history and its decision making process. 
The third chapter is an investigative look at the building- an analysis of the building as 
artifact and an in-depth examination of its current condition. Here also is an exploration of the 
changes over time that have altered the building's original appearance and function. As well, we 
look at the different uses the poultry building has endured over time as spatial needs changed. 
In the fourth and final chapter, options are investigated for adaptively reusing the poultry 
building in the context of the needs of today's community. Examples ofreuse at other 
fairgrounds illustrate what these States are doing with their underused buildings. 
Portions of this work will be utilized as the lead components in an Historic Structure 
Report prepared for the State of Oregon, nevertheless, it is a complete document in and of itself. 
This volume builds the context from which a restoration project or additional research can be 
launched. Thus, the audience will be multiple - the preservation community, the Oregon Parks 
and Recreation Department, and the historic architect authoring the HSR and his audience. 
Hopefully, the preparation and findings of this work can be seen as the first step in utilizing a 
multi-disciplined approach to the rehabilitation and restoration of this building, and in the future 
to those charged with the long term care of this important piece of Oregon's history. 

6 
Chapter One 
OREGON'S POULTRY FARMING illSTORY 
PRE-1900 TO 1939 
A Brief History of Oregon2 
Prior to contact with Europeans and Americans, thousands of indigenous peoples lived 
for millennia in the area of what is now Oregon. They fished, hunted and trapped game, and 
harvested native plants. Many groups relied upon salmon as their most important food source 
(see Figure 1). 
Fig. 1. "Indians Fish at Willamette Falls." Drawn by Joseph 
Drayton, 1841. Drawing courtesy of The Oregon History Project, 
Oregon Historical Society, ORHI 46193. Found online at 
www.ohs.com. 
Fur traders came into contact with Native groups beginning in the mid-seventeenth 
century, and possibly earlier. Russian, and later, American, Spanish, British and other European 
traders came to Oregon seeking exchange. Commerce with these men brought influence and 
2 This treatise is not meant as an in-depth study of the settlement of Oregon. For a more comprehensive history on 
this period, please see Bibliography for recommended works. 

7 
status to some Natives, slavery to others, and disease epidemics to most. By the onset of the 
1840s, wagon trains in ever-increasing numbers began streaming west across the continent and 
90% of the Willamette Valley indigenous peoples were dead from such diseases as malaria and 
small pox.3 
Pioneer Oregon Settlement 
Fleeing the overcrowded American Northeast, abandoning the poor farmlands of the 
Midwest, escaping the contagions of Southern port cities and the famines of Europe, westward 
they came.4 They were searching for adventure, opportunity, new beginnings and the well-
advertised "agricultural paradise" of the West.5 Desperate, broke, adventurous, and hopeful, to 
Oregon they came. In 1842, 100 people came across the Oregon Trail; the following year, 900 
"overlanders" arrived in Oregon; and in 1845, 2,500 more made the difficult trip across the 
country.6 
Settlement occurred early in the Willamette Valley where rich farmland could be found, 
and later, when all the "good land" was taken, in the other areas of the state. Both Oregon's 
Provisional Government and the Federal Government encouraged this settlement by offering 
land incentives for participants. 7 By 1855, settlers in Oregon had filed 7,437 patents covering 
more than 2.5 million acres ofland.8 
3 Peterson del Mar, Oregon 's Promise, 32. 
4 Henri Herz, "Obbligato by Herz," in This Was America: As Recorded by European Travelers in the Eighteenth, 
Nineteenth, and Twentieth Centuries, Oscar Handlin, ed., (New York, Evanston and London: Harper and Row, 
1949), 201. 
5 David Dary, The Oregon Trail, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 54, 80-82. 
6 Peterson de! Mar, Oregon's Promise, 69. 
7 Peterson de! Mar, Oregon's Promise, 74; acreage varied between 160 and 640 acres depending upon marital status 
and date of settlement and qualifications included race, sex, age and citizenship status. Lane J. Bouman, "The 
Location and Survey of Oregon Donation Land Claims," Internet, found at 
http://www.plso.org/readingroom/OregonDLC-Bouman.htm 
8 Kathy Tucker, Donation Land Claims, Oregon History Project, Oregon Historical Society, 2002. Found Online at 
www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical records/dspDocument.cfm 
-
. I . j!l!h1!J~;w; .,:!~··_ -·, .. !•. •. •. ..-. ~.-· ...... w. ~ j  
Between 1843 and the early 1860s, the number of settlers to Oregon rapidly increased 
and the majority who came were farmers. Most of the settlements were rural and remote, and 
were clustered around the northern half of the Willamette River. When the Gold Rush in 
California created instant markets for farm products, Oregon's economy received a strong boost. 
The availability of these new markets increased the farmer's desires for greater profits from his 
land. Consequently, more acreage was put into production and in tum farmers began purchasing 
improvements such as new and expensive machinery. This allowed for greater crop 
specialization. Between 1860 and 1900 Oregonians saw great growth in their economy, 
population numbers and in technological advances. 
From the time of settlement, poultry were found on nearly every farm - small or large. 
Farmwives and children kept gardens and raised chickens, with occasional ducks, geese or 
turkeys, to supplement the family's diet and for "pocket money" (see Figure 2). Surplus eggs, 
chicks and cockerels were sold to neighbors, and to local markets and butchers in nearby towns. 
Fig. 2. "Sally Bush and Mrs. Nolan near side porch of Bush House, Salem, Oregon." 
Circa unknown. Photograph of women with free-ranging chickens. Photograph courtesy 
Bush House Museum, Salem Art Association, Salem Public Library Historic Photograph 
Collections, Salem, Oregon. Photo ID number bh0 138. Found online at www.salemhistory.net. 

9 
Although chickens were nearly ubiquitous on early farms, prior to the mid-nineteenth 
century the p~ultry industry was not yet viable in the United States. And in Oregon, poultry did 
not achieve a commercial standing until the turn of the twentieth century. This change was 
coming and Oregon agriculturalists were to step onto the poultry scene in a major way. 
The Development and Progression of the Poultry Industry 
Chickens, and to a lesser degree, ducks, geese and turkeys, have functioned as casual yet 
vital components in sustaining human life for possibly millennia. Both their eggs and meat were 
seen as good sources of sustenance. Over time, in both Europe and America, specialized 
breeding of "fancy purebreds" came into vogue and this led to the importation of exotic species 
from around the world. In mid-nineteenth century America three developments - books and 
articles· on poultry, exhibitions, and poultry societies - led to a burgeoning poultry industry and a 
major shift in focus for breeders. Additionally, evolving technology such as mechanical 
incubators, brooders and electric lights, allowed for a rapid increase in poultry numbers. This 
expansion led to a rise in larger sized flocks, a wealth of egg production and a longer exhibition 
season. By the turn of the twentieth century, the poultry industry was shifting towards hatching 
chicks and egg production and away from "fancy" breeds just for show. Oregon was to fit 
prominently into the history of the poultry industry. Although Oregon was settled later than 
many regions of the country, its people wisely saw the benefits of poultry and quickly adopted 
the industry as its own. 
The Evolution of Poultry's Importance 
Poultry has been an important part of farmyards for hundreds, and possibly thousands, of 
years. Prior to the eighteenth century, chickens, ducks, and geese in the English poultry yard". .. 

scratched around in barnyards and gardens, haphazard layers and comparatively unmolested."9 
Specific poultry housing was unheard of; wherever the birds chose to roost and lay was their 
home. Egg collection was hit-or-miss, and loss to predators frequent. However, by the mid-
l 700s, a more scientific approach to poultry management was employed which led to greater 
protection for the poultry, better egg laying with easier collection and more meaty "table 
birds."10 Most of these new ideas are standard today; for example, nesting boxes with particular 
lining material; special areas for roosting; enclosed yards in which to scratch, eat and forage for 
insects; and specific poultry feed. Many people followed these new science based concepts. The 
late-eighteenth century Bank of England architect, Sir John Sloane, designed homes with special 
consideration to the poultry yard. Attention was paid down to the last design detail; the "physical 
and aesthetic well-being" of the birds was considered when designing nesting boxes, ponds, and 
yards. 11 The consideration being paid to poultry management by highly esteemed architects 
clearly shows the value with which society was beginning to hold poultry raising. More changes 
were to come. 
By the early nineteenth century, the English viewed poultry in a more romanticized and 
nostalgic light. The poultry house was seen as a". .. pleasant place for ladies to pass the time". 12 
Nearly every home had chickens and possibly ducks for the family's own use. The recommended 
poultry yard was at least half an acre fenced, half in grass and half in gravel. There was a central 
tree for roosting and a pond for ducks or geese or both. 13 Yet the raising of chickens, ducks and 
turkeys was not yet seen as a commercial industry. 
9 Christina Hardyment, Home Comfort: A History ofD omestic Arrangements, (Chicago: Academy Chicago 
Publishers, 1992), 57. 
10 Hardyment, Home Comfort, 58. 
11 Hardyment, Home Comfort, 59. 
12 Hardyment, Home Comfort, 61. 
13 Hardyment, Home Comfort, 61. 
-
- '~ { 
- J 

11 
Similarly, poultry was important to the European settlers of the United States. There is 
evidence to indicate a flock of 500 chickens in the Jamestown colony in the early seventeenth 
century. During the extraordinarily difficult early winters many, if not most, were eaten for 
sustenance. 14 Eggs and meat from chickens, and feathers from geese and ducks, were considered 
very valuable commodities. George Washington, in a letter written to his farm manager, stated 
that every farm family should raise enough poultry to fulfill their needs. 15 His home at Mount 
Vernon had a "spacious back yard" with "turkeys, geese and other poultry."16 Trade ships from 
England and the West Indies customarily traded or sold their remaining poultry provisions before 
taking on new loads at U.S. ports. These imports were bred with existing flocks creating a 
relatively disease-free environment for early poultry production. 17 
Through the turn of the nineteenth century, chickens were seen as portable, adaptable and 
a good source of nutrition through both their meat and eggs.18 Settlement and growth of 
American cities, such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston, created a greater necessity for 
these products. Farmers packed off their surplus to satisfy this need, yet serious attempts to breed 
for the qualities of high egg and meat production had yet to become a priority with poultry 
breeders. 19 And, while poultry was slowly gaining some importance, it was seen as much inferior 
to other classes of livestock. This was evidenced by the fact that mostly women and children 
were charged with raising poultry. Additionally, wills and inventories listed chickens only by 
14 
Gordon Sawyer, The Agribusiness Poultry Industry: A History ofI ts Development, (Jericho, New York: 
Exposition Press, 1971), 16-17. 
15 Sawyer, The Agribusiness Poultry Industry, 17. 
16 
Jean Pierre Brissot, "A Revolutionary in the Making,'' in This Was Ametica: As Recorded by European Travelers 
in the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Centuries, Oscar Handlin, ed., (Boston: Harvard University Press, 
1949; reprint, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1964), 84. 
17 
Oscar August Hanke, John L. Skinner and James Harold Florea, eds., American Poultry History, 1823-1973: An 
Anthology Overview of 150 Years, (Madison, Wisconsin: American Printing & Publishing, Inc, 1974), American 
Poultry History, 22. 
18 Hanke, American Poultry History, 18-19. 
19 Sawyer, The Agribusiness Poultry Industry, 20. 

12 
count, whereas detailed descriptions of horses, cattle, swine and sheep were typical.20 This 
slowly began to change in the mid-1800s. 
About the same time, farmers and other rural people began interbreeding their flocks with 
the idea of producing the best looking birds. This specialized breeding aimed for particular 
characteristics such as feather color, conformation, and size. Even prominent Americans such as 
Thomas Jefferson became enamored with breeding poultry.21 Additionally, the importation of 
more exotic species, such as Cohin Chinas, Brahma Pootras, Shanghais, and Cittagongs, gained 
popularity around this time. This led the early breeders to place a greater emphasis on the 
breeding and raising of"pure" stock with little importance focused on egg or meat production.22 
The Transformation of an Industry 
However, it was three developments in the mid-nineteenth century which led to the rise 
in importance of the poultry industry and a major shift in poultry breeding. Firstly, breeders and 
fanciers began writing about poultry in books and in articles for farm journals. Secondly, they 
grew interested in staging poultry exhibitions to display their birds. And, lastly, they formed 
poultry societies and clubs to support and promote "quality" in the breeds.23 These three 
developments would lead to a fundamental shift within the poultry industry: the split into two 
independent and distinct branches, namely the production industry and the fancy breeders. 
The first of these changes was the publication of books and articles written for farm 
journals about poultry. In the U.S., the first book on poultry was published in 1843 by Micah R. 
Cock, whose real name was C. N. Bement. In The American Poultry Book, he describes the most 
prominent breeds and types of poultry in the country at that time. These included the Game 
20 Hanke, American Poultry History, 19. 
2
i Hanke, American Poultry History, 22-23. 
22 Hanke, American Poultry History, 25. 
23 Hanke, American Poultry History, 25-35. 
-
!_II_LJ { 
j 

13 
Cock, Topknot, Italian Hen, Malay and the Bantam.24 The 1850s-60s saw an increasing number 
of articles in farm publications and books specifically on poultry raising, breeding and care (see 
Figure 3). In one such book, by Simon M. Saunders, Domestic Poultry: Being a Practical 
Treatise on the Preferable Breeds ofF arm-yard Poultry .. . the author discusses housing, laying 
and brooder boxes, feeding, breeding and management, diseases, and the preparation of show 
poultry.25 
The first poultry journal, The Poultry 
GOLDEN RULES. 
Bulletin, began publishing in 1870. Articles 
N.-.or o...- fwl. 
discussed egg numbers and the quality of 
N,,.,,.., al/au, any food lo Ii, abota. 
N ... - fwl from trough, pan, ba&in, or atty .,.,../. certain breeds of birds. Advertisements touted 
FW o,oly ,.AUa 11N Urd6 u,ill run <ifttr 11N f«,J, and 
nolalall ff .tluy----ewoulU. "superior egg producing ability" and "high egg 
Giff adullfa,ola 1/Nir lilitirly al day/JNak. 
production."26 In Oregon, the first poultry 
N..,.. ,-eAaM ogg• /or llakhing purpo,,a until a 1-
u nadg to .U. 
journal was the Oregon Fancier 's Monthly, 
.llbr...,.,. or righe day• "'if..., Aatdling, ,prinkk 1/N~g• 
,oiCAcoldtoal<rtohildllN1-uoff. Thia,oUlpre,,mtiho 
published in Portland, in 1898, which was 
/rfgt,MI complaint tAal fM c,Aick,n tOOI tWJd in 1M o"'1/l 
Fig. 3. The "Golden Rules of Poultry Ra1smg" by followed shortly by the Northwest Poultry 
Simon M. Saunders, in Domestic Poultry: Being 
a Treatise ... published in 1868. Books like this were Journal in 1903. The most widely distributed 
written to guide people on the many aspects of raising 
and exhibiting poultry. journal for poultry farmers in Oregon was the 
Eggsaminer, also out of Portland, first published in 1924 by the Pacific Cooperative Poultry 
Producers.27 In addition to privately held publications, the Department of Agriculture (created in 
1862) first referenced poultry in 1875 in their Annual Report of the Patent Office; and by 1895 
24 Hanke, American Poultry History, 25. 
25 Simon M. Saunders, Domestic Poultry: Being a Practical Treatise on the Preferable Breeds ofF arm-yard 
Poultry, Their History and Leading Characteristics with Complete Instructions for Breeding and Fattening and 
Preparing for Exhibition at Poultry Shows, etc., etc., (New York: Orange Judd Co., 1868), 10-102. 
26 Saunders, Domestic Poultry, 34. 
27 James Dryden, Poultry Breeding and Management, (New York: Orange Judd Co., 1916), 133. 

14 
were publishing Bulletins, for both backyard and commercial interests, about raising, feeding 
and housing poultry.28 
Another of the significant developments which led to changes in the poultry industry was 
the poultry show or exhibition. The first exclusively poultry exhibition in the U.S. was held in 
1849 at Quincy Market, Boston (see Figure 4). It was originally advertised as a one day exhibit 
but had to extend to a second day due to the overwhelming response by the exhibitors. 219 
participants displayed 1,423 fowls and over 10,000 people attended. Daniel Webster exhibited 
seven domesticated Wild Geese and a pair of Java Fowls.29 
<~ 
Fig. 4. "Site of the first exclusively poultry show held in America, The 
Public Gardens, Mass., November 1849." Courtesy Simon M. Saunders, 
Domestic Poultry: Being a Practical Treatise on the Preferable 
Breeds ofF arm-yard Poultry, Their History and Leading Characteristics, 
1868. 
Newspapers carried the story of the exhibition throughout the country, thus spreading the word 
on the growing popularity of raising poultry. In the following year, the Boston exhibit featured 
over 12,000 fowls from over 400 exhibitors.30 In Oregon, the first poultry exhibitions were at the 
28 Dryden, Poultry Breeding and Management, 20; Hanke, American Poultry History, 52. 
29 
Daniel Webster, orator, Constitutional lawyer, Senator, Secretary of State under three Presidents (Harrison, Tyler, 
and Fillmore), and Whig politician, was a noted poultry fancier and respected breeder in the early nineteenth 
century; Hanke, American Poultry History, 31. 
30 Hanke, American Poultry History, 33. 

15 
county fairs beginning in the late 1850s. Additionally, poultry was among the agricultural 
31 
exhibits at the first Oregon State Fair in 1861.
The third key development that led to the transformation within the poultry industry was 
the creation of poultry societies, clubs and associations by poultry breeders and fanciers. In 1850, 
the New England Society for the Improvement of Domestic Poultry was formed. Their main goal 
was to sponsor exhibitions. They held that "public display and open competition was an effective 
way to promote and improve quality."32 In 1873, the newly formed American Poultry 
Association published the first set of quality standards known collectively as The Standard of 
Excellence which listed the accepted features for 46 breeds of exhibition fowls. It became the 
unofficial guidebook for poultry judging in North America.33 Updated yearly, by 1875 The 
Standard covered 79 breeds and varieties. The title was later changed to The Standard of 
Perfection. 34 Breeders of the so-called "fancy" breeds raised birds just for exhibition and were 
concerned not with quality of egg or meat production but only with perfection of form and breed 
type. 35 The American Poultry Association sponsored exhibitions working with local and regional 
poultry organizations to strengthen the industry. 
During the 1870s and 80s, another advantageous development in the advancement of the 
poultry industry was occurring. Emergent technology such as mechanical incubators, brooders 
and hen house electric lights, allowed for the raising of "off season" chicks ( see Figure 5). 
~~ Marianne Kadas, Historic Context Statement: Salem, Oregon, (Portland, Oregon, 1992), 75. 
Hanke, American Poultry History, 33. 
33 Dryden, Poultry Breeding and Management, 21-22. 
34 Hanke, American Poultry History, 36. 
35 Hanke, American Poultry History, 36-37. 

16 
Fig. 5 Chicks hatched in an 
electronically heated brooder, circa 
1889. Photo courtesy Oregon State 
University Valley Library Special 
Collections. Photo number P040.057. 
The increase in poultry numbers led to a rapid rise in industrial sized flocks of chickens, 
explosive growth in egg production and a lengthening of the exhibition season.36 These 
important new technologies were not seen as beneficial by all. In fact, many fancy breeders saw 
the mechanical improvements as a "threat to the art" of poultry breeding. They questioned 
whether chicks hatched by an artificial "mother" and raised by a machine brooder could reach 
their "full potential" as hens.37 Lewis Wright, author of the book The Practical Poultry Keeper 
first published in 1867, wrote, "That artificial incubation will ever commercially supersede, in 
ordinary seasons and for ordinary eggs, the natural process, we do not for a moment believe."38 
This aversion to the new technological advances signaled the corning split in the poultry industry 
into two separate and distinctive branches: the production industry and the fancy breeders. 
By the turn of the twentieth century, the industry focus was shifting away from fancy 
purebred poultry bred solely for exhibition, towards one of hatching chicks and egg production. 
The United States Postal Service lifted its restriction against the shipping of baby chicks by mail 
36 Hanke, American Poultry History, 39-40. 
37 Hanke, American Poultry History, 40. 
38 Lewis Wright, The Practical Poultry Keeper: A Complete and Standard Guide to the Management ofP oultry, 
Whether for Domestic Use, the Markets or Exhibition, (New York: Orange Judd Co., 1869), 208. 
-
• I~ { 
I 

17 
in 1917, which increased considerably the numbers of chicks raised for sale and widened the 
disbursement area.39 Farm journals at this time were filled with advertisements listing for sale 
many varieties of fowls, with such claims as "superior egg producing ability" and "high 
production." Ads were also placed for the sale of equipment such as brooders, incubators and 
bone cutters, and feed, tonics, ointments and pills.40 Many journals included glowing 
testimonials of successful poultry operations, management suggestions and question-and-answer 
columns. Breeders published mating lists and catalogs of their birds with glowing recitals of each 
breed's robust desirable qualities.41 
The History of the Poultry Industry in Oregon 
It was out of this agriculturally progressive environment that settlers headed out West. 
They traveled across the country into Oregon and brought with them the poultry stock with 
which to begin new lives. And although settled later than much of the U.S., many rural 
Oregonians quickly understood the advantages of poultry farming and finally undertook the 
implementation of the industry. With advancements in the technology of refrigeration and 
transportation, Oregon's poultry farming, its agricultural college and extension service were to fit 
most prominently into the history of the poultry industry. 
The Development of Oregon's Poultry Business 
During the last half of the nineteenth century, not only the population but the number of 
farms steadily and rapidly increased in Oregon. And while Oregon's poultry industry was still 
embryonic during this period, poultry were a part of nearly every small farm. On average, 87.5% 
39 Hanke, American Poultry History, 166. 
40 
R. W. Davison, Practical Poultry Culture: A Concise and Practical Treatise on the Management ofP oultry for 
Profit, (Indianapolis, Indiana: The Epitomist Publishing Company, 1898), 152. 
41 Hanke, American Poultry History, 41. 

18 
of all Oregon farms had chickens. 42 Raising chickens, and occasionally ducks, geese or turkeys, 
was the realm of the farm wife or, not infrequently, the children. Most every farmwife tended 
poultry for "pocket money" and to supplement her family' s diet with eggs and meat. Surplus 
eggs, chicks and cockerels were sold to neighbors, and to local markets and butchers in nearby 
towns. 
From settlement to about the turn of the twentieth century, Oregon's agricultural 
development was exceptional. During this time period, the size of farms in Oregon was 
decreasing while the number offarms was on the rise. In 1850, Oregon had a total of 1,164 
farms; by 1860 that number had soared to 5,806; and by 1880, the number offarms had rocketed 
to 16,217. By 1900, 35,837 farms were operating in the State.43 The value offarms was also 
rapidly rising. Each decade between 1850 and 1900 saw at least a 25% increase in farm value, 
with three of those decades seeing over 100% increase in the value offarms.44 
Oregon's farms in the late nineteenth century produced a wide variety of products 
including wheat, oats, rye, Irish potatoes, Indian corn, barley, peas, beans, wool, flax, buckwheat, 
butter and cheese. Each decade saw marked increases in farm production. For example, in 1860 
Marion County farms alone produced 146,931 bushels of wheat; in 1870, the county had yielded 
290,933 bushels; and by 1880, 1,059,488 bushels had been harvested (see Figure 6).45 
42 th 
J3 Census oft he United States, 1910, Vol. V, Agriculture, Part I, (Washington D.C.: United States Census 
Office, 1912), 401. 
43 I 3th Census oft he United States, 396. 
44 th 
12 Census oft he United States, 1900, Vol. V, Agriculture, Part I, (Washington D.C.: United States Census 
Office, 1902), Plates No. 9 and 11. Not paginated. 
45 h 
B'h, ~ and JO' Census oft he United States, 1860, 1870 and 1880, Agriculture Volume, (Washington D.C.: United 
States Census Office, 1864, 1872, and 1883), 120; 230-231; and 202, respectively. 

19 
Fig: 6. "Wheat Harvest, Marion County," circa 1900. Photograph courtesy The 
Oregon History Project, Oregon Historical Society. Photo OrHi 6464. Found 
online at www.ohs.org. 
Clearly, Oregon's farmers were meeting with success in producing and selling their crops. And 
although poultry were present, they was not enumerated in the United States Census until 1880 
and not delineated until 1890. 
It was during the final decades of the nineteenth century that Oregon's poultry industry 
began its remarkable rise. The expansion of railroad lines, and technological advances such as 
refrigerated train cars and cold storage for eggs, helped to facilitate this growth. Ben Holladay 
began building his Willamette Valley railway, the Oregon and California Railroad, in 1868. He 
reached Eugene in 1871 and Cottage Grove by 1873. Smaller rail lines attached to the Oregon 
and California line to link the Willamette Valley with Portland markets and seaport.46 In 1883, 
Henry Villard's Northern Pacific railroad became the transcontinental link connecting Oregon 
with the Eastern markets.47 By 1900, Portland was connected to most of eastern and 
46 David Peterson de! Mar, Oregon 's Promise: An Interpretive History, (Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University 
Press, 2003), 97. 
47 Peterson del Mar, Oregon 's Promise, 123. 
~ 
1____a___J___j J 
., t 
- - J 

20 
southwestern Oregon; from Portland south to Ashland and from Portland east to Ontario/Nyssa, 
were joined by rail. With the population of the state nearly doubling every decade between 1860 
and 1890, railroads emerged as the principal transportation method for farmers to get their 
• products to distant markets.48 
New developments in mechanical refrigeration both in special refrigerated train cars and 
in storage facilities also assisted the growth of the poultry industry. Specially refrigerated cars 
were connected to trains running the length of the Willamette Valley. Eggs were picked up at 
stations and transported to Portland for distribution to markets or into storage. "Cold storage" 
cooled and maintained eggs at the optimal temperature for storage. Extra space in refrigerated 
rooms at packing houses, creameries and breweries were leased for egg storage. From 1890 to 
1900, there was a 500% increase in storage space near the large transportation centers such as 
New Jersey, New York City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis and Chicago.49 Accordingly, 
there was also a corresponding rise in cold storage in the Pacific Northwest transportation hubs, 
such as Portland and Seattle. 
Writing of the budding chicken industry in Oregon, the authors of the 12th Census of the 
United States, taken in 1900, stated, "The fancy breeds, reared chiefly on account of their 
appearance, are, as a rule, poor egg and meat producers."50 This Census commentary reflects the 
growing shift away from breeding purebred poultry solely for exhibition, and towards poultry 
being raised as a valuable food source. Chickens in particular were seen as highly beneficial for 
the industry, whereas ducks were raised principally as meat for the farm family. Geese and 
48 Peterson de! Mar, Oregon's Promise, 98. 
49 th 
]2 Census oft he United States, ccxxiii. 
50 12th Census oft he United States, ccxxvi. 
-
1____1L___I_J { 
J 

21 
turkeys were not raised in great numbers in the U.S. at that time.51 In their discussion of 
Oregon's emerging poultry industry, the Census authors remarked upon its ability to offer a good 
living for an industrious individual. They wrote, 
It is only within comparatively recent years that the production of poultry and 
poultry products has assumed the proportions of a distinct industry. It was, and to 
a decreased extent is yet, a sort of collateral undertaking, or mere incident in 
general farming, conducted by the farmer's wife. With but little attention given to 
the welfare of fowls, the returns are often meager and unsatisfactory, but when 
intelligently conducted there is probably no branch of the animal industry from 
which are secured such quick returns on money invested. The poultry keeper can, 
ifhe so desires, follow a special branch of the industry. Egg production, "broiler" 
raising, capon rearing, and the dressed-poultry market all offer inducements.52 
The first decade of the twentieth century brought to Oregon the rumblings of change within the 
poultry industry. No longer content with raising just show birds, farmers were beginning to see 
the prospect of poultry farming as a main source of income. Selling eggs to breeders and farmers 
could bring a good return; selling specialized birds such as broilers (younger less meaty birds) or 
capons (slightly older meatier birds) to meat markets could earn a healthy profit. 
In 1902, John Minto, one of Salem's foremost agricultural champions, wrote of the 
Willamette Valley's potential for a lucrative poultry industry in Reminiscences ofE arliest Salem. 
He noted, 
Poultry raising is being found a very profitable industry and the highest state of 
perfection is reached here in the raising of fowls. The State Board of Agriculture 
have built a large building on the State Fair Grounds exclusively for the 
exhibition of poultry, and every year is shown the result obtained by a systematic 
breeding of fowls aided by the climate of the Willamette Valley.53 
51 th 
12 Census oft he United States, ccxxiv. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that turkeys would hold a 
~rominent positioning Oregon's agricultural portfolio. 
2 12th Census oft he United States, ccxxiv. 
53 
John Minto, "Reminiscences of Earliest Salem", in Salem, Oregon: Past and Present, An Historical Sketch, 
(Salem, Oregon: Schaefer Printing Co., 1902), not paginated. The poultry building of which he wrote was used for 
exhibiting poultry until 1921 when the 'new' poultry building was constructed. It was then used as a sheep 
exhibition building and later demolished. 
-
1_______II___LJ J 
( 
) 

22 
While Minto's purpose is clearly to promote agriculture in Marion County and the Willamette 
Valley, and to encourage additional settlement, his attitude reflects the goals of one of the state's 
leading agricultural proponents: the railroad companies. 
Working with the Salem Board of Trade in 1909, the Oregon Railroad and Navigation 
Company along with th~ Southern Pacific Railroad, produced a flyer encouraging participation 
in the growing poultry industry. While their manifesto is lengthy, it is worth recreating here in its 
entirety. They claimed, 
The poultry industry is one that presents splendid possibilities in the mild climate 
of the Willamette Valley. There are no cold winters to contend with. The diseases 
to which fowl are subject are very limited. With proper precautions all danger is 
practically eliminated. The hens not only lay well, but the mild weather in the 
early part of the year makes early hatching profitable, thus getting the broilers and 
the spring fryers into the market when prices are best. The many daily trains make 
the market easily accessible. The cities of Portland, Seattle and Tacoma are within 
a short distance, and each requires large quantities of poultry and eggs for home 
consumption. The Alaska trade presents an ever widening market, and the sea-
going vessels also require poultry products. There are many small tracts of land 
that can be purchased at reasonable prices, and that can be profitably used for 
fruits, berries and vegetables in connection with poultry. The person who owns 
one of these smaller tracts and some good hens may rest assured of an income 
without a great deal of labor. 54 
Here the authors' boosterism is certainly apparent. Again, the Willamette Valley is being touted 
as an ideal region in which to raise poultry. The railroads worked in conjunction with trade 
associations and Chambers of Commerce to encourage people to move to Oregon with the 
enticement of a relatively easy form of income. Claims of a "mild climate," few diseases, "easily 
accessible" transportation to markets, and reasonably priced parcels of land offered wonderful 
inducements to any who read the pamphlet. 
During the second decade of the twentieth century, Oregon's poultry journals reflected 
the changing times. They were publishing fewer "how-to" articles on exhibition birds and 
54 
Salem Board of Trade, Salem: The Capital City ofO regon, Willamette Valley Fruit Center, The Cherry City of the 
World, (Portland, Oregon: Sunset Magazine, Homeseekers Bureau, 1909), 44. 

23 
increasingly more essays on raising chickens for profit (see Figure 7). These articles exclaimed 
how profits could be made through egg production, or baby chick and broiler chicken sales. For 
example, the September 1912 issue of the Northwest Poultry Journal published about even 
numbers of articles regarding the exhibition of chickens and those of commercial matters. 
But by 1918 nearly all the essays in the same 
. NORTll~~TI,T journal were on the subject of commercial concerns. 
POU11'RYJ OtJHMI/ 
Articles such as: how to build commercial poultry houses 
and yards, nesting boxes and roosts; how to start and 
manage a commercial poultry venture; a recounting of a 
visit to a large profitable poultry ranch; best breeds for 
highest egg laying production; and, the negative economic 
influence of imported Chinese eggs. These later issues of 
Fig. 7. Northwest Poultry Journal cover the Northwest Poultry Journal also offered numerous 
from 1911. Courtesy Special Collections, 
Knight Library, University of Oregon. advertisements for automatic feeders, incubators, brooders, 
and a large selection of hatching eggs, chicks and breeding stock. 
Data in the 1910 U.S. Census also suggest the changing status of the poultry industry. On 
Oregon farms in the first ten years of the twentieth century, chicken numbers increased by 32.8% 
to 1,823,680. The number of turkeys in the same period also rose but ducks, geese and other 
fowls decreased. In the same decade, 7,000 more farms reported raising poultry and reported 
having larger flocks. Additionally, the value of chickens rose from $583,000 to $1.1 million, or 
83.3 %.55 This increase in value indicates the potential commercial success ofraising poultry. A 
greater chance of profits would draw additional farmers into the industry. 
55 13th Census oft he United States, 40 I. 

24 
In 1922, the Eugene Chamber of Commerce printed a folder advertizing the agricultural 
opportunities in Lane County with the aim of attracting". .. more industrious men and women 
with capital, brain and brawn, to help work out and develop her natural resources. "56 They wrote 
of Lane County as being an "ideal" place for the poultry industry giving the example of Cottage 
Grove as an established "poultry section."57 There were 3,300 farms and 2,500 farmers in Lane 
County at the time of the folder's printing. They claimed the climate and the land would support 
raising poultry as a profitable venture. They wrote: 
On the smaller farms a combination of poultry and orchards is proving successful, 
as the land can be thus devoted to two uses without interfering one with the other. 
There are about 200,000 chickens in the county and most of the flocks are of pure 
bred stock of the various breeds. The average Lane County hen is producing ten 
dozen eggs per year. Our poultry raisers are selling about $400,000 worth of eggs 
and chickens annually.58 
The intent here was to promote Lane County as a healthy and prosperous poultry area which 
would appeal to anyone looking to purchase a "smaller farm" and earn a good profit. 
And, finally, in 1923, the Chicago Burlington and Quincy Railroad, working in 
conjunction with the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railways, took these ideas to the next 
level. They published a small booklet entitled A Business ofY our Own in Poultryland: The 
Pacific Northwest, claiming western Oregon and western Washington were the "wonderland" 
known as "Poultryland."59 Poultryland was the most "ideal place in the United States" for raising 
poultry and where individuals were "happy and contented people" working at the "pleasant" job 
of poultry farming.60 They extolled the virtues of the Pacific Northwest's temperate winters and 
cool summers, and wrote of the highly successful egg marketing to New York by the co-
56 
Agricultural Opportunities in Lane County, Oregon, (Eugene, Oregon: Eugene Chamber of Commerce, 1922), 2. 
57Agricultural Opportunities in Lane County, 4. 
58 Agricultural Opportunities in Lane County, 7. 
59 
A Business of Your Own in Poultry/and: The Pacific Northwest, (Chicago: Poole Brothers, 1923), 3. 
60 A Business a/Your Own in Poultry/and, 5. 

25 
operative associations of producers. They claimed egg production was "continuous" and that 
"production per hen nowhere is higher" in the entire country.61 
The unmistakable boosterism by the railroads was an all-out effort to increase their own 
profits through greater rail ridership and freight usage. These three railroad companies offered 
reduced fare, round-trip tickets during the year departing from each of their major hubs to 
explore western Oregon and Washington. These tickets allowed diverse routing and "liberal 
stop-over privileges."62 The Southern Pacific Railroad Company offered free freight to exhibitors 
wanting to send their exhibits to the State Fair in Salem.63 These campaigns were mutually 
beneficial to both the railroads and the poultry industry. As egg production increased, shipping 
by train to distant markets increased accordingly. With the expansion of Oregon's railroad lines, 
advances in refrigeration technology, and advertising boosterism, poultry farming was poised to 
expand into a successful and profitable industry (see Figure 8). 
Fig. 8. "Poultryland is in the Pacific 
Northwest." Map of Burlington-Northern 
Pacific-Great Northern territory in Oregon, 
circa 1923. Map courtesy A Business of Your 
Own in Poultry/and: The Pacific Northwest, 
1923. 
61 A Business ofY our Own in Poultry/and, 6. 
62 A Business of Your Own in Poultry/and, 30. 
63 North Pacific Rural Spirit, 32, no.32, (7 September 1900): 5. 

26 
In the early twentieth century, the principal outlets for the high-quality eggs produced in 
Oregon were local stores, local creameries, the county produce handler or commission men, 
packing companies, hotels, restaurants, individuals, and the stores and creameries of nearby 
markets. Nationally, cracked and "dirty" eggs were sold to baking companies and "tainted" eggs 
were used to dress leather gloves and in bookbinding, to make disinfectant and shoe blacking, 
and as an ingredient in fertilizers. Additionally, millions of eggs each year were used by "wine 
clarifiers, calico printworks, dye manufacturers and in preparation of photographers' dry 
plates."64 Camping parties and "expeditions" used desiccated eggs as provisions. These diverse, 
expanding national markets indicated a need which Oregon's eggs could help fill. 
In Portland, the center of Oregon's poultry industry, packing companies shipped 80% of 
the eggs that left the area; the creameries shipped 14% and the commission houses 6%.65 Every 
spring 10-12 train carloads of eggs were shipped out each month from Portland, sometimes as 
early as January or February depending upon production. This totaled 30-50 carloads of eggs 
each year. Most were shipped to Seattle, but many in increasing numbers were shipped to 
Chicago and New York, as the larger consuming centers would pay premium prices. 66 With the 
national market beckoning, Oregon's poultry producers understood the need for an organized 
approach. 
Prior to 1916, attempts by poultry producers to organize a cooperative were met with 
disappointment. Early "egg circles" & farmers' granges supported local egg producers. In 1916, 
these circles incorporated into the Oregon Cooperative Egg Circles and established their 
headquarters and poultry plant in Portland. They later transformed into the Oregon Poultry 
64 12th Census oft he United States, ccxxvii. 
65 
Paul Louis Smithers, History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers, MS Thesis, (Oregon 
State Agricultural College, 1931 ), 6. 
66 
Smithers, History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers, 7. 

27 
Producers Association in 1919, and in 1920 they again reorganized, as the Pacific Cooperative 
Poultry Producers (PCPP). They were a capital stock cooperative marketing association working 
for better prices for their members. To be eligible for membership, the producer had to have 200 
or more hens, purchase one share of common stock per each 100 hens owned and sign a 
marketing agreement.67 Membership was paid for by a brokerage fee of one dozen eggs per case, 
and the contracts ran for the length of a negotiated term (typically three to ten years).68 
The PCPP quickly opened branch stations in Winlock, Washington and in Caldwell, 
Idaho; in 1928 another branch station was opened in Eugene and later in Roseburg.69 By October 
of 1920 over 100,000 hens had been "signed for" across the ten districts within Oregon and 
South Washington. 70 Producers continued to join the co-op in increasing numbers and by 1931 
membership was at 2,313 producers with nearly one million hens. 71 
The PCPP also set egg grading criteria and rules for standardization. Standardization 
ensured highest prices possible for the producers while clarifying the egg gradations and their 
markets. They handled processing, marketing and distribution of product. Quoted below is an 
example of such standardization rules, 
Extras, Standards, brown extras and mediums are sold in out of state markets. 
Dirty extras, dirty and brown mediums as well as dirty and brown pullets are 
cleaned and sold locally. Firsts and Pullets are sold locally. Crax [sic] and seconds 
are sold locally to the baker trade if the demand justifies and if not they are 
broken, canned and frozen. This product is later sold to bakers. 72 
Egg production among members grew rapidly. In 1922, members were producing 49,570 cases 
of eggs and by 1925 that number rose to an astonishing 129,370 cases of eggs. By 1930, 
67 In the 1920s, most PCPP members did not have large commercial operations (1,500 or more hens); rather, they 
had flocks ranging between 200 and 1,000. Around 75% of members had less than 400 hens. 
68 A case of eggs holds 30 dozen or 360 eggs. Smithers, History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry 
Producers, 12, 24 
69 Smithers, History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers, 8, 23. 
70 Smithers, History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers, 9. 
71 Smithers, History and Analysis of the Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers, 12. 
72 Smithers, History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers, 31. 

28 
members were producing 296,506 cases of eggs for sale.73 With the growth in production of eggs 
and meat, the poultry industry was increasingly successful in Oregon and across the country. 
At the same time, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a 
booklet touting the poultry industry as having " ... developed into one of the important resources 
of the Nation."74 By providing staple food products, the poultry industry by 1930, was finally 
recognized as one of the nation's agricultural anchors. 
Oregon Agricultural College and the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Stations 
It was the advent of scientific research into poultry disease and egg production that drove 
Oregon's poultry industry into its period of exceptional growth- 1910 to 1930. Two important 
elements supporting Oregon's burgeoning poultry industry were the Oregon Agricultural College 
and the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station with its component the Oregon Extension 
Service. 
Founded in 1858 by pioneering Methodists, Corvallis College offered a classics-based 
curriculum. The passage of the federal Morrill Act of 1862 offered land grants to agricultural 
colleges and per year funding of$2,000. In 1868, Oregon's legislature designated the Corvallis 
College as the agricultural college of the state and accepted the provisions of the Act. These 
included instruction in a variety of agricultural courses along with "mathematics, English, natural 
science, languages, military exercises and moral philosophy".75 The Act also required the 
establishment of an experimental farm and the purchase of the proper equipment to operate it. In 
1871, Benton County residents donated thirty-five acres to the college for the farm and by 1885 
73 
Smithers, History and Analysis oft he Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers, 13. 
74 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Poultry Industry oft he United States ofA merica: A Special Report 
Supplementing the Exhibit oft he United States Department ofA griculture at the Fourth World's Poultry Congress, 
London, 1930, (Washington D.C.; United States Government Printing Office, 1930), iii. 
75 
JOO Years ofP rogress: The Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State 
University, 1888-1988, (Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon Agricultural Station, Oregon State University, 1990), 1-2. 

29 
the Methodists had relinquished control of the college to the State, and it was renamed Oregon 
Agricultural College (OAC). By this time, agricultural students were studying chemical analysis, 
chemical physics, natural philosophy, biology, political economy, social science, logic and 
mental philosophy, English grammar, bookkeeping, and military science. They also took courses 
in soil preparation, fertilizers, drainage, and the nature and constitution of plants. Later, classes 
were offered in entomology, forestry, farm engineering, grasses, landscape gardening and 
horticulture. 76 
The Hatch Act of 1887 was a federal program established to provide grants of$15,000 to 
each state and territory to establish agricultural experiment stations under the direction of the 
land grant college. They were independent departments under the directorship of the college 
president with a scientific staff, and controlled by college trustees. 77 It was hoped the experiment 
stations would "advance agriculture in a rapidly industrializing nation. .. [a nd] solve farm 
problems particular to their states while building a core of basic scientific knowledge related to 
agriculture."78 
Following federal passage of the Hatch Act, Oregon's then governor, Sylvester Pennoyer, 
signed legislation in 1889 establishing the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station at OAC 
under the Act's provisions.79 Local farmers donated animals and additional acreage for the 
campus station, and in 1889, the campus constructed the first permanent brick farm building on 
campus, Benton Hall. 
16 JOO Years ofP rogress, 2-3. 
77 JOO Years ofP rogress, 4-5. 
18 JOO Years ofP rogress, 5. 
79 JOO Years ofP rogress, 11. 

30 
By 1890, the experiment station was sending out 
bulletins to farmers on a wide range of topics, such as 
hog raising, weed control, irrigation, soil improvement, 
the selection of varietals and construction of farm 
buildings. 
During the first 10 years of the experiment 
station's existence, they published nearly sixty bulletins 
and circulars. The OAC campus experiment station 
performed research and conducted testing on a wide 
variety of poultry topics, including chicken breeding, 
Fig. 9. Three views of the Agricultural 
Experiment Station at Oregon Agricultural incubation, humidity and ventilation issues, nutrition, 
College, circa 1920. Photographs courtesy 
of A Business of Your Own in Poultry/and: 
The Pacific Northwest, 1923. egg production, fowl diseases, to name but a few (see 
Figure 9).80 By 1896, regional seminars, called "institutes", were held for farmers in the field to 
disseminate new information and to answer questions.81 Two of the Oregon Agricultural 
Experiment Station top achievements were the development of the system of breeding poultry 
for egg production and the discovery of a new, simpler method of controlling fowl pox, a disease 
which had been the bane of the poultry industry.82 
Educators at OAC not only taught students in the classroom but instructed farmers 
through correspondence, chamber of commerce events, high school commencements, grange 
picnics and grower's associations meetings.83 These educational forays were highly regarded off-
campus activities. Teachers also performed additional research and scientific testing at the 
80 JOO Years ofP rogress, 6-7; Hanke, American Poultry History, 94. 
81 JOO Years ofP rogress, 12-14. 
82 JOO Years ofP rogress, 61. 
83 JOO Years ofP rogress, 28. 

31 
campus experiment station. As well, they contributed articles for journals and papers. One such 
example was Professor G.A. Schmidt's article "Culling the Flock and How To Do It" for The 
Pacific Homestead in 1920.84 
Additionally, the railroad companies helped to contribute to Oregon's poultry farmers' 
knowledge. In the early 1900s, they sponsored agricultural demonstration train cars filled with 
agricultural equipment and implements, livestock and poultry, and staffed with teachers and 
scientists from OAC and the experiment 'station. These trains toured the Willamette Valley's 
main rail lines.85 Professor James Dryden from OAC wrote, "The demonstration trains, in which 
the railroads co-operated with the colleges, have been the most successful agency in getting the 
information directly to the people interested."86 Clearly the railroad companies were interested in 
promoting the rail system as the best mode of transportation between the farm and its markets; 
however, they did encourage improvement of farming methods while they coordinated 
communication between the scientists and farmers and assisted with spreading the latest 
agriculture practices through Oregon. The railroad companies were great supporters and 
promoters of Oregon's agriculture. 87 
To further educate Oregon's farming community, the Oregon Extension Service, with 
later statewide branch stations, was established in 1901 with the first field agents working by the 
88 
following year. Scientists at the branch stations researched solutions for problems with local 
soils, climate, and other regional issues. They also performed field experiments to discover better 
84 
G.A. Schmidt, "Culling the Flock and How To Do It," The Pacific Homestead, (12 August 1920): 12. 
85 JOO Years ofP rogress, 29. 
86 Dryden, Poultry Breeding and Management, 23. 
87 
Kathy Tucker, Aurora Band Greets Southern Pacific Farm Demo Train, Oregon History Project, Oregon 
Historical Society, 2002. Accessed 23 February 2008. Online at 
www .ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical records/dspDocument.cfm?doc ID=000F2AF9-E2AF- l D D3-
A2AF80B05272FE9F. 
88 100 Years ofP rogress, 24-25. 

32 
quality crops at lower production costs. 89 Extension scientists also wrote relevant articles for 
publication in journals and newspapers. Hubert E. Cosby, Extension Service poultry specialist, 
wrote extensively on poultry. "Effect of Squirrel Poison on Poultry" and An Inexpensive Poultry 
Disinfectant" were two of his articles for The Pacific Homestead in 1920.90 The research 
performed at the various branch stations and on the OAC campus had tremendous impacts upon 
the farmers of Oregon. 
Oregon Agricultural College became an even stronger supporter of the poultry industry in 
1907 when James Dryden was hired as the head of the Department of Poultry Science. Under his 
guidance, OAC erected an incubator house and moveable colony houses for laying hens and 
chicks. He taught numerous courses and by 1913 there were eight poultry courses being offered 
in the department. 91 Dryden wrote extensively on poultry breeding, feeding methods, proper 
housing, incubators and brooders, marketing, and diseases for farm and poultry journals.92 In 
1916, he published his book, Poultry Breeding and Management, which was used as a text 
nationwide.93 With his leadership, OAC scientists bred the first hen to lay over 300 eggs in 1913. 
Lady Macduff laid 303 eggs in 365 days which broke state and national records. This 
accomplishment focused national and international attention on the poultry breeding research 
being performed at OAC.94 
Dryden did much to promote the rise of the commercial poultry industry, but his career 
was not without controversy. Much ado was made over his insistence that poultry exhibitions 
should focus on a hen's egg production and not only the perfection of her physical form. He 
89 JOO Years ofP rogress, 48. 
90 Hubert E. Cosby, "Effect of Squirrel Poison on Poultry," The Pacific Homestead, (19 August 1920): 11; 
~ "An Inexpensive Poultry Disinfectant," The Pacific Homestead, (21 October 1920): 10. 
1 
OAC first offered a Poultry Husbandry bachelors degree in 1911, a Masters of Science degree in 1916 and finally, 
a Ph.D. in 1966, see Hanke, American Poultry History, IO 1. 
92 JOO Years ofP rogress, 29. 
93 JOO Years ofP rogress, 46. 
94 JOO Years ofP rogress, 30-31. 
-
,~•:<f.r.1;;J1:.-:,.• ... 
fLLIIL • 
33 
argued against poultry bred for appearance alone and advocated mixing breeds to attain high 
productivity. Some local and East Coast fanciers took umbrage with claims. One wrote, 
Dryden and men of his stamp are publicly advocating today, trying as best they 
are able, with the aid of the prestige given them as experts in the employ of state 
institutions, to deprecate, if not destroy, the great beneficial work of the American 
Poultry Association and the Standard of Perfection that makes possible the 
poultry show with its enticing and beneficial environments.95 
This author clearly feels that Dryden and others like him, by promoting "mongrel" breeds and 
high egg production, would destroy the industry they knew and loved. The changes which were 
occurring within the poultry industry were hard for some fanciers; yet others took the converse 
position. In an article for the Northwest Poultry Journal, J. A. Aubry wrote of Dryden's work, 
Professor Dryden has come in for quite a bit of undue criticism for not breeding 
up a straight breed. .. at both Utah and Oregon [he] has done exactly what he was 
ordered to do by the general farmers of those two states. The great Burbank, 
Marconi, Edison, Westinghouse, and many others of the present day great men 
have all, and are yet, made the target for adverse criticism. And it has been the 
same story in all ages, that those who have achieved some wonderful success out 
of the ordinary, to immediately become a target for the jealous, ignorant and non-
thinkers. And why not Dryden; has he not succeeded where others have failed?96 
By the mid-1920s OAC's Department of Poultry Science was focusing its research on the 
study of disease, and they continued their study of breeding for quality egg and meat 
production.97 In 1927, a three-story brick poultry science building was constructed on campus 
with its accompanying poultry plant; the building was later renamed Dryden Hall.98 
World War I and later the onset of the Great Depression had a profound effect on Oregon 
Agricultural College, the Experiment Station, and the Extension Service and, thereby, Oregon's 
farmers. The abolishment of the Board of Regents system and the implementation of the State 
95 
Charles McAllister, "The Poultry Show: Its Relation to the Poultry Industry," Northwest Poultry Journal, 16, no. 
2 (February 1911): 51-55. 
:, J. A. Aubry, "The Case for Careful Selection," Northwest Poultry Journal, 19, no. 3 (March 1914): 34-39. 
Hanke, American Poultry History, 259. 
98 JOO Years ofP rogress, 47. 

34 
Board of Higher Education diminished the rate of agricultural research due to massive cuts in 
their budgets. In the 1930s, overall funding to all institutes of higher education were cut by 50%, 
the Experiment Station budget was cut by $156,000 and the Extension Service by $87,309. 
Salaries of all employees in the State's higher education system took three successive pay cuts.99 
Additionally, between 1918 and 1931 only 3 new branch experiment stations were opened. By 
1934, 10% of Oregon's population was unemployed; consequently, college enrollments dropped 
significantly. 100 
In response to the disappearing research dollars, a new nonprofit, charitable organization 
was established in 1934 to aid and promote all manner of agricultural research, the Agricultural 
Research Foundation (ARF). Imitating a successful institution at the University of Wisconsin, 
this incorporated group was a scientific and educational undertaking. They received revenue 
from gifts, donations, grants and contributions. They also earned income from inventions, 
scientific discoveries, patents, trademarks and copyrights, and scientific formulas. The ARF was 
operated by three trustees and eleven directors, each serving a three-year term. 101 This group was 
responsible for stimulating Oregon's agricultural research community, and thereby its farmers, 
during the State's difficult economic times. 
The growth of Oregon's poultry industry between 1920 and 1930 was reflected in the 
Fifteenth United States Census. Records show that the number of chickens raised in Oregon in 
1920 was 3,150,155; that number climbed to over 4.6 million by 1930, and were worth 
$4,228,418. In 1920 Oregon chickens produced 14,625,720 eggs and within a decade that 
99 
The salary cuts were structured thusly: the first cut implemented a 5% reduction of the first $1,000 earned, 
increasing to 15% up to $5,000 earned and up from there; the second cut took 9% of the first $1,000, and 27% up to 
$5,000, etc; and the third and final pay cut reduced by 5% and 30% and up from there. These pay cuts devastated the 
higher education system in Oregon. 
100 JOO Years ofP rogress, 57-61. 
101100 Years ofP rogress, 73. 

35 
number had nearly doubled to 28,342,459. These eggs were valued at $9,134,412. By 1930, 
Oregon's poultry farms were valued at $20,331,305. 102 Without a doubt, the poultry industry was 
a valuable contributor in the State's twentieth century agricultural development. 
In the early 1900s, while some fanciers still focused solely upon "pure-bred" poultry for 
exhibition, increasing numbers of Oregon's poultry breeders were concentrating on commercial 
production. An article in the August 1914 Northwest Poultry Journal explains, "The profits from 
pure-bred poultry and eggs sold for breeding and exhibition are rarely greater and often less than 
those from market poultry."103 More and more poultry farmers were realizing good profits from 
raising chickens assisted by new technology such as brooders, incubators and electric lights, 
expansion of railroad lines, and improvements in cold storage. By the 1920s, scientists were 
focusing purely upon increasing egg production and breeding for that purpose. Poultry shows 
took on a different flavor as exhibitors touted "good layer", or "high producer" in their hen 
descriptions. Supported by continuous scientific information coming from the agricultural 
college and the Extension Service agents, books and farm journals, associations, clubs and 
societies, Oregon's poultry industry had become a relentless growing force in the state's 
agricultural repertoire. 
102 th 
15 Census oft he United States, 1930, Vol. III. Agriculture, Part IIJ, (Washington D.C.: United States Census 
Office, 1932), 488. 
103 
Harry B. Soulen, "Poultry Exhibitions: Fitting and Exhibition Poultry, Judging, and the Trade in Pure-bred 
Poultry and Eggs," Northwest Poultry Journal, 19, no.8 (August, 1914): 11-12. 

36 
Chapter Two 
ARCIDTECTURAL IDSTORY OF THE POULTRY BUILDING 
A Brief History of American Architecture, 1919 to 1930 
Profound changes occurred within the collective American psyche during the era of the 
Poultry Building. After World War I, the United States withdrew from the world scene into a 
"shell of isolationism" and attempted a return to "business as usual". 104 As Architectural 
historian, Leland M. Roth states: "Historical periods are often defined by economic shifts 
coinciding with major military conflicts."105 This period, roughly 1919 to 1930, was one such 
period and its unique mind-set was reflected throughout society; two examples of where this can 
be seen are in community planning and architecture. Factory owners built worker housing to 
support the industries involved in the war effort. Suburbs grew up along commuter rail lines and, 
later, the automobile allowed suburbs to spring up far from mass transit lines. U.S. architecture 
during this time period favored such historicist revivals as Colonial, Neo-Classical, Tudor, 
Mediterranean, and Spanish Colonial, to name but a few. These traditional classical styles 
offered an association with the familiar, the comfortable, and the safe. Architects who drew from 
the post-war turmoil and upheaval struck out not on a new path, but an established one.106 
One of these historicist revivals, Spanish Colonial, reached a new pinnacle of popularity 
after the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego; it was especially fashionable in 
California and Florida. 107 Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue (1869-1924), architect of the exposition, 
104 Leland M. Roth, American Architecture: A History, (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 
2001), 339. 
105 Roth, American Architecture: A History, 339. 
106 David P. Handlin, American Architecture, 2nd edition, (London: Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2004), 170. 
107 Spanish Colonial Revival is also referred to as Spanish Eclectic in Virginia and Lee McAlester's A Field Guide 
to American Houses, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), 417; Roth, American Architecture: A History, 347 ; 
Handlin, American Architecture, 178-180. 

37 
chose a Spanish motif for the buildings he designed. He had performed a comprehensive study of 
Spanish Colonial architecture and was concurrently designing residences in Los Angeles in the 
style. 108 Other architects were inspired by the spotlight shown upon the Exposition's architecture 
and were moved to design residences and public buildings in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. 
A wonderful example of this is the lobby of the Los Angeles Biltmore Hotel, designed by 
architects Schultze and Weaver. Although the exterior of the 1923 hotel is in the "ltalo-Spanish 
Renaissance" style, the three-story lobby with its intricate wooden beamed ceiling and grand 
staircase with ornate wrought-iron balustrade is certainly all Spanish.109 
Likewise in Florida, architects were taken with the Spanish Colonial Revival style. 
Prolific architect Addison Mizner designed the Palm Beach Everglades Club (1918-1919) for 
Paris Singer, the Daniel H. Carstairs house (1923) and Mar-A-Lago (1927), both in Palm Beach, 
and the Dieterich House (1930) in Montecito, California, using variations on the Spanish Revival 
style. Architects around the country used this style to express everything from the simplest 
cottages to grand mansions, public buildings and private clubs. 
New communities in Florida and Southern California, and established towns such as 
Santa Barbara, California, chose this style for a comprehensive civic expression through 
architecture. 110 One architect at work in the transformation of Santa Barbara was George 
Washington Smith. A classically trained architect (Harvard and the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in 
Paris), he developed a Spanish Revival style for many of the buildings in the area that was 
simple and restrained; this style became known unofficially as the "Santa Barbara school of 
108 McAlester and McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 418; Roth, American Architecture: A History, 
347. 
109 Roth, American Architecture: A History, 347; Handlin, American Architecture, 193-194. 
110 Roth, American Architecture: A History, 348; McAlester and McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 
418. 
-
-~1;(':"·;;:;-·1_-~·1:. -:, .. •,. 
. t l_._____atll) 
38 
architecture". 111 The Spanish Revival style reached its height of popularity during the 1920s and 
30s, and fell out of favor by the 1940s.112 
Architects such as Smith who were trained at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts could satisfy the 
desire for these traditional styles. Students at the Ecole were instructed in architectural and 
design theory that became ubiquitous in many of the prominent architectural firms in the United 
States. Beginning in 1894, Julien-Aziis Guadet espoused these principles of design in his lectures 
at the Ecole. He spoke of architecture as art, not as formulaic science. As art has principles, so 
too does architecture.113 At the Ecole, students learned to analyze the utilitarian areas of a given 
design problem which necessitated an understanding of the requirements and purpose of each 
space. This was the development of the parti - the "starting point" which incorporated the 
functional requirements of each space within the building. The student would evaluate the 
building site and its climate so as to position the structure with the best views and to take 
advantage of the "natural ventilation. "114 The design would have to be buildable. The student 
would have to express the truth of the plan and clearly show its strength. The design should also 
deal effectively yet simply with circulation through the building. Windows, necessary for both 
light and ventilation, should be plentiful. Students also learned that they would be required to 
sacrifice certain spaces for the position of the most significant space. Additionally, students had 
to consider beauty; Guadet lectured that an axially-arranged plan, with attention paid to lines of 
111 Jeffery Howe, ed., The Houses We Live In: An Identification Guide to the History and Style ofA merican 
Domestic Architecture, (San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2002), 312-313. 
112 McAlester and McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 418. 
113 Julien-Aziis Guadet, Elements and Theories ofA rchitecture, as quoted in America Builds: Source Documents in 
Architecture and Planning, Draft for Second Edition, compiled by Leland M. Roth, (Leland M. Roth, 2006), 23 of 
252. 
114 Guadet, Elements and Theories ofA rchitecture, as quoted in America Builds, 26 of 252. 
-
--~G::~--
f Ll_----- i 
39 
sight and courtyards would create beauty. 115 Also, students should practice symmetry in their 
design and include enough variety to bring out character. 
Guadet believed that a good design should be essentially classic but not a strict adherence 
to the "ancient orders. " 116 As Roth writes, 
These more conservative minded architects, many of them university educated, 
Ecole trained, and well traveled, developed a creative academic eclecticism, 
correct in the manipulation of historicist detail, carefully planned to accommodate 
movement, full of readily grasped symbolic images of public function. 117 
Beaux-Arts architects designed in a variety of revival styles yet did not replicate the historic 
precedents. Instead, they applied historic detailing, incorporated the latest domestic technology 
and offered modem floor plans in houses inspired by the classic architectural styles. 
A wonderful example of Ecole instruction is Julia Morgan, 118 architect for William 
Randolph Hearst's complex in San Simeon, who brilliantly executed the design in the Spanish 
Baroque or Spanish Renaissance style. The twin towers of the Casa Grande's western fai;:ade 
(1927) clearly reflect their origin in the classical architecture of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century 
cathedrals in southern Spain, while the smaller guesthouses (1923) are evidence of Morgan's 
expertise with the Spanish Renaissance style.119 Another fine example of classical Ecole training 
is Folger Johnson, architect of the Poultry Building at the Oregon State Fairgrounds in Salem. 
115 Guadet, Elements and Theories ofA rchitecture, as quoted in America Builds, 30 of 252. 
116 Guadet, Elements and Theories ofA rchitecture, as quoted in America Builds, 21 of 252. 
!I? Leland M. Roth, Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning, (Boulder, 
Colorado: Westview Press, 1993), 460. 
8 
ll Initially prevented from attending the Ecole due to her gender, Morgan was finally granted entrance in 1898 due 
to placing thirteenth on the entrance examination out of nearly 400 applicants. She was the first woman to be 
accepted into the architecture program at the school. 
119 
Sara Holmes Boutelle, Julia Morgan, Architect, Revised and updated edition, (New York: Abbeville Press 
Publishers, 1995), 177; Mark Anthony Wilson, Julia Morgan: Architect ofB eauty, (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 
Publisher, 2007), 114. 
-
;. ~1!}:':= .•i :,:1-= L_. .. ~ . 
. f lL_IIL_ .I  
40 
Folger Johnson: Poultry Building Architect 
Folger Johnson was a classically trained architect hired to design 
the Poultry Building for the Oregon State Fair. It was his education at the 
Ecole des Beaux-Arts which inspired him in his creation of the design of 
the building. He began his career in New York but soon resettled in 
Fig. 10. Folger 
Johnson. Portland, Oregon in 1911. During the early nineteen-teens Johnson met 
Photograph courtesy 
of Richard Ellison and married Edith Waldo, daughter of Clara and Judge John Waldo. They 
Ritz, Architects of 
Oregon: A 
Biographical had one son, Brian Waldo Johnson. Several of his designs were for 
Dictionary of 
Architects Deceased socially and politically important clients, thus elevating his status as an 
- J<Jh and2dh 
Centuries, 2002. 
architect in certain social circles. The body of his work includes significant 
buildings in and around the Portland area, including the Dr. A.E. Rockey House, the Albertina 
Kerr Nursery, four of the seven Portland area branches of Carnegie Libraries and the Poultry 
Building at the State Fairgrounds. Johnson's professional career spanned more than fifty years in 
both partnerships and solo practice. 
The Career and Architecture of Folger Johnson 
Born the 4th of July, 1882, in Columbus, Georgia, Folger Johnson attended the Georgia 
School of Technology and graduated in 1902. Johnson later received his Bachelor of 
Architecture degree from Columbia University and then sailed to Paris to attend the Ecole des 
Beaux-Arts. Upon his return to the United States in 1910, he worked in New York City as a 
designer in an architecture office. There he worked on several designs for the building surge that 
was occurring in Florida. One of his projects was a design for the Tampa Beach gates. Johnson 
was only in New York for a year before he headed to Portland, Oregon, and quickly established 
his partnership with McDonald E. Mayer. Their firm, Johnson and Mayer, was responsible for 

41 
designing the Gresham Library, the Portland Golf Club (1913) and the Dr. A.E. Rockey House 
(1913) in Portland, and other work. The partnership lasted until 1916, whereupon Johnson set up 
his own practice. He received his Oregon architecture license, number 31, in 1919. 120 
By 1920, Johnson had developed an association with Jamieson Parker; they practiced as 
Folger Johnson & Jamieson Parker, Associated Architects. Their company was commissioned 
for the design of the Albertina Kerr Nursery (1921) and the Poultry Building at the Oregon State 
Fairgrounds (1921). In 1925, Johnson and Parker formed a partnership with Carl H. Wallwork, 
Johnson, Parker and Wallwork. One of their key designs was the Dr. John S. Rankin House in 
Portland (1930). The partnership was short-lived, and Johnson returned to solo practice. By 
1931, he joined yet again with Carl Wallwork in a partnership that also included Hollis E. 
Johnston; their firm was Johnson, Wallwork & Johnston. Their major commission was The 
Town Club, in Portland, which may have been at the behest of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Clara 
Humason Waldo, aprominentmember. 121 
By 1934, Folger Johnson joined in a partnership with Wallwork and John K. Dukehart, 
who had worked as a draftsman for Johnson. This was Johnson's longest lasting partnership-
over twelve years. This firm was responsible for the designs of four of the seven Carnegie 
Library branches in Portland: St. Johns, Arleta, South Portland and Rose City; ap.d the library in 
Pendleton, to name but a few. 
Upon Jamieson Parker's death in 1940, Folger Johnson was appointed to replace him as 
the State Director of the Federal Housing Administration; a position he held until 1950. At that 
120
Richard Ellison Ritz, Architects ofO regon: A Biographical Dictionary ofA rchitects Deceased - ] 9th and 20th 
Centuries, (Portland, Oregon: Lair Hill Publishing, 2002), 212. 
121 
Mrs. Clara Waldo, born in May 1858 in The Dalles, was the first woman in Oregon to be appointed regent on the 
Board of Regents at Oregon State University in 1906. Waldo Hall, a significant building on the OSU campus, was 
named in her honor. She was the wife of well-known pioneer and Oregon Supreme Court judge, John B. Waldo. 
Found Online at http://www.open.org/pioneerc/pg46.htrn1. 
-
'~1!1[{:•. . ;i.""1! i I.J;_. ·.· .' •• 
t LLaL ·~ 
42 
time, he once again established his own practice in which he continued for the next 15 years. On 
122 
November 4th, 1970, Folger Johnson died at the age of 88.
An examination of some of Johnson's work clearly shows the influence of his Ecole des 
Beaux-Arts training and how that education directly affected his design for the Oregon State Fair 
Poultry Building. Johnson's design for the home of Dr. Alpha Eugene Rockey (1913), a 
prominent physician and professor at the University of Oregon's Medical School, and his wife, 
Phila Jane, is in the Italian Renaissance style (see Figure 11). 
Fig. I 1. The A.E. Rockey House. Courtesy Oregon's Architectural 
Heritage by James B. Norman, Solo Press, 1986. 
Through the design of the A.E. Rockey House, Johnson reflects his deep understanding of the 
classical European models. His training at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts allowed for his regal 
conception of the home's design following the requirements of each room's use while not 
sacrificing the beauty of its space. The elegantly symmetrical fa~ade has large front windows 
which provide light for the interior spaces and which are set off by the beautifully ornate railings 
of the balconies. The porte cochere is a modem interpretation facilitating a covered drive through 
122 Richard Ellison Ritz, Architects ofO regon, 116-117; 212-213; 307-309; and 407-408. 
-
, -:j,;,c~,:,cL. ·, · .. _ J 
1 
43 
which to comfortably enter the house, while the raised front terrace is a grand yet welcoming 
entrance. It is obvious, Johnson's design is replete with attention paid to even the smallest detail. 
The Albertina Kerr Nursery (1921) was one of the first facilities of its kind in the West. It 
was constructed as an orphanage and treatment center for the care of mothers with venereal 
diseases. Additionally it was a teaching annex of the University of Oregon Medical School for 
interns and graduate nursing students. 123 Folger Johnson designed the Nursery in the 
Neoclassical Style which is reminiscent of an earlier era (see Figure 12). 
Fig. 12. The Albertina Kerr Nursery. Courtesy Courtesy Oregon's 
Architectural Heritage by James B. Norman, Solo Press, 1986. 
Utilizing traditional Georgian detailing in a classically massed plan, his modem, regional 
interpretation is subtle and restrained. Constructed with traditional materials in a contemporary 
manner and featuring all the modem medical conveniences, the building reflects Johnson's 
classical education through its strength of design and simple beauty. 
Folger Johnson was the epitome of a classically trained Ecole architecture student. His 
designs are typical of the period and of his education. During this time period, he designed in the 
123 James B. Norman, Oregon's Architectural Heritage: The National Register Properties oft he Portland Area, 
(Salem, Oregon: The Solo Press, 1986), 142. 
-
t _,1.,.,:,""•·•·''··2· . - ·1 
44 
latest styles and was able to offer his clients the favored historicist revivals. Johnson's classical 
designs offered his clients recognizable, composed, sound architectural styles. He used his 
classical training to further the emotional distance of the post-war upheaval by creating 
reassuring, traditional, confident designs. This was the man the Oregon State Fair Board hired to 
design the new Poultry Building in 1921. 
The Oregon State Fair and Construction of the Poultry Building 
In 1860, the Pomological Society (aka the Oregon Fruit Growers Association),joined 
forces with farmers from Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, and the county agricultural 
societies of Marion, Yamhill and Linn Counties to create the Oregon State Agricultural 
Society.124 In 1861, they held the first Oregon State Fair near the Gladstone/Oregon City area 
near the banks of the Clackamas River. The following year, to escape river flooding in Oregon 
City, they held the second State Fair, and all subsequent fairs, in Salem. Over the years, the 
acreage of the fairgrounds regularly increased through land donations and land purchases. New 
buildings were constructed as needs arose and finances were available. By 1900, the fairgrounds 
encompassed 160 acres and had a 10,000-seat grandstand, horse stables, cattle stalls, sheep and 
swine sheds, hay barns, a large poultry house, a machinery building, an office, an exhibit 
pavilion, a camping area and a mile-long oval horse racing track. 125 It was the Fair Board, 
created in 1899 by the legislature and appointed by the governor, who determined the need for 
new buildings and worked with the state legislature to appropriate funding for the construction of 
124 
John Minto, "History of the State Fair: The Birth and Growth of the Oregon State Agricultural Society," The 
Pacific Homestead 2, no. 2 (13 September 1900): 1. 
125 
Minto, "History of the State Fair," The Pacific Homestead 2, no. 2 (13 September 1900): 3. 

45 
such projects.126 Typically, Legislative appropriations to the Fair covered award premiums, some 
127 
operating costs, capital improvements and some maintenance.
The Era of the Poultry Building 
During the early part of the twentieth century, the Fair Board began a progressive 
program of improvements to the fairgrounds. They undertook installation of a new woven-wire 
fence set on iron posts around the entire perimeter of the fairgrounds; installed a new six-inch 
water main with branches serving all existing buildings; invested in a new sewer facility; and 
completed a large-scale landscaping plan. 128 Then the Board's attention turned to the 
construction of new permanent buildings. 
One of their first big construction projects of the twentieth century was a new "livestock 
coliseum" in which livestock judging and horse shows would take place. On January 17, 1918, 
discussions began in earnest with regards to the proposed coliseum project and Lewis Irvine 
Thompson was hired as the architect. His early plan was drawn with a seating capacity of 3,500 
but the Fair Board insisted the new coliseum seat 5,000 and have a "show ring not less than 
80xl80 feet." 129 The architect suggested constructing the building in "units" with the cost 
approximately $13,000 per unit. Mr. Thorensen was hired as contractor and ads for bids were 
placed in Salem and Portland newspapers. The low bid of $16,820 by Siewert & Engstrom was 
accepted by the Fair Board, and then abruptly withdrawn by the contractors. A later meeting 
126 Minto, "History of the State Fair," The Pacific Homestead 2, no. 2 (13 September 1900): 1; Fair History, Oregon 
State Fair, Internet, Online at www.oregonstatefair.org/about fair/fair history. 
127 These appropriations varied year-by-year. In 1928, the Fair began to receive millage fees from Marion County 
and in 1933, funds from the racing commission. Found in Financial Report - Oregon State Fair, Oregon State Fair 
Records, Financial, 1919-1950, Oregon State Archives. 
128 Horace Addis and George N. Angell, "Sixty-Year-Old Fair is Still Growing: Annual Exposition at Salem Mirrors 
the Resources of the Great State of Oregon," The Oregon Farmer, (6 October 1921): 5-6. 
129 
State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 19I  6-19 31, Oregon State Fair Records, Department of Agriculture, Oregon 
State Archives, 113. 
I -,j,kt,,,,.,_,,. __ . . - ., 
46 
between the Board and Siewert & Engstrom proved successful and a contract price of $14,630 
was agreed upon for the first unit.130 
Alternately referred to as the "stadium building," the livestock coliseum," or the "new 
stadium," the new building occupied the Fair Board with construction details. By April of 1918 
the Board had accepted the State Board of Control's offer of supplying Penitentiary brick for the 
second unit at a rate of"$7.00 per thousand F.O.B. cars or wagons" and S.A. Hughes was 
contracted to complete "brickwork, materials and installation of iron (supplied by the State Fair 
Board)" for a price of $8,870 and cement work for an additional $825. 131 By June of the same 
year, the State Board ofA griculture Minutes reflect the architect's pleasure with "the progress of 
the new building and the quality of work" and report the award of the construction of the second 
unit again to Siewert & Engstrom. 132 
Fig. 13. The Horse Stadium circa 1930s; note the classic landscaping, walkways and park-like plaza. Photograph 
courtesy Oregon Historical Society. 
130 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, 121-127. 
131 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, 129-133. 
132 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, 137. 

47 
Later minutes convey the completion of the building's final details, such as installation of the 
doors and windows, iron folding doors at the entrances and the painting of ''two coats of light 
color paint" on the doors and windows. 133 
By August, the Board had approved the removal of all buildings in front of the new 
stadium building. In February of the following year, work proceeded to "move all buildings that 
could be moved, and tear down those impossible to move." Among the buildings slated for 
destruction were a silo owned by the Salem Mercantile Company, a building owned by the 
Episcopal Church, and a meat market owned by B.E. Edwards.134 The Board was working to 
clear the fairgrounds of"old" structures as part of their ground improvements and to open space 
for the construction of other new buildings. The record does not indicate how many structures 
were moved or demolished. 
At the annual Fair Board meeting in early January 1921, new department heads and the 
new Building Committee were elected. 135 Board President A.C Marsters was again elected head 
of the Poultry, Educational, Floral, Building and Grounds Departments. The Building Committee 
was comprised of Directors R.A. Linn, AC. Marsters, J.E. Reynolds, and Secretary A.H. Lea. 
By early March, the Fair Board had inspected the grounds and agreed upon the location of two 
new buildings, a machinery building and the poultry building. 136 In the Minutes, the Fair Board 
Secretary described the site for the new poultry building; it was to be located "at the place where 
the Spaulding silo and office building are now located and continuing east one hundred forty feet 
133 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-193 1, 169-171. 
134 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-193 1, 172-173. 
135 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, 181. 
136 
In 1917, Judge William Coats had urged the Fair Board to construct a new poultry pavilion; bis recommendation 
was put aside until 1921. In recognition, the Board elected Coats to present the poultry awards in the new building 
during the 60th Annual Oregon State Fair. "Oregon State Fair Poultry Show," Northwest Poultry Journal 67 no. 10 
(October 1921): 4. 

48 
by a width of eighty feet facing on the present hard surface walk." 137 The matter of construction 
was left in the hands of the Building Committee. On Sunday, March 6, 1921, the local 
newspaper, The Oregon Statesman, reported on the newly proposed buildings at the fairgrounds. 
They wrote,". .. other construction will be a new poultry, rabbit and livestock building ... [this 
building] will cost from $10,000 to $15,000."138 The next week the paper reported that the Fair 
Board decided to begin construction of the new poultry building "at once."139 
At the March 14, 1921 meeting of the Building Committee, drawings were on hand of the 
proposed machinery and poultry buildings. The Minutes indicate the Committee's decisions, 
The Secretary presented drawings of the Machinery and Poultry buildings, which 
are to be erected upon the Fair Grounds. Prices oflumber, roofing and shingles 
were submitted, after which it was moved and carried that Director Linn purchase 
the lumber necessary for construction of these buildings, and if a better price than 
that already submitted, namely $2.60 per thousand, is offered on shingles, that he 
also purchase shingles. Director Linn was also authorized to purchase the 
necessary hollow tile from Salem Tile and Mercantile Company for the Poultry 
Building. 
It was moved and carried that these buildings, and all the work be done by day 
labor, and the Secretary was authorized to hire the necessary help for this purpose. 
Folger Johnson was employed as Architect on the Poultry Building. The Secretary 
was authorized to purchase the necessary roofing, hardware, and all other 
materials necessary for the construction of said buildings. 140 
A thorough reading of the State Board ofA griculture Minutes after March of 1921 
reveals no further mention of the Poultry Building's construction progress. Then, finally, on 
August 8, 1921, the Minutes state that the Superintendent of the Poultry Department was 
authorized to purchase coops for the "new poultry building" and a discussion was held regarding 
painting of both the sheep barn and the new Poultry Building. It was decided that "the Secretary 
137 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, 215-217. 
138 "Buildings at Fair Grounds 1921 Program," Oregon Statesman (Salem), 6 March 1921, p. I. 
139 "State Fair Will Proceed with Buildings," Oregon Statesman (Salem), 8 March 1921, p. 3. 
140 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, Oregon State Fair Records, Department of Agriculture, 219-220. 

49 
was instructed to have the poultry building painted with cold water paint, and the sheep barn 
painted with white wash, if possible."141 
Conversely, the local newspapers wrote often about the new poultry building. The 
Oregon Statesman, between March 6th and September 27th of 1921, carried eleven articles on the 
Poultry Building alone, thereby showing their support for the State Fair and, more importantly, 
the State's poultry industry. An editorial on March 15 not only shared the editor's 
encouragement for the burgeoning industry while singing the praises of the new building, but all 
the while boosted Salem's role in the process. He wrote, 
It has paid the poultrymen to wait. There is to be a new poultry building this year 
on the State Fair Grounds, and it is to be a magnificent structure, of hollow tile 
construction, stucco finish, and a composition roof, and it is to be 80 by 140 feet. 
It is to be on the comer where the roadway turns to go to the new stadium-a fine 
location. The fast developing poultry industry of Oregon deserves the recognition 
that this new building will give it. There is bound to be a distinctive poultry 
headquarters city in Oregon. Salem must strive to secure and retain this 
recognition. Once given a good lead, the growth will be cumulative. Birds of a 
feather flock together. 142 
As well, on page 6 of the same issue, the Statesman estimated the cost of the new Poultry 
Building at $20,000 to be built by "day labor." 143 By revealing details about the new building, 
this newspaper's reporting kept the local readers informed and interested in the progress of its 
construction. By June 2nd, the paper was reporting that the building was under construction. It 
was to be "a structure of beauty and utility; thoroughly up to date and worthy of the city and the 
section and the commonwealth . .. it is being built by day labor, under the plans and 
specifications of Folger Johnson, Portland architect and will accommodate 4000 birds."144 
141 
State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, Oregon State Fair Records, Department of Agriculture, 225. This 
sheep barn was the old poultry building rebuilt for a new use - sheep. "Vast Improvements on State Fair Grounds," 
Pacific Homestead 43, no. 4 (28 July 1921): 11. 
142 Editorial, Oregon Statesman (Salem), 15 March 1921, p. 2. 
143 
"Buildings Construction is Authorized by the Board," Oregon Statesman (Salem), 15 March 1921, p. 6. 
144 
"Awakening Interest in the Poultry Industry," editorial, Oregon Statesman (Salem), 2 June 1921, p. 2. 
-
'~f?f: ... ..i ..: -:. :._ ••• •••• 
f L._____ -~ 
50 
Often, the newspaper's journalists would boast of the Oregon legislature's continued 
support of the State Fair and their financing construction of new buildings at the fairgrounds. 
They wrote derisively ofldaho's decision to cut appropriation bills for state and district fairs, and 
claimed, "Oregon, more wise to the necessity of keeping up heart, and the spirit of progress, and 
the ways of spreading good example among the people, appropriated enough money to insure a 
splendid fair." 145 By late July, the Statesman was reporting enthusiastically on the construction 
progress of the new building. They wrote, 
The new poultry building is nearing completion. It is one of the finest, if not the 
best, poultry exhibit buildings in the United States. It is 80 by 140 feet long with 
31-foot pillars. The floor will be of cement, and the outside finished with cement 
plaster, with hollow tile walls and a patent tile roof. In the center of the building 
will be a pool, with a fountain in the shape of a duck, especially designed for this 
building. Clear around the building the windows are ornamented with rooster 
heads. .. It was designed by Architect Folger Johnson of Portland. 146 
In mid-September, just prior to the Fair, the Statesman wrote of the newly completed 
Poultry Building. A reporter interviewed the Superintendent of Poultry, Edward Shearer, whom 
he found in the new building installing exhibition cages. Of the building, he wrote, "The 
beautiful fountain in the center of the poultry pavilion is completed and the large pool at its base 
will be filled with trout during the fair which will be an interesting attraction."147 Moreover, in 
an article written on the second day of the Fair, the Statesman reported on the new Poultry 
Building, "The lighting and ventilation of this building are the most commendable features, 
145 
"Building Busy At Fair Grounds: Machinery, Poultry Sheds and Other Things Make Good Showing," Oregon 
Statesman (Salem), 22 June 1921, p. 5. 
146 "State Fair is Dressing Up," Oregon Statesman (Salem), 27 July 1921, p. 3. 
147 
"Coops Put in at Pavilion," Oregon Statesman (Salem), 18 September 1921, p. 2. While the addition of trout to 
the fountain would have been incredible for fairgoers, this author could find no additional reference to this plan in 
any resource. However the October 10, 1921 issue of The Pacific Homestead (page 7) claimed that "mallards were 
swimming in the fountain in the center of the building" during the fair. Again, this claim could not be verified. 
-
t -·:<,asL•_: ··  ~-~ 
51 
while the fountain and pool in the center, the telephone booth and other conveniences make it the 
148 
admiration of every breeder of poultry and pet stock, as well as the public generally."
Fig. 14. From top: Horse Stadium; center: 
Poultry Building; and, bottom: The 
Pavilion (which was lost to fire in 1967). 
Taken from the cover of the Northwest 
Poultry Journal, September 1922. 
Farm and poultry journals were also commenting on the State Fair's new Poultry 
Building (see Figure 14). The Oregon Farmer wrote of the newly completed building, 
The poultry building is said to be without a superior on a state fair ground 
anywhere on the Coast, and probably not in the entire country. .. The lighting and 
ventilation are perfect, and the construction of the building is such that a 35-foot 
space in the center, running the entire length, is free from pillars. A permanent 
fountain plays in the center, and the plan of the building calls for the construction 
of a wing for pet stock and of an office for the superintendent. 149 
As well, the Northwest Poultry Journal's September 1921 issue gave a glowing report of the new 
Poultry Building. In the caption under a photograph of the newly finished building they reported, 
148 "First Awards in Poultry Exhibit are Made Known," Oregon Statesman (Salem), 27 September 1921, p. 3. The 
mention of a "phone booth" in the Poultry Building is the first and the only reference this author has read of this 
detail. 
149 Horace Addis and George N. Angell, "Sixty-Year-Old Fair is Still Growing: Annual Exposition at Salem Mirrors 
the Resources of the Great State of Oregon," The Oregon Farmer (6 October 1921): 6. This author could find no 
additional source which corroborated the claim that a wing to house pet stock was to be constructed on the poultry 
building. 

52 
The new poultry pavilion on the Oregon State Fair grounds at Salem. It is 
constructed of hollow tile, stucco finished and has a tile roof. The main gable roof 
is about four feet higher than the platform roof surrounding it, permitting of a 
high row of windows from which an excellent sky light effect is secured. This 
building is 80x 140 feet and has 31 foot pillars. There are large double door 
entrances on its four sides, concrete floor with a very artistic fountain and pool in 
the center of the building. The ornaments shown above the windows and 
entrances are large busts of roosters, above which are flag staffs. It is fire proof 
and no doubt the finest poultry pavilion in the West. 150 
While the final decision to build a new Poultry Building was made in early 1921, construction 
was not started until, at best, late March. Yet, the Poultry Building was completed in time for the 
60th State Fair held September 26th to October 1st, 1921. The final cost was $40,000 - $10,000 of 
which was supplied by the State Legislature; the Fair Board borrowed the balance, which was to 
be paid back by fair receipts. 151 
Owing to the importance of the new building to the community, farm and poultry 
journals and the local newspapers regularly covered the construction of the Poultry Building. In 
showing support for the State Fair and Oregon's growing poultry industry, the print media 
reflects the concerns of the community at large - the desire for a successful, stable commercial 
industry to support farmers and their families. And it was Oregon's poultry business that would 
provide this for many people. 
From the rise of historicist revivals to the forefront of fashionable architecture, to the 
classical trairiing received by its architect, the Poultry Building reflects the society from which it 
was born. Designing in the popular Spanish Colonial Revival style, Folger Johnson created a 
lasting expression of the era which was familiar and safe for those struggling to return to 
normalcy after World War I. The large, open, well-lit and well-ventilated poultry building 
supported the needs of those in the industry-4,000 birds could easily be displayed during the 
150 "Two Carloads of Eastern Chickens Coming," Northwest Pou/try Journal 67 no. 9 (September, 1921): 8. 
151 "Oregon State Fair," The Pacific Homestead 44, no. 1 (1 September 1921): 11. 
-
. IL;: '}L! f'~t:;_ ·~:,.1.:- L -.. · -. ' , · ~ 
53 
Fair. The new poultry building offered a special place for exhibitors to show their birds, to learn 
the latest industry news, and to socialize with other breeders and fanners. The building 
represents the great accomplishment of a flourishing young industry which rose up to secure its 
place in Oregon's agricultural history. 

54 
Chapter Three 
THE OREGON STATE FAIR POULTRY BUILDING 
Physical Description 
The Poultry Building at the Oregon State Fairgrounds was designed in the Spanish 
Colonial Revival style by Folger Johnson in 1921 and constructed the same year. The building is 
located at the Oregon State Fairgrounds in Salem, Oregon. It is one of only two historic buildings 
extant at the fairgrounds; the horse show stadium being the other. The horse stadium and poultry 
building ensemble were listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2002. 152 
Description of the Site 
The poultry building is located through the Main Gate north along the Pacific Concourse, 
beyond the L.B. Day Amphitheatre and Cascade Hall (see Site Map, Appendix C). The poultry 
building's major axis runs east-west and the site is primarily level. Adjacent to the poultry 
building's south side is the Natural Resources Center. The Center is comprised of the modem 
buildings of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation Department, Department 
of Forestry and Keep Oregon Green; landscaping and walkways complete the Natural Resources 
Center. The Center's landscaping consists of tall coniferous trees, ferns and various shrubs. 
Wooden decking and walkways of concrete and concrete pavers, zigzag through the Center's 
grounds and intersect in a central gazebo structure (see Figure 15 for an early look at the Natural 
Resources Center). Historic photographs, from 1921 to at least the late 19 5 Os, show this plaza as 
an open grassy square, with few trees, bifurcated by intersecting walkways. Fairgoers historically 
used this area 
isz Amy Mcfeeters-Krone, Oregon State Fair Stadium and Poultry Building Ensemble, National Register 
Nomination, 2002. 
. -
. t -~···· : ' .·. ' 
55 
Fig. 15. Undated photograph from Paula Fasano's "First Steps Taken Towards Saving 
Two Oregon State Fair Buildings," in the Historic Preservation League of Oregon's 
Field Notes, no. 97, (Summer 2001), front page. Note the appearance of the landscaping 
around the building and the plaza (above) obscuring the original axis of entry into both 
the poultry building and the horse stadium. Also note the appearance of what appears to 
be alternating glass windows and louvered windows in the clerestory of the poultry 
building. 
for picnics and strolling, while livestock exhibitors held small parades in and led animals through 
the open space. 153 
The Forster Livestock Pavilion (1987) is to the northeast of the poultry building, while 
the historic horse stadium is to the southeast. The massive livestock pavilion is a modem, rough-
faced concrete block building with a flat roof behind a broad, sheet-metal parapet. The historic 
horse stadium is 200' x 300' rectangular building which was built in two phases, the first being 
in 1918 and the second in 1919. It was constructed of brick supplied by the State Penitentiary. 154 
The stadium is a single-story building with a flat roof that supports a double-tiered, flat-roofed 
clerestory in the center. 
153 Leo Spitzbart, "The 78th Oregon State Fair: Greater in Every Way," Oregon Magazine, 41 no. 4 (August 1939), 
5-10; "Oregon State Fair Overview," The Oregon Journal, (7 September 1954), 17. 
154 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, Oregon State Fair Records, Department of Agriculture, Oregon 
State Archives, 113-171. 
-
' 1-·L~,L1\ J~-I:-••I• JI.r~I·-: _.. -.-- ..- , . ~ · 
56 
The horse stadium's grand main entrance is in the west fa;:ade and is comprised of four 
sets of entry doors within a six-bay projecting portico. Arcaded doorways topped with round-
arch windows march along all four sides of the building. Each set of doors is topped with wood 
sheet material ( either Tl-11 siding or plywood) where historically a pair of nine-light transom 
windows previously existed. Above these transoms are the round-arch top, divided light sets of 
windows. The horse stadium has been altered somewhat with a couple of widened doorways, 
infill construction of concession stands and restrooms under the wooden bleachers and along 
some of the interior walls, and earthquake retrofitting. 
To the north and west of the poultry building are expansive areas oflawn. The Fairlift is 
located in the lawn area to the west and runs on a northwest-southeast diagonal over the 
fairgrounds, offering riders an aerial view of the fair. The poultry building itself has negligible 
landscaping. A lawn abuts the south fa~ade between the building and the Natural Resources 
Center; this lawn area is used to store large faux climbing rocks. One Juniper tree is located at 
the southwest comer of the building. The west fa~ade is graced with a massing of small shrubs 
and flowers in a planting bed between the building and the Pacific Concourse. Lawn abuts the 
north elevation, and a single tree and the gravestone of Vive La France, The Wonder Cow, are 
located east of the entry door at the north side. The east side is paved with concrete between the 
livestock pavilion, the horse stadium and the poultry building. Historic photographs indicate that 
lush landscaping around the poultry building did exist at one time. An abundance of mixed 
shrubs, arborvitae and trees were planted in beds around the foundations and mixed groupings of 
flowering annuals and perennials were planted in borders along the entrance walkways.155 
155 "Premier Poultry Housed in Attractive Building at Fair," Oregon Magazine, 32 no. 3 (July 1930), 9; Richard 
Barss, "Oregon State Fair Plans," Oregon Magazine, 41 no.I (April 1939), 12. 

57 
Exterior Description 
The Poultry Building is a single story building with a rectangular plan measuring 
approximately 80'xl40'. Both the plan and fa9ade of this building are symmetrical. Each of the 
four fa9ades are balanced, with twenty-four regularly spaced round-arch, fanlight-topped 
windows, and four central doorways recessed slightly into the thick walls. The building shows 
few modifications. Most of its historic character defining features are extant (See Appendix I for 
Table of Character Defining Features). 
The main body of the roof is relatively flat with a slight slope towards the center for drainage to 
the interior of the building. There is a six-foot parapet at the eave which is topped by a single 
course ofred-clay, straight-barrel Mission tiles, regularly laid at a low-pitch. The shallow eaves 
end near the line of the wall, having little overhang. At the eave cornice, running around the 
building is a double, half-round molding with fillet details. 
Fig. 16. The roofofthe 
poultry Building,_ showing 
the parapet, flat roof and 
clerestory. Photo by 
author, 2008. 
There is a side-gabled clerestory rising above the central portion of the roof. The clerestory is 
sheathed in composition shingles. In the walls of the clerestory are non-original, top-hinged 

58 
plywood shutters, where there once were operable glass windows (and possibly louvers) for light 
and ventilation (see Figure 15).156 In the peaks of the gable ends are a series of fixed louvers. On 
both the south and north sides of the building, the parapet peaks above the main entry doors into 
low pitched, false-gables. 
The poultry building walls are constructed of hollow-core terracotta tile blocks and are 
approximately eighteen feet tall with a six-foot parapet. The walls are l ' - O" thick. 157 The interior 
blocks measure approximately 12"x 5½" and 12"x 3½". The width and length of the exterior 
blocks are unknown to this researcher. The terracotta tile walls rest atop 3'- 6" tall board-formed, 
poured-concrete stem walls with concrete foundations. The exterior of the walls are clad in 
stucco with a relatively smooth surface and painted in a light cream color. Records do not 
indicate the original color. Alternately painted raised stucco trim sets off the windows and doors, 
and delineates the top edge of the water table around the building at the base of the window sills 
(see Figure 17). 
Fig. 17. East fa~ade of 
poultry building showing 
walls with stucco finish 
and painted door and 
window trim. Photo by 
author,2008. 
156 Historic photographs show what appears to be a combination of windows and louvered sections in the clerestory 
openings. Additional research needs to be done to determine the original fenestration. 
157 Mcfeeters-Krone, Oregon State Fair Stadium and Poultry Building Ensemble, Section 7, p.5. 

59 
Salem had the "largest tile factory in Oregon," an article in the Oregon Statesman from 
October 13, 1921, claimed, The Salem Tile and Mercantile Company began operations in 1910. 
While much of the piece discusses the benefit of drain tile for Oregon's agriculture, it also notes 
the importance of "hollow building tile" and the advantages of its use in residential and 
commercial buildings. The article claimed that Oregon forests were rapidly disappearing, driving 
up the price of lumber. They wrote, "Hollow tile is the ideal successor for the old wood house. It 
is indestructible; it is economical; it is absolutely weatherproof. It is fireproof; it is beautiful; and 
now, it is easily accessible."158 Photographs of structures built with hollow core tile punctuate the 
article. These include a grain silo, prune dryer, dairy house and hay barn; the Armory in 
Marshfield; the Academy Building in Klamath Falls; an auto rest station; and a residence in 
Hillsboro. Obviously hollow core building tile was a popular choice during this time period. The 
argument can be made that the poultry building's tile came from the Salem Tile and Mercantile 
Company, although I found no documentation to prove it. 
The four double entry doors, which are not of original materials or design, are located at the 
midpoint in each wall. Each set of doors is topped by a double-height, full-width transom 
window. Atop each transom is a round-arch fanlight window (see Figure 18). The original doors 
consisted of a set of wooden double doors each with six lights over a raised panel. Flanking the 
doors were sidelights that had three panes over a raised panel. 159 These characteristic doorways 
were significant contributors to the original appearance of the building. 
South facade - The double doors in the south fa9ade are comprised of decorative exterior 
diagonal wooden boards attached with screws to a wooden frame sheathed by plywood on the 
158 "Two Million Acres in the Willamette Valley Ought to Have Tile Drainage in Order to Make the Land More 
Productive by 25 to 50 Per Cent," Oregon Statesman, (13 October 1921), 2-3. 
159 "Future Farmers of America Building," Oregon Magazine, 42 no. l, (August 1940), 11. 

60 
interior; both interior and exterior are painted. The doors are attached to a non-historic frame 
which has been constructed approximately 1'  - O" inside the original frame on both sides of the 
doorway; the one-foot sections are covered in plywood and painted to match. While the original 
transom window is intact, the fanlight has been removed and replaced with plywood infill. 
West facade -The doors on the west fo;ade are wood-frames sheathed in plywood. Both 
interior and exterior surfaces are painted. The doors attach to a non-historic frame which has 
been constructed approximately 1'  - O" inside the original frame on both sides of the doorway; 
the one-foot sections are covered in plywood and painted to match. Both the transom window 
and the fanlight are extant. Metal brackets are being used to secure the mullions to the frames of 
the fanlight. 
Fig. 18. Doorway in the west fac,:ade 
of the poultry building with double 
height transom and fanlight extant. 
Photo hy author, 2008. 
North facade - The set of doors in the north 
fa9ade consist of painted plywood sheathing over wood-
frames on both the interior and exterior. The doors 
completely fill the width of the original doorway; this is 
the only set of doors to do so. The entire double-height 
transom window is missing; the lower half filled in by 
the uppermost portion of the doors and the upper half 
filled in with a piece of painted plywood. The fanlight is intact and being held in place by metal 
brackets between the mullions and the frames. 

61 
East facade - The doors in the east side of the building are comparable to the doors in the 
south fa\:ade. The exterior of the doors have diagonal wooden boards attached with screws to a 
wooden frame, while the doors' interiors are sheathed in plywood. These doors are attached to a 
newer frame that was constructed approximately 1'  - O" inside the original frame on both sides of 
the doorway. These inset frame sections are covered in plywood. All wood surfaces are painted. 
The double height transom window is extant, but the glass panes have been painted making it 
opaque. The fanlight glass has been removed and replaced by plywood. A fan in the 
superintendant's office inside the building exhausts through the center piece of plywood. 
Windows 
The windows of the poultry building are one of its most important character defining features. 
The twenty-four windows are identical in design and construction, and have been painted light 
blue on the exterior. They are wood sash, round-arch fanlights above twelve clear panes of glass 
over four amber-colored, geometric-patterned panes. 160 Each window, but two, has a piece of 
blue painted plywood covering the four bottom panes of amber-colored glass, obscuring their 
original color and design. Importantly, however, these amber windows are still present in the 
building and can be restored. The round-arch fanlight windows are hinged at the bottom and 
open via a pull-ring latch mechanism at the top center. When opened, they are held in place by 
chains bolted each to the frame and window on either side. Only the fanlight portions of the 
windows are operable. 
160 This style of windows has also been called variously "Union Jack" or X-shaped style. See Katherine Rinehart, 
Petaluma: A History ofA rchitecture, (Arcadia Publishing, 2006). 
" -
I _±i~;:,,., .., . ...· ··_::._··- -
. t LLIIILIIIIII 
62 
Fig. 19. Two of the 
windows in the west 
fa\:ade of the poultry 
building. The window on 
the left has been restored. 
Photograph by author, 
2008. 
South facade-There are eight windows in the south fa,;ade, four on each side of the 
building's main entrance door. In one window, closest to the southeast comer, the entire sixteen-
light portion of the window has been removed and only the fanlight window is remaining. The 
opening has been in-filled with plywood. 
West facade-There are four windows in this fa,;ade; two on either side of the doorway. 
At the time ofmy inspection, one window in this fa,;ade has been fully restored. 
North facade - The doorway in the north fa,;ade is centered between eight windows. 
These windows retain their historic detail and many have original glass. 
East facade - There are four windows in the east fa,;ade; two on either side of the 
entrance door. The windows along the east side retain their historic detail and most have original 
glass. 
Flagpole medallions 
Each fayade has a number of painted rooster-bust, high-relief, scroll-edged flagpole medallions 
just below the eave cornice. The medallions' scrolled edges are painted brown while the roosters 
' -
. I~:.:_ - : 
I 
63 
are white with red combs and wattles, orange beaks and blue eyes. 161 It is unknown if these are 
the historic paint colors. 162 
Fig. 20. South fa9ade scrolled date flagpole 
medallion linked by swags to adjacent rooster 
flagpole medallions over the historic main entrance 
doors. Photograph by author, 2008. 
South facade - Only the south fa9ade, as the building's formal main entrance, has eight 
flagpole medallions set between the door and windows near the roofline. Centered above the 
door in the south fa9ade is a grand scrolled medallion emblazoned with the date of construction: 
1921 AD. The date medallion is linked by white painted swags to the first adjacent set of rooster 
flagpole medallions. Only one wooden flagpole survives on the south fa9ade in the central date 
medallion; it is unknown if this flagpole is original, however, it is in the same style as the 
original. 
West facade- There are two rooster flagpole medallions flanking the west side's entry 
door; centered between them is an Oregon Parks and Recreation Department sign emblazoned 
with "Historic Poultry Building- Built in 1921" and the logos of both the OPRD and the Oregon 
161 While most of the roosters have blue eyes, one bird had its eyes painted red during a recent building repainting. It 
is south of the entry door on the east fa,;:ade. This researcher was informed by OPRD fairgrounds staff that the 
Eainter decided to make this bird the "devil rooster." This can easily be remedied. 
62 The roosters have the appearance of White Leghorns. This would have been an appropriate choice as the White 
Leghorn breed was first developed in Oregon and was greatly utiliz.ed by Oregon's poultry industry as a highly 
productive laying hen. 
-
. fl~- , 
64 
State Fair and Expo Center. Two of what might be original wooden flag poles with distinctive 
ball ends are extant. 
North facade - The north fac;:ade doors of the poultry building also has two rooster 
flagpole medallions flanking above it. An OPRD sign adorned with "Historic Poultry Building -
Built in 1921" identical to that of the west fac;:ade sign. Two wooden flag poles with ball ends are 
present on this side. 
East facade - There are two rooster flagpole medallions on both sides of the east entry 
door, with a duplicate of the west and north side OPRD sign between them. As well, the east 
fac;:ade has two wooden flag poles rising out of its medallions. Again, it is unknown if these are 
original. 
Interior Description 
The interior of the poultry building is a large, cathedral-like nave or open space which 
was used for exhibition purposes. The design of the bolt-laminated wood arched trusses 
supporting a clerestory roof creates this church-like feeling, while a traditional beam-on-post 
system supports the flat portion of the roof around the perimeter of the space, which resembles 
the side aisles ofa cathedral (see Figure 21). 
Fig. 21. Interior of the poultry 
building showing the church-like 
feel of the space created by the 
curved arch trusses supporting the 
soaring clerestory and the 
impressive natural lighting from the 
large windows. Photograph by 
author, 2008. 

65 
The large windows and the transoms and fanlights above the doors provide abundant 
light to the interior. The clerestory plywood shutters block light and ventilation which had 
previously streamed in through the historic windows. In the gable ends of the clerestory are fixed 
louvers which provide some ventilation but little light. The exposed hollow-core terracotta 
blocks which make up the walls are currently painted white. Wide concrete paths from the south 
and north doorways meet in a circular patch in the center of the building where a fountain was 
historically. At the east end of the building is the superintendent's office and stairs, which was 
constructed directly over the doorway, obscuring both the transom and fanlight portions behind 
an interior wall inside the office. 
The interior of the poultry building has not been greatly modified, or rather, intrusive 
alterations have been removed. A mezzanine structure that filled the open space under the 
clerestory and had staircases in both the east and west ends, was constructed sometime in the 
1970s. An OPRD fairgrounds staff person informed me it was removed approximately four or 
five years ago (2003-2004). 163 The poultry building's interior retains most of its character 
defining features. 
Clerestory 
The clerestory unpainted wood-board roof sheathing is laid atop unpainted wood purlins 
supported by the arched trusses. Filling each of the gable ends of the clerestory are fixed louvers 
that assist in ventilating the building while at the same time allowing a little light to enter. There 
is a circulating fan installed in the west fa~ade gable end louvers. Knee walls originate from 6"x 
14" beams that outline the inside border of the flat roof. In the knee walls are openings for top-
hinged plywood shutters that surround the clerestory. 
163 Brent Holmdahl, personal interview by author, Oregon State Fairgrounds, Salem, Oregon, 4 April 2008. 
-
~~::,-:~!.;._:: . . __:__·- 
t ~ - f 
66 
Fig. 22. Interior of clerestory 
showing the slightly sloping 
flat roof, plywood shutters in 
original openings, gable end 
louvers and roof sheathing. 
Photograph by author, 2008. 
An optical illusion is created by these slightly sloping beams and flat roof sections. They slope 
from a high point in front of each doorway to low points in the interior corners to facilitate 
drainage to the downspouts (see Figure 22). These are located within the building at the four 
corner posts that border the inside edge of the flat roof area. 
Arched truss system 
The poultry building's interior is defined by its soaring open space. This is achieved by the 
dramatic series of six trusses which support the clerestory roof (see Figure 24). The trusses are 
comprised of brown-painted, rough-sawn 6"x 8" heavy timber posts that rise to meet unpainted 
6"x 8" wood roof rafters and brown painted bolt-laminated arched bottom chords. A series of 
radial tie-rods with metal plates at both ends and bracketing wood cross-bracing runs between 
the bottom chords and the roof rafters. This system is integral with the twelve cross-braced 
brown-painted, rough-sawn double posts on substantial (2'- O"x 3'- 3") concrete piers. The 
arched bottom cords are constructed of eight curved layers of¾" wood pieces laminated by a 
series of bolts and nuts with washers at both ends. There does not appear to be any glue between 
the layers. These laminated arches are connected to the top of the inside posts (at 6'- O" above 
-
I~•-::;~..  --,--'.:._:_.:_____ __ 
1 LLIIL. . 
67 
the concrete piers) by a deep half-lap joint and six bolts (see Figure 23). Fluorescent light 
fixtures are hung from every truss. 
I 
I 
/_ 
Figs. 23 and 24. At left, arch connection to post detail. At right, partial section through poultry building showing 
arrangement of space. Field drawings by author, 2008. 
The author of the National Register nomination states that the poultry building's trusses 
"appear to be unique in Oregon and rare elsewhere."164 While I cannot disprove her theory, such 
bolted laminated trusses are not an unusual find in this time period's agriculturaJ buildings, 
bridges, and assembly and music halls. Testing of early forms of mechanical laminations began 
in the late eighteenth- and early-nineteenth centuries. American Theodore Burr built a bridge 
over the Delaware River (1804-1806) which consisted of two composite arches with a suspended 
stiffened road deck. But it was a French engineering officer who refined the bolted lamination 
technique. Bogendach Erny, whose composite system was comprised of bent planks connected 
164 Mcfeeters-Krone, Oregon State Fair Stadium and Poultry Building Ensemble, Section 7, p.6. 

68 
with clamping bolts and collars, wrote of his system in 
El'l'IY,lot• ndach,11ll:ob•nfunf, untu 1acht 
g 1bog• 11•8ratter4,Sxllcr.. 1828.165 This form of bolted laminated arches was used 
Emy,1rchroof, curvl'Clp l1nlr.1 ◄Sxl]Omm, 
liveabov•.•iQhtbelow. 
throughout Europe and the U.S. (see Figure 25). 
Researchers continued to search for improvements 
to these systems. German Otto Hetzer, was developing 
glued laminations around 1900, and by 1920, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture Forest Products Laboratory 
(USDAFPL) in Wisconsin, had sent an observer to Europe 
Fig. 25. Bolted laminated arch system to investigate the future of glued laminated timber. 
created by Bogendach Erny in 1828. 
Drawing courtesy of Christian Miiller, However, work on further research was abandoned until 
Holz~imbau: Laminated Timber 
Construction, 2000. 
1934, when in conjunction with a private company, the 
USDAFPL constructed a school hall in Peshtigo, Wisconsin, using glued laminated arches.166 
However popular glued laminated arches were to become by mid-century in the U.S., 
earlier construction used the bolted form. These arches were especially popular with the 
agricultural engineers for the construction of barns. After large whole timbers became more 
difficult to obtain, engineered lumber increased in popularity, and many barns built between 
1900 and the late 1920s had bolted laminated arch systems.167 The poultry building fits nicely 
into this time period and is an elegant example of such bolted laminated arches. 
Walls and flat roof 
The interior walls of the poultry building are the inside surface of the hollow-core terracotta tile 
blocks which make up the walls. These are currently painted white. From the interior one can 
165 Christian Miiller, Holzleimbau: Laminated Timber Construction, (Basel, Berlin, Boston: Birkh!iuser, 2000), 15. 
166 Miiller, Holzleimbau: Laminated Timber Construction, 27. 
167 
Philip L. Waugh, "Glued Laminate Rib-arches in Historic Barns," (MS Thesis, University of Oregon, 2003), 40-
45. 
-
. t~~-_-:i 
69 
easily see the 3' - 6" tall board-formed, poured concrete stem walls upon which the tile block 
walls are constructed. 
Fig. 26. Interior of poultry building showing terracotta tile block walls, concrete stem 
walls and wood post and beam system supporting flat roof. Photograph by author, 2008. 
On both sides of each window are white-painted rough-sawn 6"x 8" wood posts that are 
bolted through the timber to the concrete stem wall and bolted with brackets to the hollow core 
tile walls. These posts sit off the ground approximately 21 " - 24". Located in all four comers of 
the building, on both sides of each doorway, and in between each window are additional white-
painted rough-sawn 6"x 8" wood posts which are set upon concrete piers and bolted through the 
timber to the concrete stem wall and the hollow core tile walls. This series of attached posts 
support white-painted 6"x 12" beams onto which are attached white-painted 4"x 12" rafters for 
the flat roof. Attached to the bottom edges of a number of rafters are modem fluorescent light 
fixtures. Atop the rafters is lap-jointed board roof-sheathing, also painted white (see Figure 26). 
All the connections are made by bolted metal brackets. This intricate system of support for the 
structure is in alignment axially with the arched truss double posts on piers. Each support post on 

70 
a concrete pier along the walls is aligned with a set of double posts on a pier that support the 
trusses. 
At an unknown time, large metal crossing tie rods apparently for stabilization purposes 
were installed in many areas of the building visually disrupting the open space and impeding 
traffic flow throughout the building. Yellow caution tape has been wrapped around several of 
these tie rods. Electrical conduit runs along many, if not most of the horizontal beams in the 
poultry building cluttering the structural design. 
The windows of the poultry building are one of its most important character defining features. 
The twenty-four windows are identical in design and construction. The windows are wood sash, 
round-arch fanlights above twelve panes of clear glazing over four amber-colored, geometric-
patterned panes. The amber panes have been painted over on the interior obscuring their original 
color. The wood frames, sills and mullions are painted white on the interior. Significantly 
however, these amber windows are extant and can be restored. 
Ar-d--1 -lvf ful\lAql-\t. '--hi~c.-
Wi YldoiV d°e-lii \ 
pol b x'"'k 
Figs. 27 and 28. At left, arch top fanlight window detail; at right, window detail showing connection at wall with 
post and beam system support for flat roof Drawings by author, 2008. 
The round-arch fanlight windows are hinged at the bottom and open via a pull-ring latch 
mechanism at the top center. When opened, they are held in place by chains bolted each to the 
' -
. --~---'. _._ .- -
, I LL_ll!L- U I 
71 
frame and window on either side. Only the fanlight portions of the windows are operable (see 
Figure 28). There are shades hung in the windows along the south and west elevations. 
Above the fanlight windows are semicircular brick arches consisting of three rowlock 
courses of brick. Under each window is a wood sill atop a sill constructed of a stretcher course of 
brick. This assemblage is atop a row of l 2"x 3 ½" hollow core terracotta blocks; below this single 
course, the terracotta blocks revert to the larger size (see Figure 28). At this writing, one window 
in the west fa;:ade has been fully restored and showcases the exquisite design and character 
defining impact of the windows. 
Currently, the floor of the poultry building is mainly dirt mixed with years of compacted cedar 
shavings. However, newspaper and journal articles from 1921 indicate that there may have been 
a concrete slab floor in the building at that time; or at least that was what the original plans 
intended. There are concrete walkways between the south and north doorways that connect in the 
middle of the building with a circular concrete pad, where a "duck shaped" fountain was 
historically. 
Fig. 29. Concrete floor at 
the center of the building 
where historically there 
was a fountain. Patching 
of the concrete is evident. 
Surrounding the concrete 
slab is dirt and shavings 
portion of the floor. 
Photograph by author, 
2008. 
-
L- ,(L J .. ;.,'I-:,. I•·-L••• -_- • ----, 
72 
Additionally, there are 3 ' - O" concrete channels with edging running along the perimeter 
of the west, northwest and southwest walls of the building all meeting at a drain just north of the 
concrete ramp from the doors in the west fa9ade. There are additional concrete drainage channels 
(4'- O" wide),just about centered between the perimeter slab and the concrete piers of the 
trusses. They are located 5'- 3" from the perimeter slab and 5'- 7" from the concrete piers of the 
trusses, and run the length of half the building east-west, ending at the concrete walkway that 
runs between the south and north doorways. 168 Much of this concrete work is obscured by an 
abundance of shavings. 
A superintendent's office and stairs are located at the east end of the building (see Figure 30). 
The office was constructed directly over the east doorway, obscuring both the transom and 
fanlight portions of the door. While the fanlight glass has been replaced with plywood, the 
transom is extant; they are hidden behind an interior wall inside the office. One enters the office 
up a straight run of unpainted wood stairs along the east wall. The stairs end at a landing from 
which to enter the office door. The stairs look to be more recent construction. The office has two 
windows, one to the east of the door facing south, and a much larger one which looks west out 
over the entire interior space of the poultry building. Inside the office is an L-shaped wooden 
built-in that runs along both the west and north walls. The built-in contains two desk spaces, two 
cabinets and shelving. A small closet fills the northeast comer. The floor is painted wood. The 
drop ceiling is comprised of acoustical tiles (see Figure 31 ). Interior wall material is painted 
wood paneling and the exterior wall sheathing is a wood sheeting material. 
168 These types of concrete drainage troughs may exist on the east side of the poultry building as well, but due to the 
storage of exhibition cages and other fair materials, this researcher did not have access to the ground in that area. 
-
t ~~ ' 
73 
Fig. 30. Office in east end of poultry building, hiding Fig. 31. Interior of office from doorway. Photograph by 
transom and fanlight above door. Note staircase author, 2008. 
obscuring window; and small storage room under 
landing. Photograph by author, 2008. 
At ground level to the south of the east doorway, is a modest storage room built under the stair 
landing and a small portion of the office. 
Determining the age of the office is difficult. Contemporaneous newspaper accounts tell 
of plans to construct an office for the superintendent in the poultry building.169 The Fair Board 
Minutes in 1924 state, "The Secretary was instructed to make necessary changes in the office in 
the Poultry House providing ventilation and light of the office and enclosing the present 
balcony;" and in 1927, the "matter of placing a ventilator in the office of the Poultry Building 
was taken up and the matter left in the hands of Director Lynn and the Secretary with power to 
act. " 170 Wood window trim and cabinetry could date to the 1920s. However, without further 
physical examination of the office's structural components, historic photographs, or other 
documents, its date of construction remains unknown. 
169 Horace Addis and George N. Angell, "Sixty-Year-Old Fair is Still Growing: Annual Exposition at Salem Mirrors 
the Resources of the Great State of Oregon," The Oregon Farmer (6 October 1921): 6. 
110 State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931, Oregon State Fair Records, Department of Agriculture, Oregon 
State Archives, 303 and 419. 
1i.-\., 1,_i _ , - - ,, 
74 
Changes to the Poultry Building and Changes in its Use 
The poultry building has undergone its share of changes over its long eighty-seven year 
history. Practically from the time Folger Johnson translated his design from drafting paper to 
reality, alterations were planned. Although, the original construction of the superintendent's 
office occurred shortly after the building was copstructed, one cannot imagine the architect, with 
his classic training, obscuring the fanlight and transom windows above the east entrance. Later, a 
small storage space was constructed under the stairs and, more recently, the staircase was rebuilt. 
Over time, the four sets of original doors were removed and replaced with the current 
versions. Loss of a transom window and two fanlight windows over the doors also occurred. The 
windows did not suffer as much loss. Protective plywood pieces cover the bottom rows of 
amber-colored, geometric-patterned panes on every window except two: one window that has 
been restored and one window that is completely missing. The transom and fanlight windows 
over the doorways should be restored; and each of the windows should be rebuilt using as its 
model the beautiful window restored by Amy McAuley. 171 
According to contemporaneous newspaper articles, there was a duck-shaped fountain 
with a surrounding pool in the center of the building. At some point in time this wonderful 
feature was removed and the concrete patched. Additionally, several journal and newspaper 
items comment on the convenience of a phone booth in the building. No trace of such an amenity 
can be found and at this time, no historic photograph has been discovered to verify its placement. 
Another great loss to the original design and function of the poultry building was the 
removal of the windows in the clerestory and replacement with top-hinged plywood shutters. 
This incompatible substitution creates a burdensome darkness in a previously light, airy and 
171 Ms. Amy McAuley, Oculus Fine Carpentry, Inc.,8502 SE 13th Ave., Portland, OR, 97202; (503) 740-6222; 
oculuswindow@gmail.com; CCB#l53801 
-
- '''.t;..;. . · .... ,.: .. __· - -
' LI_III_-· 
I 
75 
spacious building. One can only imagine how bright and pleasant the center of the poultry 
building would be with a restoration of the historic clerestory windows. 
The exterior of the building has suffered a smaller share of change. Several of the original 
wooden flagpoles at each of the rooster medallions are missing. These could easily be recreated 
and would lend strong emphasis to the exterior of this proud hall. With additional research, one 
could possibly find the style of the original flags as well. 
Replacement of historic materials with modem equivalents has also occurred at the 
poultry building. The original interior downspouts that drain rainwater from the flat roof have 
been replaced with modem day black ABS pipe. New paint colors have been applied on both 
interior and exterior surfaces. Crossing tie-rods have been installed for stabilization bracing 
throughout the interior of the building, disturbing traffic patterns and the aesthetic harmony of 
the character defining features. Additionally, the original roofing material has been replaced with 
a modem equivalent. 
One highly intrusive change that has been successfully reversed was a mezzanine 
structure with two L-shaped staircases. Built during the 1970s, this second story held tables and 
cages and doubled the exhibition space. The mezzanine and staircases were removed by staff 
around 2003-2004. 
The poultry building has also undergone a number of changes in its use. Constructed in 
1921, the poultry building was used for twelve years exclusively as a poultry exhibition hall. In 
1934 the Fair Board decided to move the poultry show into the Automobile and Dance Hall, 
which they renamed the Poultry and Dance Hall. Then the Board reconfigured the poultry 
-
--~
' 1 LL_II-L---·I  
76 
building into the Future Farmers Building. 172 Additionally, the Board leased the building out for 
storage each year after the Fair closed. They also leased it to the Salem Saddle Club to stable 
horses and allowed it to be used as a small machine shed. 173 
During World War II, the poultry building and the entire State Fairgrounds were used for 
troop housing. 174 The 115th Calvary, including 1,000 soldiers and 530 horses, occupied the 
fairgrounds shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor until 1944.175 Fair records indicate that the 
poultry building, and twenty other buildings, sustained considerable damage due to the 
occupying troops. The damage to the poultry building included: broken entrance doors and 
sidelights; numerous broken panes of glass; missing hinges; broken light fixtures; missing light 
bulbs; and the removal of wiring. Damages totaled $178 (in 1945 dollars) for the poultry 
building. 176 The Army paid a total of $36,659.20 to repair the damage that troops caused to the 
fairgrounds. 177 
The changes to the poultry building have occurred over a long eighty-seven year history; 
its restoration needn't take as long. Additional research is necessary to determine the original 
designs of missing items and reconstruction can then occur. The discovery of the original designs 
of the superintendent's office, the fountain and pool, phone booth, and clerestory windows could 
lead to their appropriate reconstruction. Doors, windows and flagpoles could be restored easily 
172 "Inventory of Buildings, Oregon State Fair," 30 June 1934, State Fair Records, Soil and Water Conservation 
Division, Oregon Association of Conservation District Records, Weights and Measures Division Records, 
Department of Agriculture, Box III, 92A-25, File 111/19, Oregon State Archives. 
173 "Agreement between State Department of Agriculture and Salem Saddle Club," State Fair Records, Contracts, 
Soil and Water Conservation Division, Oregon Association of Conservation District Records, Weights and Measures 
Division Records, Department of Agriculture, Box III, 92A-25, File 111/20, Oregon State Archives. 
174 While this history is outside the temporal brackets ofmy report, this author felt the information compelling 
enough to be included here. 
175 Troops occupied the fairgrounds from late 1941 to late Spring 1942; then again from July 1, 1942 until January 
1944. The property was then declared "surplus" by the Army in April of I 944 and the lease with the Department of 
Agriculture was finally canceled effective February 8th of 1945. No State Fair was held during those four years, 
1942-1945. 
176 Consider that the replacement of 43 pieces of glass, including nine pieces as large as l 5"x22", cost only $52! 
177 N.E. Goudy, "Estimate Restoration of Buildings Part I," Forsten's Inventory, Correspondence and Reports, 1940-
1957, Box 1 of 10, #6IA 90/1, Department of Agriculture, Oregon State Archives. 
-
. f ~(,;.;; ' -. - : 
77 
due to the quantity of historic fabric still in place. And both the interior roof drainage system and 
the necessary earthquake retrofit could be installed as unobtrusively and sympathetically as 
possible. 
And finally, the plaza known as the Natural Resources Center should be restored to its 
historic arrangement. Through the 1950s, and even possibly into the early 1960s, this plaza was 
an open grassy square, with few trees, bifurcated by intersecting walkways which had lush 
border plantings near the buildings and the road. Fairgoers used this lovely park-like courtyard 
for strolling, sitting and viewing small parades. 
Fig. 32. Architect Lewis 
Irvine Thompson's 
original sketch for his 
vision of the horse 
stadium. Note the open 
plaza and intersecting 
walkways with strolling 
fairgoers. Drawing 
courtesy Oregon 
Historical Society. 
Walkways directed fairgoers to the main entryways of both the poultry building and the 
horse stadium. There was no confusion as to where the main entrances were. These historic 
walkways can be clearly seen in historic photographs (see Figure 33, next page). The axial 
arrangement and landscaping of the plaza was an important aspect of both these buildings. The 
main fa9ades of both the poultry building and the horse stadium were meant to be viewed from 
the direction of this plaza (see Figures 33, 34 and 35). 
-
. I L-~L_· .l,.l-l·.l _;. ._.._ --- . ---
1 
78 
Figs. 33, 34 and 35. Historic views of the axial arrangement of the plaza, poultry building and horse stadium. At 
left, circa 1930s; center, circa 1954; and, at right, circa late 1950s. All three photographs courtesy Steven Robert 
Heine, The Oregon State Fair, 2007. 
Behind the Natural Resources Center's buildings and large conifers, these historic main 
entrances remain hidden and the walkways to these entrances have been removed. This author 
hopes that this terminal project is a step forward to utilizing a multi-disciplinary approach to the 
restoration of this important piece of Oregon's architectural and agricultural heritage. 
-
I~~----
, lLLJIIL-
79 
Current Condition of the Poultry Building 
Overall, the poultry building is in good condition with most of its historic character 
defining features extant (See Appendix I for Table of Character Defining Features). The poultry 
building is also in need of earthquake stabilization. 
Exterior 
The exterior issues of the poultry building include cracking in the stucco walls, buildup 
of duff on the roof, peeling paint on the wooden members on the clerestory roof, and cracked 
and/or missing clay roof tiles. Of major concern are the windows which exhibit a great deal of 
dry rot in the all of their wood parts - frames, mullions and sash. Peeling paint on the exterior of 
the windows is allowing water to infiltrate the wood causing decay. 
Roof 
The roof of the poultry building is in good condition. Issues include a buildup of duff on the flat 
portions of the roof, peeling paint on the surface of the wooden frames and shutters of the 
clerestory roof, and cracked and/or missing clay roof tiles at the parapet. 
Walls 
The walls are generally in good condition with a few cracks evident on every fa9ade of the 
building. 
South facade - The walls on the south fa9ade are in good condition with several old and 
stable cracks scattered across its surface. The most visible of these cracks are above the entrance 
doors between the flagpole medallions and the date medallion, and under the two middle 
windows to the east of the entrance doors. There is an electrical box attached to this wall near the 
southeast comer near a yellow bollard. 

80 
West facade - The walls of the west side are in good condition with only old and stable 
cracks; one above the entry door behind the "Historic Poultry Building" sign and one to the south 
of that. Mounting brackets from removed wiring, conduit and three electrical boxes mounted on 
the wall mar the visual effect of this highly visible fa9ade. 
North facade -The north fa9ade walls have a few cracks but overall are in good 
condition. There is some discoloration on the stucco surface above the entrance doors and above 
two windows. Additionally, there are a few scattered empty mounting brackets dotting the walls 
of the north side. 
East facade - The walls of the south side show some cracks near the eave cornice and 
below the window closest to the southern comer. Additionally, there is a crack between the door 
and the flagpole medallion to the north of the door. These cracks appear stable. There is some 
discoloration in spots on the stucco of this fa9ade and several unused and unsightly sign-
mounting holes are visible on its surface. 
Doorways 
The four double entry doors are not of original materials or design. Each set of doors is topped 
by a double-height, full-width transom window. Atop each transom is a round-arch fanlight 
window. Most of the transom and fanlight windows have some level of deterioration caused by 
failing paint and subsequent water infiltration. 
Windows 
Much of the wood portions of the windows, including frames, mullions, sash and sills are 
seriously compromised by decay caused by water infiltration. 
South facade - There are eight windows in the south fa9ade, four on each side of the 
building's main entrance door. Seven of the eight are in good-to-fair condition. One window, 
-
I __ :__;__~ _ _:_ ____  
l ~~ 
81 
closest to the southeast comer, is in poor condition, as the entire sixteen-light portion of the 
window has been removed and only the fanlight window is remaining. The opening has been in-
filled with plywood. The wood sill of this window shows extensive dry rot and the brick sill is 
missing both bricks and mortar. The plywood piece covering the bottom portion is missing on 
one window and two pieces of its amber glass are missing. One window has a non-historic 
speaker attached to its exterior opening with loose wires hanging down. Paint is cracking and 
peeling from the frames, mullions and sills of all the windows allowing water to contact wood 
and encouraging dry rot. 
West facade - There are four windows in this fa;:ade; two on either side of the doorway. 
Three of the windows on this side of the building are in fair-to-poor condition, while one 
window has been fully restored. Although the three windows retain their historic character and 
much of their original glass, the problems are severe. Most of the light blue paint is cracking and 
peeling leaving wood sills, frames and mullions exposed to the wet Oregon winters and harsh 
summer sun. Dry rot has set in and glazing compound is cracking and/or missing. Some of the 
glass panes appear to be slumping in their frames and could fall out and be lost if the windows 
are not rebuilt. 
North facade - The doorway in the north fa9ade is centered between eight windows. The 
windows on this side of the building are in the best condition of all the windows in the building. 
All eight windows on the north fa9ade are in approximately good-to-fair condition. These 
windows retain their historic detail and many have original glass, although some issues are 
present. The exterior paint was not carefully applied and much remains on the glass panes. Paint 
is peeling at every window, especially at the sills, allowing moisture to damage the wood sills, 
frames and mullions. 
-
' t ,, ' ' ,,, ' - ' 
82 
East facade - There are four windows in the east fai;:ade; two on either side of the 
entrance door. These windows are in good-to-fair condition. These windows retain their historic 
detail and most have original glass, although some problems exist. The light blue exterior paint 
was not carefully applied and much remains on the glass panes. The paint is cracking and peeling 
on nearly every wood member of each window, especially at the sills, allowing moisture to enter 
and damage the wood sills, frames and mullions. 
Flagpole medallions 
The flagpole medallions are in good condition although all should be examined more closely to 
ascertain any conditions unseen from the ground. Many of the flagpoles are missing. Of the ones 
that are present it is unknown if they are original, however, they are in the same style as the 
originals as evidenced in historic photographs. 
Interior 
The poultry building's interior is generally in good condition and it retains most of its 
character defining features. Interior issues include efflorescence on and spalling of the hollow-
core terracotta tile block walls, cracked or broken wall tiles, peeling paint, loose and missing 
mortar and bricks at several window sills, rotted window sills, and broken window panes. 
Clerestory 
The interior of the clerestory appears to be in good condition, although an up-close examination 
of the structural members should be performed to ascertain if any issues arising from exterior 
moisture has occurred. 
Arched truss system 
The bolt laminated truss system appears to be in good condition. The system appears to be stable 
and soli~ with no loose bolts, no delaminating of the wood truss members and no separation at 
-
' ( .: .. ;., ~-.. ·-- . - . 
t u__ ____ I 
83 
the post bases. However, a structural engineer should carefully examine the truss system to 
determine its true condition. Paint is peeling from many of the wood members of the truss 
system exposing several different paint colors. A thorough paint analysis should be performed to 
determine the original paint color for the building's restoration. 
Walls and flat roof 
The interior walls of the poultry building are the inside surface of the hollow-core terracotta tile 
blocks which make up the walls. These are currently painted white; however some light green 
patches and bare terracotta surfaces are visible where the white paint has been lost. Several of the 
tile blocks are cracked or broken. Efflorescence is visible especially on the north and east walls. 
Windows 
Due to the infiltration of water, many of the wood sills are in extremely poor condition with a 
high amount of dry rot present. This in turn has weakened the brick sills below the wood sills, 
resulting in a loss of mortar and, in some cases, bricks. Frames, mullions, and sash in many 
windows are severely compromised by decay caused by water infiltration. Three of the window 
fanlights and the fanlight over the door in the west fayade are braced on the interior. 
Office 
The office appears to be in good condition. The drop ceiling is comprised of acoustical tiles 
which have sustained severe water damage. There are large water stains on the ceiling and 
several tiles have been lost. 
Overall, the building is in good condition with the majority of its character defining 
features present. Exterior issues include a buildup of duff on the flat portions of the roof, peeling 
paint and some rot on the wooden frames and shutters of the clerestory roof, and cracked and/or 
missing clay roof tiles at the parapet. Of greatest concern are the windows which exhibit a great 
-
1~:~ -., 
84 
deal of dry rot in their wood components - frames, mullions, sash and sills. Interior problems 
include efflorescence on and spalling of the hollow-core terracotta tile block walls, cracked or 
broken wall tiles, peeling paint, loose and missing mortar and bricks at several window sills, 
rotted window sills, and broken window panes. Additionally, for the safety of its future use, the 
poultry building is in need of historically sensitive earthquake retrofitting. 
-
' t (,,,_ .-_ ·1 
85 
Chapter Four 
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE POULTRY BUILDING 
Ideas for the Use of the Poultry Building 
Buildings often outlive their original purposes yet this does not make them obsolete. In 
today's progressive world of"sustainability" and "green building," recycling an underused 
building is an economically and socially advantageous way of community building. As Donovan 
Rypkema said in 1990, 
Historic preservation is a rational and effective response to over-consumption. To 
make a new brick today steals from two generations. It steals from the generation 
that built the brick originally, by throwing away their asset before its work is 
done; and it steals from a future generation by using increasingly scarce natural 
resources today, when it should be saved for tomorrow.178 
The objective is to meet the changing needs of today's community without compromising the 
needs of future generations. 
The reuse of an historic building has benefits that are environmental, economic, and 
social. The embodied energy associated with the original construction of the building can be 
retained by adapting the building to new uses. A reuse project can be more environmentally 
sustainable than new-from-the-ground-up construction. 
The economic rewards of reusing historic buildings come in the form of state and federal 
tax-incentives and tax-credits, grant programs, and other programs. Other possible economic 
benefits could come in the way of rents, cultural heritage tourism dollars and other services. 
Finally, the reuse of an historic building can offer social benefits to the community that 
uses it. The restoration and maintenance of an architectural link to an important local or regional 
178 Donovan Rypkema, as quoted in Cathy Galbraith, "Message from the Executive Director," News and Notes: 
Architectural Heritage Center, 15 no. 3 (Summer 2007), 2. 
-
I L-~L ~llll~_- ----l j 
86 
identity (such as agriculture) can inform the public of its past. This can be both informational and 
educational. These links are vital to our, and the future generation's, understanding of the world 
in which we live and how we got here. 
Reuse of the Poultry Building 
The poultry building is one of two last remaining historic structures at the Oregon State 
Fairgrounds in Salem. The building is an architectural expression of the impressive status 
achieved by the poultry industry in Oregon during the early twentieth century. It is imperative 
that such a building be restored and then maintained through continued use. This building 
represents the local, regional and statewide community and the historic link to a valuable piece 
of its agricultural heritage. 
To be a successful reuse, changes to the poultry building should minimally impact the 
historic character defining features of the building and its site. Its use (o r uses) should be 
sympathetic to the architectural character of the structure and should be flexible, thereby 
representing a broad segment of society and diverse community interests. The building should 
reconnect people to their history and traditions. Through a series of public meetings, the 
community could weigh in on what they see as desirable for the reuse of the poultry building. 
Finally, all future plans for this building should be checked against the Oregon Heritage Plan to 
see that goals and objectives are in agreement. 
With its open, cathedral-like interior space, its generous flexible floor area and its 
location on the fairgrounds, the building lends itself to a variety of uses. The large uninterrupted 
center of the building could easily accommodate sizeable tables, displays or exhibit booths and 
large crowds, both standing and milling about. The building's approximately 11,200 square feet 
of floor space is spacious enough to hold large groups of people and exhibits while leaving 
-
~--
t~ --
87 
generous walkways to stroll around the room. The building's open plan would easily allow for 
non-permanent installation of displays and exhibits around the perimeter, which would facilitate 
a comfortable pattern of traffic flow for crowd movement. 
The poultry building's location at the State Fairgrounds is ideal; parking is plentiful and 
the building is centrally located. The building has easy handicapped access with concrete ramps 
at all four entrances. The great quantity of light transmitted by the large windows illuminates the 
interior space perfectly so that one can do without electrical lights during the day. And by night, 
the large windows would create a dramatic backdrop for an evening affair. 
Temporary events, so as to keep the building open during fair week for the poultry 
exhibition, appear to be the most appropriate use of the poultry building. Traveling museum 
exhibits, annual trade shows, educational events for children, meeting space for large groups and 
other such impermanent events seem to fit with the original use of the building-the temporary 
housing of the poultry exhibition during the week long fair. 
Uses could include: 
• a Community Center -
• the space could offer indoor nighttime movies such as are popular in many areas, like 
Eugene, for example; 
• educational gatherings such as classes and lectures could be held in the building; 
• the space could lend itself well to musical performances and 'barn'-style dances. 
• a Conference Center -
• meetings; 
• seminars; 
• fundraisers; 
. ,~- -- . 
88 
• exhibitor shows; 
• catered functions such as wedding receptions, banquets, parties, wine tastings, etc. 
• Art Shows/ Crafts Fairs 
• Fair Museum 
• Preservation showcase building 
The poultry building should still be used as the poultry exhibition space during the fair, and in 
the off-season could be leased out for a variety of uses. Precedent for this type of arrangement 
can be found throughout the U.S. 
Many state fairgrounds rent out their seldom used buildings for a variety of events. 
Washington, Idaho, California, Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, as well as Oregon, all 
participate in this type ofrevenue enhancement. The Oregon State Fair & Exposition Center 
currently leases out several of its buildings at the fairgrounds for public and private events. A 
few examples of these facilities are Cascade Hall, Columbia Hall, the Jackman-Long Building, 
and the historic Horse Show Stadium. Information on prices, events planning, building features 
and dimensions, catering, and availability are obtainable at their website, found at 
http://www.oregonstateexpo.org/plan an event. 
Washington's Evergreen State Fair in Monroe, advertises for the lease of their available 
facilities on their website. One, for example, is the modem Rabbit, Poultry and Cavy Barn. It is 
approximately 8,840 square feet, can hold 471 people and has an attached 15':x21' room. The 
building has asphalt flooring, electricity, water, fluorescent lighting, and an office. There is no 
heat or air conditioning, nor restrooms, yet it rents for $250 per day. 179 
179 Evergreen State Fairgrounds website, Online at 
http://www.evergreenfair.org/pageJ 1344.asp#Rabbit/Poultry/Cayy%20Barn2064. Internet. Accessed 13 October 
2008. 

89 
Another example of a poultry building's reuse can be found at the Wisconsin State Fair 
Park. Tuey offer their poultry building, the Rabbit and Poultry Palace, for a wide variety of rental 
opportunities including "exhibitor shows, meetings, banquets, and training seminars."180 The 
building was constructed in 1910 and is similar in plan to the Oregon poultry building. It is 
18,900 square feet with ceilings that range from ten feet at the perimeter of the interior to forty 
feet in the center, under the clerestory (see Figure 36). 
Its clerestory roof is supported by a framework 
of steel posts, beams and girders; and is lined with 
windows. The building does not have large ground 
floor windows like Oregon's, rather a band of smaller 
windows along the length of the building. It has asphalt 
floors and doors on either end of the building. The 
Palace has few amenities: no restrooms, no water, and 
Fig. 36. Interior view of the Wisconsin 
State Fair Poultry Building, circa unknown. 
Photograph courtesy Wisconsin Historical no heating or air conditioning. But it does offer a large 
Society. Photo # 33350. Found online at 
www.whs.org/whi 33350 open space and is well-ventilated. 181 Sound familiar? 
While many of California's State Fair and Exposition buildings, in Sacramento, offer 
such luxury amenities as 100,000 square feet of floor space, bar facilities, restrooms, a lagoon 
with bridged entry, and built-in sound systems, most of the available-for-lease buildings are very 
simple. The Western Idaho Fair in Boise offers for lease during the off-season only one simple 
facility, Western Town. It's amenities include 2,200 square feet, a small kitchen, wood floors, 
180 
Wisconsin State Fair Park website, Online at www.wiexpocenter.com. Internet. Accessed 13 October 2008. 
181 
Wisconsin State Fair Park website, Online at www.wiexpocenter.com. Internet. Acces·sed 13 October 2008. 

90 
and access to an adjacent parking lot. 25 tables and 150 chairs are included.182 And the Western 
Montana Fair, in Missoula, offers alongside its buildings for lease, winter storage for "boats, 
RVs, ATVs, motorcycles, cars, pickups and ??". 183 However, it was the Utah State Fair (Salt 
Lake City) website that advertised it best, 
If you don't want a boring event, don't host it in a boring place. Why invest your 
time and money hosting an event in a place without personality when you can 
host an experience at the Utah State Fairpark? With years of history, elaborate 
design, and impressive character we take pride in offering you and your pests the 
most exciting, original, and above all, memorable experience possible. 18 
The Oregon State Fair poultry building would also offer an "historic," "original" and 
"memorable experience" to participants at a lecture or trade show or other event held in its 
beautiful space. 
New use can breathe new life into an old building. Today the poultry building stands 
threadbare and quiet, an elegant testimony to its earlier era. It reflects comfortably its original 
calling, and has silently endured the evolution of its use over time. From a poultry exhibition hall 
to a Future Farmers of America building; from a machine shed and horse stable to WWII troop 
housing - the poultry building accepted whatever was asked of it, a mute testimony to the vision 
of an architect and a fair board. 
182 Western Idaho Fair website, Online at 
http://www.epoidaho.com/attachments/Western%20Town%20Hand%20Book.pdf. Internet. Accessed 13 October 
2008. 
183 
Western Montana Fair website, Online at Http://www.westernmontanafair.com. Internet. Accessed 13 October 
2008. 
184 
Utah State Fair Park website, Online at http://www.Utahstatefaimark.com/facilities. Internet. Accessed 13 
October 2008. 
-
~I L__ <L___I:I_~I-_-- ----- -
91 
CONCLUSION 
What now for the Poultry Building? 
During the early part of the twentieth century, a young, newly self-confident poultry 
industry greatly contributed to Oregon's fast growing economy. Prominent poultrymen were 
proclaiming, "one quarter of the value of the entire agricultural output of Oregon last year [1921] 
was poultry products."185 By the 1930s, the poultry production of the state amounted to as much 
as all the dairy products combined; more than the hay, wheat, barley and oats production 
combined; more than all the livestock production; and more than that of fruit and berries.186 By 
this time Oregon had achieved a national and international poultry reputation due to the scientific 
research being conducted at Oregon Agricultural College and the Extension Service. 
The change within the poultry community from breeding birds specifically for 
appearance to breeding birds for higher egg and meat production took the industry by storm, and 
poultrymen never looked back. As higher profits from raising chickens became evident, farmers 
invested in the latest available technology such as brooders, incubators, and electric lights. They 
raised larger flocks, built improved hen houses and additional laying boxes, and fenced more of 
their land into production. They read poultry journals and books, joined poultry associations and 
cooperatives, and attended informational lectures by well-respected scientists in the field. Their 
children attended college and earned degrees in poultry husbandry. Raising poultry quickly 
became an industry and Oregon's farmers, supported by the latest information coming out of the 
research institutions, rose up to the challenge and beyond. 
185 
C.N. Needham, "Oregon Fast Becoming a Great Poultry State," Oregon Magazine, 7 no. 6 (30 September 1922): 
21-22. 
ts6Ibid. 
-
' f. · .. ;.,·. ·- -
I LL1111_- 1 
92 
These are the people associated with the poultry building at the state fairgrounds. It was 
to recognize and celebrate their achievements that the fair board chose an architect of social 
standing, with classical training and who could create a tangible version of their vision. Folger 
Johnson's choice of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style is a thoughtful reflection of the familiar 
and comfortable architecture of the past, for those living in the post-WWI era. The large, open, 
light and airy structure fit well with the needs of the industry and the community. The new 
poultry building offered a comfortable, beautiful place to exhibit their birds, to hear industry 
news and to socialize with other producers and breeders, and with scientists and scholars. 
The Oregon State Fair poultry building was seen as "no doubt the finest poultry pavilion 
in the West" by Oregonians. 187 Compared to currently existing poultry buildings, they were right. 
Many state fairs constructed simple wooden structures for their poultry exhibition purposes. 
Many of the Western states have lost their historic poultry buildings to fire or demolition. For 
example, the 15 5 year old California state fair demolished their poultry building in the 1960s to 
make way for new construction; at this writing, no photographs of the original building could be 
found. Washington has two state fairs, the Evergreen Fair in Monroe and the Central Washington 
State Fair in Yakima. The Evergreen Fair has a Rabbit, Poultry and Cavy Barn that was built in 
1990, although there are a few historic buildings on the fairgrounds. The Display Hall and the 
Equestrian Park, built in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries respectively, continue 
to support the fair. 
Many state fairs do not have a building exclusively used for poultry shows during the 
fair. For example, at the Central Washington State Fair, they have wonderful historic buildings 
(Pioneer Hall, 1896 and the Agriculture Building, 1893) but no exclusively poultry building. The 
Northern Idaho State Fair in Coeur d'Alene was developed in the 1950s and has no poultry 
187 "Two Carloads ofEastem Chickens Coming," Northwest Poultry Journal 67 no. 9 (September, 1921): 8. 
-
I L__ L'.__L:I_I~I-_----- ---l 
93 
building. In Ada County near Boise, the Western Idaho Fair has no building solely for poultry 
exhibitions - small animals all share a building during the fair. While the Eastern Idaho State 
Fair in Blackfoot has a small animal arena, it has no poultry building. In Great Falls, Montana, 
the Livestock Pavilion is the site for all animal and livestock shows, including poultry. And, 
finally, the Nevada State Fair in Reno, has a livestock pavilion but, again, no poultry building. 
The Utah State Fair in Salt Lake City, has the wonderful historic Promontory Hall (the 
former Horticulture Building) but they demolished other such buildings in the 1980s as many 
had fallen into disrepair. No mention was given of a poultry building. The Wyoming State Fair, 
in Douglas, has a small animal building which is shared by poultry and other animals during the 
fair. Many of their original fair structures burned and no specific information on a poultry 
building could be found. The South Dakota State Fair in Huron, had a poultry building which 
was constructed in 1907 that was later converted to the Home Appliance Building and was 
finally razed in 1953. They built a new poultry building in 1954. No images could be found by 
this researcher. In Minot, North Dakota, the State Fairgrounds has a modem poultry building. As 
well, New Mexico has a modem poultry building attached to the Manuel Lujan Jr. Exhibit 
Complex. 
To the East, this researcher found a few states that continue to use their historic poultry 
buildings. Indiana (1927), Ohio (1900), and Wisconsin (1920) all have historic poultry buildings 
still in existence on their state fairgrounds, yet none compares architecturally to the Oregon 
poultry building. In Indianapolis, Indiana, the Rabbit and Poultry Building (also known as the 
Northwest Pavilion) at the State Fairgrounds was designed by Indiana State Fair architects, Kopf 
and Deery. They also designed the swine and horse barns at the fairgrounds in a similar fashion. 
The building is vaguely Italian Renaissance - simple hipped roof, brackets, and a recessed entry 

94 
block (see Figure 37). The Indiana poultry 
- --_- ---==---===-====-
building is a single story with a rectangular 
plan and a hipped clerestory section rising in 
the middle of the roof. The building is 
constructed of brick and has cast stone 
brackets supporting the eave at the main 
Fig. 37. The poultry building at the Indiana State 
Fairgrounds. Photograph courtesy Indiana Historical entrance. The small four-over-four windows 
Society. Found online at 
www.in.gov/dnr/historic/l l l SS.htm. are set in slightly recessed arches. Rooster 
profile medallions fill the tympanum above each window. The building is just over 31,000 
square feet in size with twenty foot ceilings in the center and nine foot ceilings in the aisles. 188 
The Ohio State Fair in Columbus, has an historic 
poultry building as well. Designed in the Queen Anne 
Victorian fashion, this poultry and rabbit hall has double 
square towers straddling the integral front porch which is the 
main entrance. The windows are four-over-four with wood 
sash. Decorative trim work abounds - comer supports on 
Fig. 38. Ohio State Fair Poultry and squared porch posts, comer brackets, ornamental gable 
Rabbit Building. Photograph courtesy 
flickr.com/photos/srhbth/373575617/ . detailing, applied horizontal and vertical trim work, exposed 
rafter ends and a varied paint scheme (see Figure 38). 
The Wisconsin State Fairgrounds also has an historic poultry building (see Figure 36 on 
page 89), but no exterior photographs of the building could be found. However, based on the 
interior photograph one can easily justify the position that the Oregon State Fair poultry building 
is not only distinctive but extra special. Not one example in the Western states could be found to 
188 Indiana State Fairgrounds, found online at www.in.gov.fairgrounds/buildings/nw pavilion.html. 
-
_,;. -,.,-. ·-- ------
LL_III_Dllllr 
95 
compare to the elegant, exceptional and unique design of our building. The construction 
materials are rare and distinctive and the building's lighting and ventilation are top notch. 
While the poultry building has undergone a few changes over its long eighty-seven year 
history, it still retains much of its historic fabric and largely all of its character defining features. 
A complete restoration is not only feasible but essential. Additional research is necessary to 
discover the original designs of the few missing items. The reconstruction of the entry doors, the 
windows and the clerestory windows could make an enormous difference in the eyes of the 
community towards this historic building. To see plywood where once there was a beautiful 
window or door, is to see a forgotten, neglected piece of our collective history. 
Certainly, specific changes are necessary to the poultry building to meet current building 
code with regards to seismic retrofitting. However, a balance must be achieved between code and 
the building's integrity. With thoughtfulness, understanding and care, seismic reinforcement can 
preserve the character defining features of the building. The National Park Service recommends 
sensitive "design, placement, patterning and detailing" of such reinforcement for insertion into 
historic buildings. During the undertaking of a seismic retrofit, they advocate the preservation 
and retention of historic materials; respecting the character and integrity of the building through 
design; and reversibility to allow for improvements in the future as new technologies are 
found.189 
The history of a building is only understood as well as the historical record documents. 
Currently, the poultry building's historical record is fragmented and incomplete. The architect's 
sketches and blueprints have yet to be found; historic fair records have been dutifully destroyed 
in keeping with State guidelines; and time constraints required the research end and the writing 
189 
David W. Look, Terry Wong and Sylvia Rose Augustus, "The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping 
Preservation in the Forefront," Preservation Brief4 1, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U.S. 
Department of the Interior. Found online at www.nps.com. 

96 
begin. Yet, the poultry building speaks through its irreplaceable visage. The poultry building 
informs us of an elemental piece of our collective history - the importance of poultry in 
Oregon's agricultural heritage. As an important representative of this legacy, the poultry building 
can offer continued use for another eighty seven years. This significant historical resource stands 
silently, ready for its bright, new future. 
-
L,I; _....I ·I .L. ~ _-·, 
96 
Appendix A 
Character Defining Features Table 
I - <- .;. . ·. ··----- . 
Appendix I 97 
Oregon State Fair Poultry Building 
Character Defining Features 
Exterior: 
The roof of the poultry building is one of 
its character defining features. It is 
relatively flat with a six-foot parapet at 
the eave which is topped by a single 
course of red-clay, straight-barrel 
Mission tiles, regularly laid at a low-
pitch. The eaves have little overhang. 
At the eave cornice, there is a double, half-
round molding with fillet details that 
encircles the building. 
There is a side-gabled clerestory rising 
above the central portion of the roof. The 
clerestory roof is sheathed in composition 
shingles. In the walls of the clerestory are 
non-original, top-hinged plywood shutters, 
where there once were operable glass 
windows (and possibly louvers) for light 
and ventilation. In the peaks of the gable 
ends of the clerestory are a series of fixed 
louvers. 
Above the main entry doors on both the 
south and north fayades of the building, the 
roof parapet rises into low-pitched, false-
gables. 

Appendix I 98 
The walls are another character defining 
feature of the poultry building. They are 
constructed of hollow-core terracotta tile 
blocks, approximately eighteen feet tall 
with a six foot parapet. The one-foot thick 
walls are comprised of a three-inch thick 
exterior wall mortared to a nine-inch thick 
interior wall. The tile walls rest atop 3 '-6" 
board-formed, poured concrete stem walls 
with concrete foundations. 
The exterior of the walls are clad in stucco 
with a relatively smooth surface and 
painted in a light cream color. 
Painted in a contrasting color, the raised 
stucco trim sets off the windows and doors, 
and delineates the top edge of the water 
table around the building at the base of the 
windowsills. 
The doorways are another of the important 
character defining features. The doorways 
are located midpoint in each of the four 
fac;ades, recessed slightly in the thick 
walls. Each set of doors is topped by a 
double-height, full-width transom window. 
Atop each transom is a round-arch fanlight 
window. 
I LL-:ILIIIIIIII 
Appendix I 99 
The poultry building windows are another 
of its most important features. The 24 , 
windows are identical in design and 
construction. They are wood sash, round-
arch fanlights above twelve clear panes of 
glass over four amber-colored, geometric-
patterned ('union jack') panes. The round-
arch fanlight windows are hinged at the 
bottom and open via a pull-ring latch 
mechanism at the top center. 
Each fa;:ade has a number of painted 
rooster-bust, high-relief, scroll-edged 
flagpole medallions just below the eave 
cornice. These are significant character 
defining features for the poultry building. 
The medallions' scrolled edges are painted 
brown while the roosters are white with 
red combs and wattles, orange beaks and 
blue eyes. 
Only the south fa9ade, as the building's 
formal main entrance, has eight flagpole 
medallions set between the door and 
windows near the roofline. Centered above 
the door in the south fayade is a grand 
scrolled medallion emblazoned with the 
date of construction: 1921 AD. The date 
medallion is linked by white-painted swags 
to the first adjacent set of rooster flagpole 
medallions. 
-
- -- - -
ILLa_- l 
Appendix I 100 
Interior: 
The clerestory defines the center of the 
interior space. Its unpainted wood-board 
roof sheathing is atop unpainted wood 
purlins supported by arched trusses. The 
gable ends of the clerestory are filled with 
fixed louvers. The clerestory knee walls 
are lined with openings for top-hinged 
plywood shutters that surround the space. 
There once were operable glass windows 
(and possibly louvers) in these openings. 
The poultry building's interior is defined by its 
soaring open space; this is achieved by a series 
of six trusses which support the clerestory roof. 
The trusses are made of rough-sawn heavy 
timber posts that rise to meet wood roof rafters 
and bolt-laminated arched bottom chords. 
Radial tie-rods and bracketing wood cross-
bracing support each truss. The arched bottom 
cords are constructed of curved layers of wood 
pieces laminated by a series of bolts and nuts 
with washers at both ends. 
The laminated arches are connected to the 
top of the inside posts (a t 6' - 0" above the 
concrete piers) by a deep half-lap joint and 
six bolts. This truss system is integral with 
the twelve cross-braced brown-painted, 
rough-sawn double posts on substantial 
concrete piers. 
On both sides of each window are rough-sawn 
wood posts that are bolted through the timber 
to the concrete stem wall and bolted by 
brackets to the tile walls. Additional rough-
sawn wood posts set upon concrete piers and 
bolted to the concrete stem wall and the tile 
walls work in conjunction to support the flat 
roof. They carry the beams and rafters for the 
flat roof. Atop the rafters is lap-jointed board 
roof-sheathing. 


-
I Ll_:11_-
£a·~ · -~\ 
__ Ar~~fnrt.a~l._:·  
- . OQ!'.ft. ~c.. 

e~"-~• ., . ~-~~:,. ·!.·.~s .•r ·~g~:;1. 
·~nowC-QJ'fe ' ti\~ _t-j'\~ ~3kt ~ ; - -·-
~r C<M~ 1' <;\.e,w, fl w(UJ 0-ffY?>X '3 I~ C 11 - (t~~~) 
(," >' 12! :- 
~ ~U~Gbrl. ~~ --
11';1~ 4, 
~(lt; 
~ -w~~~~-rost--
. c:_J-r ·~1w-~- ,\ 
-
IL l___;;:ILIIIIIJ 
~-.()~(. . 
·~-ThrtJJdeJ U\d e,' 
f<t'· ,,oJ UJ/ YILA..t 
"~ f~\jetci+ D~l 
~ . M:~bfb~) 
. ~~~-QV"\ 
o,ot~ <;.c.41.e_ 
iic:·roJ~I 
ComecHoYl .@ 
IAl~Tru~-s 
t1of:-to .~lc.,. 

_: A <ffl -N}t:¢9,---~~; es~ littl:tW. e_~w~ · -~--~ ____  _ ___  
··~~· pc,,k,$1J.-,tpl' .. ~ [uAe~o:J,,r;¼;~~ .. 
- -d.e -y~k ~~~'lLn~~Ylf'>C,'1 2~): _ _ _ -- -- ~-- - --
□ -- - ---- - : n • 
- - --- - -- - -- . 4-' 
. l !i  
p 11 
: __ ~, 
~~,- - - --T yJ 
~j}:: _ - __ ~---~ C - 7-+-~--=~~~ 
i'.t{ 
-- _J_ _~ -- ~ -


I L-l~.__-1-1.1-! 1-_-------
JACKMAN-LONG BUILDING 21 SHOW HORSE BARN 36 SUMMER SAFARI HIGH DIVE 
· Farm&GardenOisplays 22 WARM-UP ARENA 37 X-SCREAM ZONE 
• Amateur&Professiooal 
Wlf'leOisptays ~! ~~:;~:'J;:~~M : :!::eon1,~BahaRace=~se•• ~ 
• AuthOrsTable 25 BIG SHOW GREEN • P&1n1 Ball Target Range 
· Co<,nlyBoolhs 26 POULTRY BUILDING 38 KIDDIE LANO 
• HobtJ<es,Crafls&Poet,y 27 NATURAL RESOURCES AREA 39 CARNIVAL/MIDWAY 
• Home.b<ewBeerO,splay 
• HomeArtsOisptays 28 _c~i;~~:..;!RVICE CENTER !~ ~~~~1~'8JtR~:c;LDWE T SHOW 
• C1edenlia1sorrice 
. Fine Ar1s & Calhgraph)' 
FIRST AID : ~,:~::~lh ◄~4-, 
COLUMBIA HALL 29 FRIENDSHIP SQUARE/FOOD COURT •• 
• Comme1c1aJE>,.hibits 30 CENTERSTAGE @ 
HART uf lhe GARDEN BUILDII;() 31 BINGO 
GARDEN DISTRICT 32 CASCADE HALL 0 
LOG CABIN • tnternahonal Exhibilionof Photography i 
SCHOOLHOUSE · Oregon Salon of Pholography ~ 
VIP COURTYARD 33 L.B. DAY AMPHITHEATRE • ~ 
~-H EXHIBIT BUILDING 3~ CQNCERT/Pav11ion Event TICKET 
AnhqueT1ae1ors BOX OFFICE 
La Plaza/GazeUO 35 NEW PAVILION 
CHAIRLIFT TCRMINAL 
~~h~;~;t~~~'.;:L EXHIBITS O ► O 
FFA HORTICULTURE EXHIBITS ~ 
FFA PAVILION ,, ff 
~-~;~:~~~ING AREA ~ ~ 0 • 
BEEFBAAN ~~ c:"!!l 
FORST[AUVCSTOCKPAVILION l:i \ \... ~~~ / 
17 
~ w 
/2 '-,-L..J..,.,.-- 16 [wJ (§ 
1/. 21 24 20 
$ 
25 
l¥tl 
~s ~=====~~~kr:;i 2
~~ ~ 27 
6 ;I ' DD ftJ!n ~] ff~ 22 shllJ 
~~r!': ,--~~"'" w DD 
41 DD 
(fl 35 :l::T AID =+-=-~_J I 
@RESTROOM, '--· --'---'-~--'.=.."'--'-"'-' DD DISABLED 
ACCESSIBLE 37 
~~:~::::Es 4 DD 36 ~ 3 2004 
[j] ATM MACHINE ~ W ' D 
~ WATER FOUNTAINS 
GI ~gt:}:,iLE PARKING Jo Oregon 39 State D 
Ii] D IN~~;:.::~N BOOTH O Fair Ma D 
SERVICES 39 
~ §~~0~T~ FOUND/ 38 M~ G~ 
~ FILM/STROLLER RENTAU O D 
@] ~::~~v::~FICE ~sU  rN N Y- V I E W 7A O  A D PINK LOT (PUBLIC PA RKING) [Q:] FAIR AOMINISTRATIVL Of I ICE 
[II POLICE I 
[£) WHEELCHAIR RENTAL 
- ~-- -- - - I 
I~ u_--_'.i__:_:_::_:a'--"_-------- -
105 
AppendixD 
1990 Plans and Elevations 
Hanns Associates, Salem 
-·-- I 
I --'f-• -""-C'•- ••-• -- -----
LL_IIII_IIIII.I 
~ 
SNOIJ.'lrA :1"151 ,CN'tr N'tr"ld ,AttOJ.Satta"IO ~ 

NOD■•o ,. . ■,Y■ IE] 
EJN10,1n11 At,.L,n0d • aaNnot1atHY::I IIJ.Y.LS NOD■tta ~ I! Cl ~ 
BNOI.LYJ\lina ~ ~ c( : 
I --'~- -,. -. ---- -----
 j 
L...-E>N-•a_,_,n■_A_lf_.1.,_n_ad_•_•a_N_na_lf_l!llf_'"_"■__.1."_.1.■-N_a_o_■lf--Ja ~ NY,c:t tlDD,::1 
I -~ . ----- ----
~ LL_llll__- j 
109 
AppendixE 
Sanborn Maps 
1926 
1925+1950 

• 269_ t 
0R£60N.SCHOOL ""R DcHr Mvr£&. 
~~'.::,'; :;:: ·- . s,,,,,1,~s.ors,1,m. 
502 
/10/PTH 8RLEM 
... 
uJ ~
"' ut!=j 55 a:: "c(' 559  
< 0 
:Ii e::, z 
WINTER 
_., ,. ., ,. • S<a••~ • • r,u 
Sa..~bO(f"\ rr~~P .. i.\erY11 o~ 
l~q5 
O(t"jOY-~ e ~ r('.) roe-1..vd 
-
1~ ---
0 
0 
-
I - ,;_ _______ ---- - -
~ LLIIII_-· 
&u,,,,tht'"itfr 
Tl ;/rlly-,1>1/h,ss//ee/ 18 0 1 
I ,,.,, ,.,~ -~ l~~~Ci(l'hm/ls 
~~~t;::;t woo~ro no,:•' ~u 
:,;;~;;: .~// 
.,.« ... c~f'··  .. ::::.: / •••u,c·· • I 
:,~ ~.,,U,  ~c:_:; :.;rJ::y:1  !I r'-J ~ 
r i~~:~:.: ~J,,,_,::'~: 1 
\f \ •-~-~-----------':~=---.,.--
. \.!,  - / .  i. i..~ '" \. .'  ; 0 
-=-----~ .. ~ll il,n,e·:~,- .r ::~r~ s ; -It ~·) i 
128 . '•; _ r!:r!  J 
. ~• ----·· r t· 
""" ,-~ 
~~~~:\: \,:_ IJ 
0 
0 ~,,. ,7_ _____ •.. ,, _____ ~,.0------ ----
-
I---'-'- -------
LL__31_DIID 
112 
AppendixF 
1914 Poultry Raising Project Report 
,: ------- ---- - -
LLJIL- j 
College Bulletin No. 140 Issued Monthly Extension Series VIII No. 21 
Entered as BeCOnd clua matter November 27, 1909, at the poetofflce at 
Corvallla, Oregon, under the act of Jul:, 16, 1894. 
BOYS' AND GIBLS' INDUSTRIAL CLUBS 
POULTRY RAISING Project Report Corvallis 
1914 
Oregon Agricultural College 
EXTENSION SERVICE 
Co-operating with the Superintendent of Public ln~ction 
To Industrial Club Members-Poultry Raising Project: 
This form is to be used in making your Project Report. Fill out each blank as soon 
as the work upon which it is based is completed and note all interesting features of the 
Club work as fast as they arise. 
Mail this report to the State Agent, Industrial Club Work, Oregon Agricultural 
College, Corvallis, at least fifteen days before the opening of your County Fair. If your 
County Fair is held after the Oregon State Fair (Sept. 28-0ct. 3, 1914), send in your 
report on or before Sept. 15, 1914. 
The awards in the Poultry Raising- Contest at the County Fair and at the 
State Fair shall be based upon the following Project Score, which supersedes the score 
given for this project in Bulletin 98 (the Pony Circular). 
PROJECT SCORE 
EXHIBIT, three pullets and one cockerel of contestant's own raising.................... ...... 40 
PROJECT REPORT................. .. .. ................. .................................. .................................... 60 
Possible score 100 
The following method shall be used for determining the prize winners in this contest: 
The Exhibit and Project Report shall first be judged separately on a basis of 100 per cent for each (aee the 
score cards below). Each contestant's final grade is determtned by multiplying the number of points allowed the 
Exhibit and Project Report in the Project Score by the percentage given these items by the Judges and addini 
the results. 
Thus, if the judges give 90 for the Exhibit and 95 for the Project Report, the result may be expressed as 
follows: 
Possible Contestant's 
Project Judges' Final 
Score Grade Score 
Exhibit -,----- 40 times .90 equals 36.00 
Project Report . . . 60 times .95 equals 57.00 
100 93.00 
Thus, 93.00 represents the contestant's final grade in the centeat. 
The score cards printed below should be followed as closely as possible in judginir the Exhibit and Project 
Report. Judges should express their decisions in terms of percentage. 
*Exhibit Score P~oject Report 
PCocukerlell _ets------- ------
50 Accuracy ___________ 40 
___________  so ~:'~~eneaa __________ ~ 
Poaaible score 100 
Judge's score POBsihle score 100 
Judge's score 

Naine of Club member ........ .................. ... ....u •-············· ····-·····----········- ········----··-···············-········-··· 
Post office.·---------··• R. D. No. ................ , County __________  
Witness's Attest :-1 hereby certify that the above named contestant has complied with the rulea 
governing this Club Project and has accomplished all of the work herein described. The facts and 
figures contained in this report are correct. 
S:gned by ________________  
Parent or Guardian 
THE CONTEST FLOCK 
1. How many fowls have you entered in the contest? 
2. Are your fowls pure-breds or crosses? ....................... . What bre.ed ?. ...... -------
3. Where did you get the fowls? .................... If purchased, how much did they cost?. ................... _ 
4. Are they pullets or hens? (By pullets is meant fowls in their first laying year)------
5. What other fowls are kept on the home place? _____ How many?_ ____  
HOUSING AND YARDING 
1. What is the size of your chicken house?......... Is it portable (built on runners) or 
stationary? ............................ Describe the house in detail in your Project Report. Make a sketch 
of the house and give dimensions. 
2. Is the house tightly boarded or partly open? 
3. Are the fowls yarded or given free range?. ...... . 
4. If confined, give the size of the yards. ................. ....... ··········-······ ··· ········· ··· 
FEEDING 
1. What did you feed your flock? ............................................................. .. . 
2. What was the cost of food per fowl during the contest? ........... ___________  
3. Did you buy the feed or was it raised at home?. 
4. How did you feed the young chicks?. ................. ·------·----------
HATCHING AND REARING 
I. Where did you obtain your eggs for hatching? ____________  
2. Were they hatched in an incubator or under a hen? ______________  
3. How many eggs did you set?. ............... How many hatched?. ................. How many live?. ................ . 
4. How were the chicks brooded?_ ____ ··························-----------
EGG PRODUCTION 
1. Give the average monthly egg production of your flock .... ... ................................... ···················-········ 
2. How and where did you market your eggs?. ......................... . 
3. Give the highest and iowest prices received for eggs 
MARKETING 
1. How often did you market your eggs?. ....... . 
2. How many eggs were consumed at home?. ... . 
3. Did you preserve any eggs in "Water Glass" or other preservatives?. ... _____  
4. Did you cooperate with your neighbors in selling eggs? . 
S. Did you sell any young or old stock?. ................. . 
6. Did you sell any eggs for hatching?................... ···························------
7. What profit have you made off your flock? ........ •··•···················•············----------
Monthly records of feed used as well as all sales made and supplies purchased should be re-
corded . . If t~e feed is grown at home and the products used at home, they should be charged at 
local prices tn the record. 

PROJECT REPORT 
Instructions :-Using the Special Report as an outline, tell in your own language all the interest-
ing experiences you have had in your Club work. Make this Project Report a complete history of what 
you have accomplished. Write with pen and ink and if more space is needed attach extra sheets of 
paper to the last page. Illustrate the report with drawings and photographs of your work, if possible. 
Note:-The State Aa;ent will purchase a;ood photographs of Club members' work. Views showin& "before 
and after" effects, or how the work appeared durin& various ata&etl of development, are preferred. 
----·······-·-····-······-················•········-· ····-·-····················-···· 
··-·-··········-·-··················· ·································-···············-·····------···-········-········-·····-·············-·······-
-----·········-·····-·····-···-···········-·························-················· ····- ················-·-·-····--········---·· 
··············-·-·········-·-·····------······-············· -··-·---------------
····················-······-··················· ····································--------···············-·····-·-·-··········-··-·-····-
--------········-························-····-··-------
·- ----- ·································· 
········-··········-······ ···-------~------
- ----························-·········· ·-------------- --- --

115 
Appendix G 
Terracotta Tile Blocks 

Terra Cofl-4 /Voll Unil.s or~ 
4v4//ol,/,- will, 1;z.;4"qt,• 
l,ond~ will, Cove, ~&.Illa;,,_ 
-,of Cap.:-.8vllh<7.:<•s,£xkn,o/ 
vlnle.rnol .lliler.s, Jam,6,a, 
l.inlel.s.u.sil/.s. There.i.!Jo 
wide. vorie.ly 9' c.olorJ 4no' 
/;-ni.!Jhe.5 /nm, ,v/uc.l, A> du,os&. 
Allb locks .snown w/1'-h /wo cells, nowever al/ .6ur 
~-,b/ocA::s are vsvo//f/ mqqe w//h .3" c,11.r 
TYPICAL WALL BLOC..ll:.5 
Yz"'-./!o" 
5TANDAR.D~ 
LOA0·BfA12.ING UNtT .STANDARD UNlT 
um h._/i9u,edO .$ ~lid l'orfkvl,n·ly .suif-,/,/efar 
'J'::Z:2' P/./,c,, .f"'OJ>crl9 P#e. will, G#nlilever or 
.SIA.!Spende,d coru/-,-vdion . 
- .+1,,,.-1-ol .Sill..._. 
~" joinf: 
:f joinlj__ 
• EXTERIOR., WALLS -
½."c-1'-a• 

~m-- - f•fl□]Diffol]  
SE.CTTO)'.J .5HOWIIIJG ~HOR.. . . 
p/,,a ~-
O_>O 
Half Jami> 711• 
JOIST .f>E.A~l"JG 
Jan,/, ?7"-
T[LE.$ FOR.. JAM~.5 
'f','-1:0• 
':W' .l'echon. 
L CO ]',J5TWCTI0N E.l'qD WALL C.m,JSTR1JCTION 
r 
1boor Jo-ml., 
DETA lLS THAT AP.PLY TO .bOTH TYPE.S OF' WALL.S 
XT:f.R..IOR.- WALL CONSTR1JCTION wi//2 STUCCO FIN li5H 
_ ~eom,ne. .c lt1na,u o:I" /1,8 Strucn,,.,/ C/1 Products lnsf'lrut-e l</41 

HOLLOW T[ LE 
4 COURSE.S 
Tile ~lb mdlf '1e 
ulhu- verticdl 
or l,orizt>nfttl 
C/0,tlrr unif.Jttrc 
avttild/db/e For 
opcnin~.s cPd 
eor11tr.1. 
5 COURSES <o COUR.Se5 7 COUR.:'>e.5 
, So! 1£~~ nu'2t,. o/ ~,,£!; ~J,.!19 ttbo~) 
KWIKLAY- MCK~R. VeR.TICAL C£:LL f>AC.KER.. tt~OCR..&ACKfR. 
Horiwnfa/ ~lb 
OR.DINAR.Y &Al:KUP tt·SHAPED TILE 
¾'=1°0· 
'~':~~a' J:' ,::,'j{'::J;,i14 10~ ,a:; ,, • and,~• fhicll:. ~ 11/a/l.s ,zre -,/,or.un ,-:,,• 1'/,/d; .bul life. Is mttdc l>y 4
6rlef, a,l>CI .6<f_c.t-u;, _hie ~ 611 I p.rrr A,r//an<I C,em~nf-t;,,crrf hme ,md_5 to fi parts f!ecn .shdrp .rt1n,I, 

n;# zt!'.,~ 3171' »I 
JSOME.T-R..IC.5 OF .STANDA-Rr.D  'TILES U.5E.D IN ABOVE: .PAR.TITIO~S. 5 1.t!'l. £~ ~ .. ~1-J= /4rt ;.¢,~ 1,I Io~S})l(Q-? 
-
I LL_-_--:-IL- _--- - - --l 1 
119 
Bibliography 
Primary Sources 
Goudy, N.E. "Oregon State Fairgrounds, Salem, Oregon. Estimate Restoration of 
Buildings Part I." Forsten's Inventory. Correspondence and Reports, 1940-1957. 
Box 1 of 10. #61A 90/1. Department of Agriculture. Oregon State Archives. 
Handlin, Oscar, ed. This Was America: As Recorded by European Travelers in the 
Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Centuries. Boston: Harvard University 
Press, 1949; reprint New York, Evanston and London: Harper and Row, 1964. 
"Inventory ofBuildings, Oregon State Fair," 30 June 1934. State Fair Records. Soil and 
Water Conservation Division. Oregon Association of Conservation District 
Records. Weights and Measures Division Records. Department of Agriculture. 
Box III, 92A-25, File 111/19. Oregon State Archives. 
Lorence, James J. Enduring Voices, Document Sets to Accompany The Enduring Vision: 
A History of the American People, Third Edition. Volume Two. Lexington, 
Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1996. 
Oregon State Fair Records, 1868-1958. Oregon Department of Agriculture. Oregon State 
Archives, Salem, Oregon. 
Oregon State Fair Records. Oregon State Fair. Oregon State Archives, Salem, Oregon. 
State Board ofA griculture Minutes, 1916-1931. Oregon State Fair Records. Department 
of Agriculture. Oregon State Archives. 
Secondary Sources 
JOO Years ofP rogress: The Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State 
University, 1888-1988. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon Agricultural Station, Oregon 
State University, 1990. 
A Business of Your Own in Poultry/and: The Pacific Northwest. Chicago: Poole Brothers, 
1923. 
Agricultural Opportunities in Lane County, Oregon. Eugene, Oregon: Eugene Chamber 
of Commerce, 1922. 
Alanen, Arnold R. and Robert Z. Melnick, eds. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in 
America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. 
I ,_ -- - - - - -- -- - - -
~ l__L_31_- j 
120 
Bouman, Lane J. "The Location and Survey of Oregon Donation Land Claims." 
Accessed 13 November 2007. Online at 
http://www.plso.org/readingroom/OregonDLC-Bouman. htm. Internet. 
Dary, David. The Oregon Trail. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 
Davison, R. W. Practical Poultry Culture: A Concise and Practical Treatise on the 
Management ofP oultry for Profit. Indianapolis, Indiana: The Epitomist 
Publishing Company, 1898. 
Dryden, James. Poultry Breeding and Management. New York: Orange Judd Co., 1916. 
Evenn-een State Fainrrounds. Website. Accessed 13 October 2008. Online at 
~ http://www.e~ergreenfair.org/page 11344 .asp#Rabbit/Poultry/Cavy%20Barn2064. 
Internet. 
Handlin, David P. American Architecture. 2nd edition. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd., 
2004. 
Hanke, Oscar August, John L. Skinner and James Harold Florea, eds. American Poultry 
History, 1823-1973: An Anthology Overview of 150 Years. Madison, Wisconsin: 
American Printing & Publishing, Inc, 1974. 
Hardyment, Christina. Home Comfort: A History ofD omestic Arrangements. Chicago: 
Academy Chicago Publishers in association with the National Trust, 1992. 
Heine, Steven Robert. The Oregon State Fair. Charleston, Chicago, San Francisco and 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Arcadia Publishing, 2007. 
Irvington Community Association. Website. Accessed 6 February 2008. Online at 
www.irvingtonhometour.com/HomeTour2003/l 930MainPage.htm. Internet 
Jeffery Howe, ed. The Houses We Live In: An Identification Guide to the History and 
Style ofA merican Domestic Architecture. San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2002. 
Kadas, Marianne. Historic Context Statement: Salem, Oregon. Portland, Oregon, 1992. 
Mandeville, Paul, Mary Engle Pennington, Frank L. Platt, and Clara Gebhard Snyder. 
Eggs. Chicago: Progress Publications, 1933. 
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: 
Alfred A Knopf, 1995. 
Mcfeeters-Krone, Amy. Oregon State Fair Stadium and Poultry Building Ensemble. 
National Register Nomination. 2002. 

121 
Minto, John. "Reminiscences of Earliest Salem," in Salem, Oregon: Past and Present, An 
Historical Sketch. Salem, Oregon: Schaefer Printing Co., 1902. 
Millier, Christian. Holzleimbau: Laminated Timber Construction. Basel, Berlin, Boston: 
Birkhauser, 2000. 
Norman, James B. Oregon's Architectural Heritage: The National Register Properties of 
the Portland Area. Salem, Oregon: The Solo Press, 1986. 
Oregon State Fair. Website. Accessed 2 February 2008. Online at 
http://www.oregonstatefair.org/about fair/fair history. Internet. 
Origin and History ofa ll Breeds ofP oultry. Chicago: American Poultry Journal 
Publishing Co., 1908. 
Peterson del Mar, David. Oregon's Promise: An Interpretive History. Corvallis, Oregon: 
Oregon State University Press, 2003. 
Platt, Frank L. All Breeds ofP oultry: Origin, History Description, Mating and 
Characteristics. Chicago: American Poultry Journal Publishing Co., 1925. 
Ritz, Richard Ellison. Architects of Oregon: A Biographical Dictionary ofA rchitects 
Deceased - 19th and 20th Centuries. Portland, Oregon: Lair Hill Publishing, 
2002. 
Roth, Leland M. American Architecture: A History. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 
2001. 
___.  Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning. Boulder, 
Colorado: Westview Press, 1993. 
___.  America Builds: Source Documents in Architecture and Planning, Draft for 
Second &lition. Compiled by Leland M. Roth. Leland M. Roth, 2006. 
Salem Board of Trade. Salem: The Capital City ofO regon, Willamette Valley Fruit 
Center, The Cherry City of the World. Portland, Oregon: Sunset Magazine, 
Homeseekers Bureau, 1909. 
Salem, Oregon Past and Present: An Historical Sketch. Salem, Oregon: Schaefer 
Printing Co., 1902. 
Saunders, Simon M. Domestic Poultry: Being a Practical Treatise on the Preferable 
Breeds ofF arm-yard Poultry, Their History and Leading Characteristics with 
Complete Instructions for Breeding and Fattening and Preparing for Exhibition 
at Poultry Shows, etc., etc. . New York: Orange Judd Co., 1868. 

122 
Sawyer, Gordon. The Agribusiness Poultry Industry: A History ofI ts Development. 
Jericho, New York: Exposition Press, 1971 . 
Smithers, Paul Louis. History and Analysis of the Pacific Cooperative Poultry Producers. 
MS Thesis. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State Agricultural College, 1931. 
Tucker, Kathy. "Aurora Band Greets Southern Pacific Farm Demo Train." Oregon 
History Project. Oregon Historical Society. 2002. Accessed 23 February 2008. 
Online at www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical records/dsp 
Document.cfm?doc ID=000F2AF9-E2AF- IDD3-A2AF80B05272FE9F. Internet. 
Utah State Fair Park. Website. Accessed 13 October 2008. Online at 
http://www.utahstatefai.J:park.com/facilitics. Internet. 
Western Idaho Fair. Website. Accessed 13 October 2008. Online at 
http://www.epoidaho.com/attachments/Westem%20Town%20Hand%20Book.pdf 
Internet. 
Western Montana Fair. Website. Accessed 13 October 2008. Online at 
http://www.westemmontanafair.com. Internet. 
Wisconsin State Fair Park. Website. Accessed 13 October 2008. Online at 
http://www.wiexpocenter.com. Internet. 
Wright, Lewis. The Practical Poultry Keeper: A Complete and Standard Guide to the 
Management ofP oultry, Whether for Domestic Use, the Markets or Exhibition. 
New York: Orange Judd Co., 1869. 
Government Documents 
8h Census of the United States 1860. Agriculture. WashingtonD.C.: United 
States Census Office, 1864. 
<jh Census of the United States, 1870. Agriculture. Washington D.C : United 
States Census Office, 1872. 
ldh Census of the United State, 1880. Vol. II, Agriculture. Washington D.C: United 
States Census Office, 1883 . 
12th Census of the United States, 1900. Vol.V. Agriculture, Part I. Washington D.C.: 
United States Census Office, 1902. 
13th Census of the United States, 1910. Vol. VII, Agriculture, Part III. Washington D.C.: 
United States Census Office, 1912. 

123 
15th Census of the United States, 1930. Vol. ID, Agriculture, Part III. Washington D.C. : 
United States Census Office, 1932. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Poultry Industry of the United States ofA merica: A 
Special Report Supplementing the Exhibit of the United States Department of 
Agriculture at the Fourth World's Poultry Congress, London, 1930. Washington 
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1930. 
Periodicals 
Addis, Horace and George N. Angell. "Sixty-Year-Old Fair is Still Growing: Annual 
Exposition at Salem Mirrors the Resources of the Great State of Oregon." The 
Oregon Farmer (6 October 1921). 
Barss, Richard. "Oregon State Fair Plans." Oregon Magazine 41 no. I (April 1939). 
"Buildings at Fair Grounds 1921 Program." Oregon Statesman (6 March 
1921). 
"Building Busy At Fair Grounds: Machinery, Poultry Sheds and Other Things Make 
Good Showing." Oregon Statesman (22 June 1921). 
"Buildings Construction is Authorized by the Board." Oregon Statesman (15 
March 1921). 
"Coops Put in at Pavilion." Oregon Statesman (18 September 1921). 
"First Awards in Poultry Exhibit are Made Known." Oregon Statesman (27 
September 1921). 
McAllister, Charles. "The Poultry Show: Its Relation to the Poultry Industry." Northwest 
Poultry Journal, 16, no. 2 (February 1911). 
Minto, John. "History of the State Fair: The Birth and Growth of the Oregon State 
Agricultural Society." The Paci.fie Homestead 2, no. 2 (13 September 1900). 
"Oregon State Fair Overview." The Oregon Journal (7 September 1954). 
"Oregon State Fair Poultry Show." Northwest Poultry Journal 67, no. 10 (October 1921). 
"Premier Poultry Housed in Attractive Building at Fair." Oregon Magazine 32 no. 3 (July 
1930). 
Spitzbart, Leo. "The 78th Oregon State Fair: Greater in Every Way." Oregon Magazine 
41 no. 4 (August 1939). 

124 
"State Fair is Dressing Up." Oregon Statesman (27 July 1921). 
"State Fair Will Proceed with Buildings." Oregon Statesman (8 March 1921). 
"Two Carloads ofEastern Chickens Coming." Northwest Poultry Journal 61, no. 9 
(September, 1921).