“FROM GREEN REFUGEE SHACKS TO COZY HOMES OF THEIR OWN”: SAN FRANCISCO’S EARTHQUAKE RELIEF COTTAGES AS VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE by ARIANNA URBAN A THESIS Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 2016 ii THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Arianna Urban Title: “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of their Own”: San Francisco’s Earthquake Relief Cottages as Vernacular Architecture This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation by: Kingston W. Heath, PhD Co-Chair Rick Minor, PhD Co-Chair and Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2016 iii © 2016 Arianna Urban iv THESIS ABSTRACT Arianna Urban Master of Science Interdisciplinary Studies: Historic Preservation June 2016 Title: “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of their Own”: San Francisco’s Earthquake Relief Cottages as Vernacular Architecture The 1906 earthquake and fire in San Francisco devastated the city and left 200,000 people homeless. To house the displaced population, small cottages were built in camps in the city’s parks. With the closure of the camps after one year, refugees were permitted to move their cottages and establish them as permanent homes elsewhere in the city, providing many with the opportunity for first time home ownership. Remarkably, some authenticated cottages have persisted through the decades in the urban landscape. A survey revealed 45 cottage sites; all have been greatly altered over their 110-year lifespans. These modifications make the relief cottages outstanding examples of vernacular architecture--an originally blank building that was moved and adapted according to the needs of its occupants. As such, the cottages reflect manifestations of significance and integrity that necessitate careful, creative evaluation to fit within the framework of modern historic preservation in the United States. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Arianna Urban GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Science, Historic Preservation, 2016 University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, History, 2011, Santa Clara University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: California History West and Southwest History and Architecture Modern Architecture Disaster Relief PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Preservation Intern, Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, Scottsdale, Arizona, Summer 2015. Historic Preservation Intern, City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, Summer 2014. Community Engagement Coordinator, City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Works Bureau of Street-Use and Mapping, 2011-2014. GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Student Presenter, University of Oregon Historic Preservation McMath Awards, 2016 Graduate Teaching Fellowship, Historic Preservation, University of Oregon, 2015 University of Oregon School of Architecture and Allied Arts, Intersections Competition, Historic Preservation program representative, 2015. vi PUBLICATIONS: Urban, Arianna. “Preservation Plan, Paramount Ranch Cultural Landscape Report.” University of Oregon Department of Landscape Architecture, Cultural Landscape Studio, 2015. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The beginnings of this thesis originated at the San Francisco Planning Department, where I also gained my first exposure to the field of historic preservation. My summer internship there gave me the confidence in my abilities and desire to succeed in the pursuit of my Master’s Degree in Historic Preservation, and for this I am grateful. Over the course of my research, several other institutions have provided me with the primary material necessary to gain firsthand access to the lives of earthquake cottage dwellers, for which I greatly appreciate: the San Francisco Public Library History Center, the National Archives and Records Administration, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Archives at the Presidio, and the Bernal Heights History Association. I am forever indebted to Jane Cryan, author of the unpublished refugee cottage history Hope Chest, who without which this thesis would be impossible. Her extensive research pointed me in many right directions, and her boundless enthusiasm, dedication, devotion, and commitment for earthquake shacks became a model for my own. Vicky Walker, of the Bernal Heights History Association, with whom I was able to connect with regrettably late in this process, has spent an incredibly generous amount of her time to help fill in the gaps in my shack research, and introduce me to other shack enthusiasts across the city. We are kindred earthquake shack spirits; going forward, her assistance will become paramount in any future cottage studies. Since my earliest days at the University of Oregon, I have found nothing but support and interest for my thesis, and was never made to feel foolish that I essentially entered graduate school with a thesis topic already under my arm. Chris Bell, Liz Carter, Shannon Sardell, Don Peting, and Robert Melnick have all expressed their encouragement and offered their time, guidance, and expertise. I am also grateful to viii Kristin Greiger; without her emotional support I would have been unable to reach this goal. My classmates, in listening to me talk about earthquake shacks far beyond their reasonable interest, also deserve my grateful recognition. I have had the honor to work with two exceptionally kind, understanding, and dedicated faculty in the development and execution of this thesis. Dr. Kingston Heath and Dr. Rick Minor have encouraged and pushed me to fulfill the maximum potential for both my research and writing on this topic, and my gratitude for their patience and help is eternal. Without them, I would never have had the ability to take my somewhat directionless obsession and focus it into an academic product, and their belief in my work and the topic has carried me through many of my fears and doubts. ix For my mother and father. With their love, anything is possible. x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 5 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 8 Research Methods .................................................................................................. 9 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 10 Intended Audience ................................................................................................. 10 II. COTTAGES IN HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................ 12 A Need for Permanent Temporary Housing .......................................................... 19 Genesis of the Refugee Cottage ............................................................................. 29 Style Versus Form.................................................................................................. 33 Realization of the Cottage Plan .............................................................................. 34 Camp Life .............................................................................................................. 37 Cottage Life ........................................................................................................... 43 Closing Camps and Moving Cottages.................................................................... 48 New Homes Away From Home ............................................................................. 56 III. COTTAGES AS VERNACULAR FORMS .......................................................... 62 Intentional Impermanence ..................................................................................... 62 What is Vernacular Architecture? .......................................................................... 63 The New Vernacular History ................................................................................. 67 Changes Over Time ............................................................................................... 68 xi Chapter Page Vernacular Performance Theory ............................................................................ 72 Refugee Cottages as Vernacular Forms ................................................................. 75 Architectural Blanks and Regionalism .................................................................. 78 Buildings as Primary Documents ........................................................................... 87 “Every Man is His Own Architect” – Cottage Modifications ............................... 88 IV. THE 2016 EARTHQUAKE COTTAGE SURVEY .............................................. 93 Earthquake Cottage Survey Analysis ..................................................................... 100 Time .............................................................................................................. 100 Space .............................................................................................................. 101 Form .............................................................................................................. 102 Function ........................................................................................................... 103 Technology ...................................................................................................... 103 A Complete Picture ................................................................................................ 104 V. COTTAGES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ................................................ 106 Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ........ 106 Character-Defining Features .................................................................................. 110 Integrity .................................................................................................................. 112 Location .......................................................................................................... 112 Design .............................................................................................................. 113 Setting .............................................................................................................. 113 Materials .......................................................................................................... 114 Workmanship ................................................................................................... 115 Feeling .............................................................................................................. 115 xii Chapter Page Association ....................................................................................................... 116 Significance, Eligibility, and the National Register of Historic Places ................. 117 The Society for the Appreciation of Earthquake Shacks ....................................... 123 Refugee Cottages and the San Francisco Planning Department ............................ 129 A Preservation Sea Change (Across the Sea) ........................................................ 130 Raging Against the (Preservation) Machine .......................................................... 131 VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 135 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 136 A. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ............................................................................... 136 B. EARTHQUAKE COTTAGE SURVEY FORM .............................................. 140 C. COTTAGE TYPOLOGY EXAMPLES............................................................ 141 D. HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY POSTER PROJECT ........... 147 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 148 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The devastation of San Francisco .......................................................................... 2 2. 1906 map showing the burned district. .................................................................. 3 3. Refugees as they fled the city ................................................................................ 12 4. An improvised camp in Mission Park .................................................................... 14 5. Tent camp in Speedway Meadow .......................................................................... 16 6. Title page of the San Francisco Relief Survey ....................................................... 21 7. Proposed relief shelters .......................................................................................... 23 8. Refugee Cottage Specifications ............................................................................. 32 9. Cottages in Jefferson Square await their shingles .................................................. 36 10. Close Quarters in Hamilton Square ....................................................................... 40 11. Mary Kelly’s ride ................................................................................................... 42 12. Potrero Park camp .................................................................................................. 43 13. Variations on siding and windows ......................................................................... 44 14. Cottage families from all walks of life .................................................................. 46 15. Cottage moving, Army Street ................................................................................ 49 16. House moving in Michigan with a horse and capstan ........................................... 53 17. Braced for impact ................................................................................................... 54 18. “Faces peering from the windows” ........................................................................ 55 19. “The first cottages in Villa Maria” ......................................................................... 58 20. “A plumber’s new start” ........................................................................................ 59 21. 1448 Kearny Street remains despite its location in Telegraph Hill ....................... 71 xiv 22. 369 Valley Street is easily overlooked ................................................................... 76 23. A southwest Montana trailer .................................................................................. 79 24. 81 Pearl Street is visually distinct .......................................................................... 81 25. Details of one-room Chicago fire shelter cottages ................................................. 85 26. One remaining fire shelter in Chicago ................................................................... 86 27. A refugee cottage converted to a comfortable home ............................................. 90 28. Three cottages joined together ............................................................................... 92 29. 3653 Folsom includes a garage .............................................................................. 99 30. GIS map of camps and cottages ............................................................................. 105 31. 233 Broad Street retains its small envelope and scale ........................................... 117 32. Goldie Shacks uncovered by Army soldiers .......................................................... 126 33. Goldie Shacks on the Presidio grounds ................................................................. 127 34. Newspaper wall lining is still visible ..................................................................... 128 35. Period and replica furnishings ............................................................................... 128 xv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Official refugee camps and locations ..................................................................... 27 2. Cottage size, dimensions, and cost to build ........................................................... 29 3. Cottage elements and materials ............................................................................. 30 4. Nationalities of cottage families ............................................................................ 47 5. Authenticated extant total resources ......................................................................93-95 6. Earthquake cottage typology ..................................................................................96-97 7. Cottage Totals Per Type ......................................................................................... 98 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION On the morning of April 17, 1906, San Francisco was a thriving city.1 Inundated with people and money since the Gold Rush days, by the beginning of 1906 San Francisco had hosted a world’s fair, created Golden Gate Park, one of the nation’s great city parks, and had rapidly grown into a humming metropolitan outpost on the American West Coast.2 By 1906, the city’s population had reached 460,000, the county line separating San Francisco and San Mateo Counties had been drawn, and the city had begun to take its signature 49-square-mile form.3 By the evening of April 18, 1906, much of San Francisco was in ruins. The largest shock hit the city at about 5:15 AM, lasted around 65 seconds, and was felt along the extent of the San Andreas Fault.4 Cities throughout the bay area--San Jose, Palo Alto, Santa Rosa, Redwood City, San Mateo, and Berkeley to name a few--experienced significant damage to residences, commercial, and municipal buildings alike; no building type was spared.5 In terms of today’s Richter scale, devised in 1935, the 1906 earthquake has been estimated from 7.8 to 8.3 in intensity6 (Figure 1). 1 Richard Linthicum, “Lest We Forget:” Complete Story of the San Francisco Horror (San Francisco: Hubert D. Russell, 1906), 33. 2 William Issel and Robert W. Cherny, San Francisco, 1865-1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 109-110. 3 Grove Karl Gilbert, et al., The San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of April 18, 1906 and Their Effects on Structures and Materials: Bulletin No. 234 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907): 134. 4 The Roebling Construction Company, ed., The San Francisco Earthquake and Fire: A Brief History of the Disaster (New York: Roebling Construction, 1906), 14. 5 Gerstle Mack, 1906: Surviving San Francisco’s Great Earthquake & Fire (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1981), 24-31. 6 Mack, 1906, 35. 2 Following the shaking, broken gas lines were swiftly ignited by survivors simply hoping to cook a meal, and the resulting fires that burned for three days following the earthquake leveled any surviving structures in the city’s core area. Attempts were made by the city’s inexperienced fire corps to halt the movement of the conflagration by dynamiting fire lines in several areas of the city, but they proved to be largely ineffective and ultimately caused more damage than good.7 Even buildings considered “fireproof” by turn-of-the-century standards were unable to withstand the 1906 disaster.8 At the time of the fire, more than 90 percent of the buildings in San Francisco were made out of wood, and it was wood-framed residences that suffered the worst fate at the hands of the fire.9 The best estimation of total ruined homes is 250,000, though it is likely even more 7 Mack, 1906, 43. 8 Roebling Construction, The San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, 33. 9 Gilbert, et al., Effects on Structures and Materials, 135. Figure 1: The devastation of San Francisco. (Image: San Francisco Public Library) 3 dwellings were destroyed.10 By the morning of April 20, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Telegraph Hill, the Tenderloin, downtown San Francisco, and much of the Mission District were in ruins. In all, the fire consumed 2,831 acres, 490 blocks, and 4.7 square miles of the heart of San Francisco, a fate substantially worse than the legendary fires of both London and Chicago11 (Figure 2). Much has been written about the San Francisco earthquake and fire. Richard Linthicum’s anthology “Lest We Forget” The Complete Story of the San Francisco Horror, and the Roebling Construction Company’s The San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, both published in 1906, are exceptional primary and firsthand reports of the disaster 10 Charles O’Connor, et al., The San Francisco Relief Survey: The Organization and Methods Of Relief Used After The Earthquake and Fire of April 18, 1906 (The Russell Sage Foundation, New York Survey Associates, 1913), 4. 11 William Bronson, The Earth Shook, the Sky Burned (Garden City: Doubleday & Company Inc, 1959), 83-84. Figure 2: 1906 map showing the burned district of San Francisco. Source: U.S. Army Special Report. 4 and its aftermath. William Bronson’s The Earth Shook, The Sky Burned, and Gerstle Mack’s 1906: Surviving San Francisco’s Great Earthquake and Fire, are popular contemporary accounts and serve to illustrate the great extent of the damage and its impact on San Francisco history. While these, and most, volumes on the earthquake mention the immediate housing crisis and the makeshift tent camps that sprang up around the city, they overlook the longer-term measures needed to the house the homeless, which involved substantial efforts to construct temporary cottages for the refugees in the city’s parks. This little- mentioned but vital part of the earthquake refugee experience deserves attention and consideration, as the cottages built at this time represent one of the few remaining components of the built environment in San Francisco that link directly to the disaster. At their conception, the shelters built to house the homeless displaced by the earthquake were officially called “refugee cottages,” and considered respectable solutions to the refugee crisis. Yet, almost immediately, they became colloquially referred to as “shacks,” as the term appears in nearly every newspaper article and personal account of the disaster. While period newspaper articles that refer to the “shacks” are tinged with notes of condescension, in the present-day the stigma around the term has been completely erased. Since the resurgence of the cottages in the public eye in the 1980s, they have been consistently known as “shacks” rather than “cottages,” and “shack” has now become the popular buzzword (and Google search term). This thesis presents a study of the earthquake refugee cottages, beginning with the history of the effort to house the homeless immediately after the disaster, and continuing with a survey of the 63 authenticated cottages that survive to the present day. The title quote is taken from a 1909 San Francisco Call article, “From Green Refugee Shacks To 5 Cozy Homes of Their Own,” which acted as both an inspiration and critical primary source for my research.12 All of the cottages still in existence have been greatly altered over their 110-year lifespans, and it is these modifications that make the relief cottages outstanding examples of vernacular architecture--an originally blank building that was moved and adapted according to the needs of its occupants. As such, the cottages reflect manifestations of significance and integrity that necessitate careful and creative evaluation to fit within the framework of modern historic preservation in the United States. Literature Review There is little available scholarly material in print about the earthquake refugee cottages. As they were generally disregarded as rudimentary shacks built for the working class in the aftermath of the earthquake, the cottages never received much scholarly attention. Some general volumes on the history of the 1906 earthquake history include perhaps one or two photographs of a cottage camp, and several studies of transitory housing and disaster relief planning make mention of the cottages, but they have been largely neglected in academic literature. The only current study of the earthquake cottages, Jane Cryan’s manuscript Hope Chest: The True Story of San Francisco’s 1906 Earthquake Shacks, remains unpublished. Her study provides some background information on the cottages and their origins, but focuses principally on the resurgence of the popularity of the cottages in the wake of several prominent demolitions in the 1980s and her role in the preservation of several cottages. 12 See Appendix A. 6 One academic volume on the relief effort, which outlines the plan for the refugee cottage program, was compiled in 1913 on commission by the associated Relief Committee. Officially titled The San Francisco Relief Survey: The Organization and Methods of Relief Used After the Earthquake and Fire of 1906, it is a lengthy collection of demographic data analyzed through the efficacy of the relief programs, evaluated six years following the disaster. The survey makes a substantial contribution to this thesis, as it goes in-depth into the ways in which the shacks were moved, then modified, and addresses the quality of life the cottage families experienced in the years following the disaster. A fortunate number of newspaper articles from the time of the earthquake and fire mention the refugee shacks, and several full-page features include detailed accounts of the cottage experience, complete with illustrations and photographs.13 These articles, written exclusively by journalists and relief strategists, tend to position the refugees squarely in a “deserving poor” mentality, and often speak of them as intelligent and capable, but ultimately helpless without the generous aid of charity organizations. However, when the traces of paternalism and condescension are sifted through, these articles present themselves as near-perfect primary sources for the investigation of earthquake cottages. To inform the study of the cottages as vernacular architecture, traditional vernacular scholarship was pertinent and enlightening in application to this thesis, and explicated well the vernacular identity of the refugee cottages. Henry Glassie14 and Dell 13 See Appendix A 14 Henry Glassie, Folk Housing in Middle Virginia, (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976). 7 Upton,15 scholars in the field of vernacular architecture studies, articulated the need for documentation, research, and preservation of America’s common houses--those buildings traditionally neglected by architectural historians due to their lack of high-style aesthetics. This field of study grew in conjunction with the emergence of the “new social history” of the mid-20th century, in which historians began to illuminate the stories of everyday people, up to that time disenfranchised by historical scholarship.16 Earthquake shacks easily fit into this mold; not only were they occupied by a marginalized population, but they also demonstrate ideal character as vernacular dwellings. Along with their social implications, the earthquake cottages merit study for their architectural qualities. A thesis for a Master’s of Architecture written by Sergio Amuntegui in 1989 explored the cottages in their “pure archetypal configuration” and discovered that their utmost utility and potential derived from their pure simplicity. 17 Susan Garfinkel, in her article “Recovering Performance for Vernacular Architecture Studies,” pushes the envelope of vernacular buildings even further beyond their recognition as personalized house forms. In her “performance theory,” vernacular resources are not only considered to be relics of the past useful for their information, but also the result of the changes over time made by their inhabitants. 15 Dell Upton, “The Power of Things: Recent Studies in American Vernacular Architecture.” American Quarterly 35, no. 3 (1983): 263-279. 16 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 265. 17 Sergio Amunategui, “Shelter, Dwellings, and Metamorphosis: Adaptations of the 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shelter in a Single Family Dwelling” (master’s thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1989), 22. 8 Conceptual Framework The earthquake cottages are a unique, but classic, example of the definition of vernacular architecture, as they have been moved, modified, and utilized primarily according to the needs of their inhabitants. The shacks were constructed to be temporary and removable, and their remarkable reuse as permanent dwellings points to both the resourcefulness of the refugees and the cottages’ worthwhile value as building forms. Their modifications continue to illustrate their historical narrative of a shared experience, and indicate that their history did not cease with the closing of the cottage camps in 1907. Instead, their narrative continues to the present day as an expression of a broad pattern of history of a certain place, people, and time. An analysis of the cottages through the lens of modern historic preservation theory--the National Historic Preservation Act and eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places--magnifies unique qualities of the cottages and the ways in which they do, and do not, fit the current framework of American historic preservation. A careful examination of their integrity illustrates the non-traditional nature of the cottages and how they manifest their character and authenticity in distinctive and successful ways. Though the earthquake shacks have been both moved and changed, it is because of these conditions, and not in spite of them, that they have survived to the present day. The historical narrative and the inherent meaning of the earthquake cottages would not be complete without their adaptations, which are integral to a comprehensive understanding of the dwellings, their place in history, and their modern meaning. Because historic preservation in the United States largely revolves around the National Register of Historic Places, I advocate for the significance of the cottages according to Criterion A: association with important events or broad patterns of history. 9 The earthquake relief cottages, as a group, are an important remaining aspect of the built environment linking to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which substantiates their eligibility together as a noncontiguous National Register Historic District. Research Methods A survey of all authenticated refugee cottages visible from the public right-of-way was conducted in the winter and spring of 2016. A survey form was created on which was compiled useful data about the current location, condition, materials, and details of the cottages, and this data was used to create a matrix to easily investigate the similarities and differences among the extant cottages.18 A useful product of this particular investigation was the development of a cottage building typology, which distinguished ten current form types based on correspondences in building massing and roof forms. This survey data was then compiled into an interactive GIS map,19 where patterns of cottage migration and concentrations in certain geographic areas are easily visualized. This map should prove useful in the future projection of where more undiscovered cottages may be located and from what camps they may have originated. The method presented in Thomas Carter and Elizabeth Cromley’s Invitation to Vernacular Architecture20 was used to synthesize the survey data. The five aspects of time, space, form, function, and technology, as applied to vernacular buildings, demonstrate how culture can determine behavior, and how behavior then determines 18 See Appendix B 19 See Section IV. 20 Thomas Carter and Elizabeth Collins Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture: A Guide to the Study of Ordinary Buildings and Landscapes (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2005). 10 physical environment. The patterns present in the cottage locations and forms, as examined through the five aspects, assist in peeling back the layers of adaptations to better understand changes in the cottages and how they have evolved through time. Purpose The purpose of this thesis is twofold. First, I will recount the history of the refugee cottages, focusing intently on their record as structures, and examine their materials and methods of construction. With a survey of all authenticated cottages, a better understanding of patterns in use and change over time can be explicated and a more complete understanding of the current diversity of the cottages can be gained. Second, I will advocate for the cottages within the framework of historic preservation. According to the current preservation agenda, the significant modifications of the cottages detract from their authenticity and integrity. However, with a creative and evocative interpretation of the seven aspects of integrity and the criteria for National Register eligibility, it is demonstrated that the refugee cottages, in their current state, remain as outstanding historic resources that communicate their significance in effective and meaningful ways. Intended Audience This research originated from investigations of the refugee cottages by the San Francisco Planning Department. My initial intent was to prepare this study in order to elucidate the idiosyncrasies and challenges that planners may confront when they are charged with a decision about the future of an earthquake cottage. This study has now grown to include discussions of historic context and vernacular forms. I hope this thesis 11 will serve to substantiate the significance of the relief cottages as important landmarks in the history of San Francisco, and encourage resourceful ways to think about the cottages and their continued presence on the urban landscape. Ultimately, I hope that the information that I provide may one day be considered for the San Francisco Property Information Map, an award-winning resource that holds the most comprehensive collection of data for every building in the city of San Francisco.21 Local historical societies, particularly the Bernal Heights History Association and the Western Neighborhoods Project, will hopefully find this thesis useful as they proceed with the identification and documentation of the refugee cottages. Additionally, any book that may one day become a reality from the material in this thesis will surely find a place in the collections of curious and caring San Franciscans, especially those who are fortunate enough to call an earthquake cottage their home. 21 propertymap.sfplanning.org 12 CHAPTER II COTTAGES IN HISTORIC CONTEXT For many survivors of the San Francisco earthquake, on April 18, 1906, the first instinct was to flee the city. They rushed to transport themselves and their families far away from the decimated city and left behind the ruins of their lives and homes for an unknown future. It is impossible to know just many of San Francisco’s 460,000 residents chose to abandon their city that lay in smoldering ruins.22 Even before the great fire was wholly contained, they streamed through the streets, toward downtown, and affixed their attention to the shores of the north, south, and East Bay23 (Figure 3). 22 William Bronson, The Earth Shook, the Sky Burned (Garden City: Doubleday & Company Inc, 1959), 51. 23 Bronson, The Earth Shook, 71. Figure 3: Earthquake Refugees as they fled the city. (Image: CBS News). 13 In the hours and days immediately following the earthquake, no special arrangements for transportation were made. 24 The Southern Pacific Railway, in control of the ferries and rail lines in the San Francisco Bay Area, threw open their entry gates and allowed the crowds to stream onto boats and trains alike. Refugees fled the city at a rate of 70 per minute, and did not stop until about 78,500 San Francisco residents had left the city behind.25 For some, the disaster provided a way out, a reason to escape the difficulties of city living and begin anew, and to jumpstart a new life in a new locale.26 However, a distinct segment of the city’s population remained within the confines of the city that had just dissolved around them. That first night, as the city burned, 300,000 people slept outdoors; afraid to return to their dwellings if they still stood, and without any other option if their homes did not. They improvised shelter from whatever material could be found: discarded debris suddenly functioned as roofs, kitchens, sleeping platforms, and latrines.27 It took nearly a week for everyone to find some spot to lay their heads, and it undoubtedly took equally long for some to find a moment to sleep at all. Soon, “in every convenient spot outside the burned district there speedily sprang up tent cities and temporary barracks, into which the destitute crowded as fast as they could” described the U.S. Army’s Special 1906 Report of their immediate disaster relief effort.28 24 Charles O’Connor, et al., The San Francisco Relief Survey: The Organization and Methods Of Relief Used After The Earthquake and Fire of April 18, 1906 (The Russell Sage Foundation, New York Survey Associates, 1913), 59. 25 U.S. Army, Pacific Division, Earthquake in California April 18, 1906: Special Report of Maj. Gen. Adolphus W. Greely, U.S.A., Commanding the Pacific Division, on the Relief Operations Conducted by the Military Authorities of the United States at San Francisco and Other Points, with Accompanying Documents (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906), 49-50. 26 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 61. 27 Bronson, The Earth Shook, 118. 28 U.S. Army, Special Report, 34. 14 These improvised refugee camps were short-lived. They quickly became unsanitary, unsavory, and unsafe, and it was nearly impossible to form an orderly system for the distribution of food and supplies amid the disorder (Figure 4). Many primary accounts mention impostor campers who found it far too easy to take advantage of the chaos, and managed to stockpile rations far greater than their honest allotment.29 In addition, the temporary camps were supervised by a plethora of different agencies and committees, which often upheld different standards and had little communication between each other.30 29 Jane Cryan, Hope Chest: The True Story of San Francisco’s 1906 Earthquake Shacks (unpublished manuscript, avail. San Francisco Public Library San Francisco History Center, 1999), 22. 30 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 20. Figure 4: An improvised earthquake refugee camp in Mission Park. (Image: San Francisco Public Library). 15 The first attempt to move away from makeshift camps and formalize encampments for the homeless came only one month after the disaster, with the addition of government-issued tents for the refugees (Figure 5). Major General Adolphus Greely, in command of the U.S. Army Presidio at the time of the earthquake, appointed Lieutenant Colonel R. K. Evans as “commander of permanent camps” on May 13, 1906.31 The boundaries of the first fifteen of what would ultimately total 31 permanent camps were drawn that day, many of which occupied spaces in the city’s public parks.32 Contrary to popular belief, martial law was never officially declared in the wake of the disaster, and the city as a whole always remained under the definitive control of the municipal government.33 These early camps, wholly regulated by the U.S. Army, were well organized, and had little occasion for disorderly conduct. An official Special Report Issued by the Army in 1906 stated: As to the inmates of these camps, there were no restrictions on personal conduct or liberty save for three purposes--those of decency, order, and cleanliness. Unless occupants were willing to conform to those three simple rules, they were obliged to forgo the benefits of government canvas, government bedding, and relief stores.34 There was no tolerance for camp dwellers that did not follow orders: All persons sheltered in permanent camps will render prompt and implicit obedience to the camp commander in regard to matters of decency, order, and sanitation. Any person ejected from a camp under military control for failure to obey proper orders of the camp commander will not be admitted to any other military camp.35 31 Cryan, Hope Chest, 16. 32 U.S. Army, Special Report, 71-72. 33 Bronson, The Earth Shook, 46. 34 U.S. Army, Special Report, 35. 35 U.S. Army, Special Report, 73. 16 These standards were not unreasonable. The Army reported that, “a not unimportant factor in the preservation of public health was the clean, orderly, and systematic life which was necessarily conducted by the occupants of these camps.”36 It was vital for the permanent camps to provide a standard of living as respectable as possible, in order to ensure the safety and security of all “inmates”37 and of course, prevent the spread of disease. Epidemics are generally of primary concern following a disaster in which large groups of people become displaced. The San Francisco earthquake and fire were no exception, and daily official reports of sanitary officers in each camp remark extensively 36 U.S. Army, Special Report, 36. 37 Term utilized in the Army Special Report Figure 5: Tent camp in Speedway Meadow in Golden Gate Park. (Image: OpenSF History). 17 on the sanitation situation and describe every new instance of illness.38 An enormous effort was made to vaccinate every single resident and staff person in the camps. Compulsory vaccination quickly became a condition of camp occupancy, though curiously, no reports comment on which diseases were the specific targets for vaccination. Smallpox and tuberculosis were the most concerning communicable diseases, but many other diseases were anticipated and prepared for by the staff doctors.39 Remarkably, the camp commanders had an astute understanding of contagion and disease. They ensured that the eating areas were kept free of flies, all water was boiled before use, and most importantly, that the latrine facilities were as far removed from the kitchens as possible.40 The germ theory of disease had only become accepted in the previous few decades, and the science of domestic disease prevention was still in its relative infancy.41 Yet, due to the shrewd directives and careful planning by the camp’s sanitary commanders, not one major outbreak of disease was recorded in the earthquake’s aftermath.42 Provisions for shelter in the permanent camps were good. A brief mistake was made in the attempt to erect emergency barracks in several camps, which turned out to be not only demoralizing, but also highly flammable and unsanitary. It was quickly realized 38 Inspection Reports of the Sanitary Officer of Camp 13, Franklin Square, May 1906, Box 1, Record Group 112, Correspondence and Related Records Pertaining to the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906, Records of the Office of the Surgeon General, Army General Hospital, Presidio of San Francisco, National Archives and Records Administration of the United States, San Bruno, California. (Hereafter cited as NARA Records) 39 Box 1, Reports of the Medical Officer, NARA Records. 40 U.S. Army, Special Report, 59. 41 Nancy Tomes, The Gospel of Germs: Men, Women, and the Microbe in American Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 28-49. 42 U.S. Army, Special Report, 33. 18 that tents afforded the most practical solution for rapidly constructible accommodations.43 Government-issued tents were provided to every family; each tent had a plank floor, and was subjected to daily ventilation and inspection, as “exposure of the interior of the tents to sunlight was insisted upon.”44 Each official tent camp included hot and cold running water, communal latrines, bath houses, laundry facilities, and full kitchens.45 Despite the relative security in the camps, the task of relocating all the city’s homeless was an uphill battle. Many refugees failed to trust the Army after they observed distasteful conduct by some soldiers during the turmoil of the fire.46 Some refugees outright refused to move into an official camp, and remained in their rough shelters made of everything from polling booths and railway cars, to underground cisterns and whatever else could be easily appropriated.47 In fact, many refugees believed that they were better able to care for themselves than any of the relief agencies, public or private, were able to care for them. Refugees living within the camps began to express their dissatisfaction with camp organization and the distribution of funds and supplies. They vocally protested against the living conditions, food allowances, and strict rules. By June, camp residents began to organize rallies around what they felt to be unfair dispersal of flour rations, and were effective in sparking a conversation about the future of the refugee situation.48 43 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 71. 44 U.S. Army, Special Report, 33. 45 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 79. 46 Bronson, The Earth Shook, 74. 47 Cryan, Hope Chest, 12. 48 Cryan, Hope Chest, 24-26. 19 A Need for Permanent Temporary Housing A shift toward a more permanent situation for the refugees began at the end of May and the early days of June 1906. Dr. Edward T. Devine, the leader of the Red Cross effort in San Francisco, began at this time to push for the provision of “shelter more adequate than that provided by the tents.”49 The San Francisco Relief Survey (Figure 6), the lengthy and detailed official document produced in 1913 to evaluate the efficacy of the relief effort, described the beginnings of the housing shift: During June and July, the pressure to give food and temporary shelter was yielding to the pressure to furnish permanent shelter and other means of rehabilitation. The problem of housing was very complicated. No one knew how far shelter would be provided by private enterprise; no one knew whether manufacturing plants and wholesale and retail business would seek old locations; no one knew where the shifting population would settle. There was delay in collecting insurance, uncertainty as to the land, labor, and materials available and as to the future street car [sic] service and water and sewer connections. There was difference of opinion as to whether subsidized building should be of a permanent or temporary character, of scattered individual dwellings or large blocks, as to whether financial aid should be in the form of bonuses or loans.50 As the need for permanent shelter became apparent, the necessity for an official, conglomerated relief effort became clear as well. Until June of 1906, the organizations guiding the execution of the relief efforts were varied and widespread. Government administrations, nonprofit groups, religious organizations, ladies’ charities, the U.S. Army, and some private citizens were all providing aid to refugees in a variety of ways. At this June turning point, it was decided that the entire relief effort would be released from the control of the Army and incorporated into one organization to be known as the 49 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 16. 50 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 21-22. 20 “San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Fund.”51 On July 20, 1906, this corporation was formed with former San Francisco Mayor James D. Phelan as its President, and with notable San Franciscans M.H. de Young and Rudolph Spreckles as members of the board. The Fund established headquarters at the still-standing Saint Francis Technical School on Geary and Gough Streets, and was structured into five departments: (1) Department of Finance and Publicity; (2) Department of Bills and Demands; (3) Department of Camps and Warehouses; (4) Department of Relief and Rehabilitation; (5) Department of Lands and Buildings.52 Not only was Major General Greely eager to retire the Army’s troops from the relief effort, but he also desired to put the multitudes of unemployed public officials back to work. Police officers, firemen, medical practitioners, and teachers would now have a role (and a steady income) in providing aid to the refugee population.53 Fortunately, the balmy weather of springtime in San Francisco simplified the earliest urgent needs for refugee shelter. Without harsh weather the tents served well: “the mildness of the climate, the abundance of canvas, and the considerable number of squares and public grounds”54 provided adequate conditions for the time being. However, with the impending rainy winter it was clear that more substantial refugee quarters were necessary. Before the weather turned cold and wet, the Army (though no longer in charge 51 Hereafter referred to as the “Relief Committee” 52 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 26. 53 Cryan, Hope Chest, 22. 54 Cryan, Hope Chest, 22. 21 of the camps) recommended that the Relief Corporation immediately begin construction of temporary buildings on public ground for at least 10,000 people55 The occupants of the refugee camps were largely working class and foreign born. The coordinators of the relief effort, largely well-to-do Americans, adopted an attitude of acute paternalism toward the refugees in their care. The Army’s special report outlined that the directions of the relief effort for the unfortunate needed to “stimulate individual resourcefulness, foster self-helpfulness, discourage dependence, and discount pauperism.”56 55 U.S. Army, Special Report, 34. 56 U.S. Army, Special Report, 40. Figure 6: Title page of the San Francisco Relief Survey. (Image: google books). 22 Writing on behalf of the Associated Charities, a nonprofit relief organization, Anna Pratt Simpson also exhibited this attitude of condescending protectiveness in her 1909 San Francisco Call article “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own.”57 To her, camp families were not “the vicious or really indolent, but inept; the people who could not initiate anything for themselves.. The outlook was not encouraging, but with this unlikely heritage of the calamity a miracle was wrought.”58 The work of the Associated Charities did in fact assist many “shiftless and unfortunate families” residing in the camps, but this organization’s approach was fundamentally patronizing and belittling.59 While the Relief Survey was also tinted with a shade of this condescension, the intentions of the organization for not only relief, but rehabilitation, were summarized in a more positive light: “In the field of relief we are discounting mere almsviging and are fighting for constructive treatment and permanent betterment…the idea of rehabilitation, of giving to those who have been left with the least a reasonable lift on the road to recovery [is] a natural fructifying of the modern philosophy of charity”60 There is little doubt that the intentions of the relief organizations were noble, and through documents like the Relief Survey, it is clear that the eventual post-camp improvement and successful continuation of lives of the refugees was not merely a happy accident but a targeted objective. 57 See Appendix A 58 Anna Pratt Simpson, “From Green Refugee Shacks To Cozy Homes of their Own,” The San Francisco Sunday Call, 2 May 1909. 59 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 86. 60 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, viii. 23 When the Relief Fund’s Finance Committee released a bid for proposals to construct permanent or semi-permanent refugee housing, applications streamed in from across the country. A builder from Chicago presented his plans for two-room portable houses made of pine with canvas roofs (Figure 7, right). A proposal from Michigan included prefabricated, modular nail-free houses with a folding interior stairway (Figure 7, middle)61. Several newspaper articles accompanied by line drawings illustrate some proposed alternatives. A San Francisco Chronicle article from August 9, 1906, shows a square, brick bungalow-type home with a pyramid roof and dormer windows. Another article dated July 21, 1906, depicts a tall, thin, front gabled two-story home with an attached kitchen and bathroom (Figure 7, left). However, out-of-town propositions were swiftly declined due to a desire to keep all design and labor local. Other, more local and proletarian ideas were tinged with practicality: ideas to construct refugee homes out of bricks from the fallen ruins of the city were sensible, but ultimately time consuming and fraught with issues of ownership and liability.62 61 Cryan, Hope Chest, 31. 62 Cryan, Hope Chest, 31. Figure  7:  Proposed  relief  shelters.  (Image:  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle). 24 While disagreements arose amongst many of the stakeholders in the relief effort, one issue remained uncontested: it was necessary and crucial to prevent any incarnation of relief housing that would resemble tenement-style living conditions. 63 New tenement regulations had been recently passed in New York in 1901, which strictly regulated the size, ventilation, water, and sanitation requirements of tenement apartments, and protected the rights of tenement occupants to livable conditions.64 However, among some of the local experienced relief organizations, tenement housing was a reflex solution for post-disaster shelter. Anna Pratt Simpson succinctly argued for tenement construction: The parks have to be cleared at a given time. There are no houses for these people to live in. What will be done with them? Some one must build tenements to house them – model ones, to be sure, but tenements….[there was] no solution but the building of tenement houses, those cancers of complex city life. Too bad, but they have to come. All big cities have them. Handicapped as she is, San Francisco cannot be the exception.65 Yet, “those cancers of complex city life” were never constructed. The Red Cross and the members of the Relief Fund were acutely aware of the living conditions of the poor “before they were burned out”66 and many refugees did indeed come from rented quarters that were akin to tenement-style dwellings. Though the reconstruction of hazardous tenement conditions seemed all but unavoidable, judicious and thoughtful actions were fortunately taken in order to prevent it.67 63 Cryan, Hope Chest, 31. 64 Roy Lubove, “Lawrence Veller and the New York State Tenement House Commission of 1900,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47, no. 2 (1961): 673. 65 Anna Pratt Simpson, From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own. 66 Anna Pratt Simpson, From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own. 67 Some barracks-style refugee housing was constructed at official camps in South Park and Golden Gate Park – Speedway. 25 The Department of Lands and Buildings, under the direction of Tom Magee, settled on a plan for mass-produced, but not prefabricated, refugee housing. However, the strategy for the structures themselves was only one portion of the problem; the location for the permanent shelters was equally problematic. Real estate companies saw a money- making opportunity, and proposed to have large camps assembled on private land in the outlying areas of the city. Several developers also proposed to build permanent model communities that would be occupied by the displaced in perpetuity. San Francisco Mayor Eugene Schmitz, (who would be indicted for graft within the year), pushed for permanent homes constructed by private builders and sold to the refugees for a profit.68 Magee decided against construction on private lands, due to complications with lease agreements. If the Relief Corporation were to lease private property, it would need to exist as an institution for at least five years, a requirement that garnered little interest. The relief effort needed to be officially completed as soon as responsibly possible, and would thus involve the dissolution the Relief Corporation sooner than a five-year mark. Furthermore, the real estate firms wished to construct the camps on “large tracts of unimproved land [that] as a rule were situated in outlying and inaccessible districts. Practically all of those who were seeking shelter had formerly lived near the business center of the city…they had no desire to take up permanent residence in an outlying district where excessive expenses would have to be incurred.”69 The fear that San Francisco’s working class-turned-refugees would entirely vacate the city if not provided 68 Cryan, Hope Chest, 30-32. 69 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 217. 26 with adequate and practical shelter motivated the Relief Corporation to develop a more suitable solution.70 On July 31, before Parks Superintendent John McLaren was even consulted, Magee designated 11 public parks and squares to serve as settings for the new shelters, largely due to their proximity to centers of employment.71 The camp numbers signify their status as one of the 32 total official refugee camps, the others either remained as tent camps, had barracks constructed for unmarried refugees, or became a “model camp” with institutional buildings to care for the elderly and invalid (Table 1). The city’s parks were ideal locations for refugee camps. They were subject to responsible policing, had access to good sanitation, would provide a respite from graft and favoritism, and were, ultimately, situated near places of work and industry.72 The shelter effort was additionally motivated by a very real problem, as the real estate supply in the city after the disaster was, quiet simply, dire. Before the earthquake, most refugee families had been paying $8 to $12 a month in rent for their quarters, and if left without any assistance post-earthquake they would have to pay at least four times as much for a comparable number of rooms. Anna Simpson Pratt wrote, “To complicate matters further, accommodations, even at the quadrupled price, were extremely limited.”73 70 Cryan, Hope Chest, 30. 71 Cryan, Hope Chest, 32. 72 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 84. 73 Anna Pratt Simpson, From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own. 27 Refugees had thus far been occupying the tent camps rent-free. According to the Relief Survey, when the Relief Corporation decided to move ahead with the plans for more permanent refugee housing: …it was thought best to charge a nominal rental. The argument was that to give everything and ask nothing in return, on the one hand killed the self-respect of the efficient class and on the other hand gave opportunity to the idle to shirk all civic and social responsibility.74 74 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 83. Table 2: Official refugee camps and locations. Table 1: Official refugee camps and locations. 28 The plan was made public on August 1, 1906.75 The San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Fund would be the lessor of the new accommodations, and the refugee the lessee. However, the lease itself would be in fact a contract of purchase, for the tenant would become the official owner of the shelter if rent was paid in full through August 1, 1907. On that day, occupants would be responsible for removal of the shelter from the camp at their own expense, or risk forfeiture of the property.76 Finally, the Relief Corporation asked the Park Commission and Superintendent McLaren for permission to occupy the parks. Without any authority to do so, the Parks Commission agreed to allow the new shelters to be constructed in the parks and squares “on the understanding that such use was for a period of not more than one year.”77 Nothing in the parks’ by-laws allowed them to strike this type of deal, and in fact, it was quickly found illegal for the public agency to collect rent on housing located on city property.78 To remedy the situation, the Relief Fund and the Park Commission reached a “non-agreement agreement.”79 The monthly payments would be considered not rent, but “installments” toward: …a contract of purchase and sale, whereby the occupant agreed to buy outright the house occupied by him and to pay for it in monthly installments which equaled the rent formerly agreed upon. The amounts advanced on the properties by the occupants were later refunded to those who purchased lots on which to move their [new] houses.80 75 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 82. 76 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 83-84. 77 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 84. 78 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 222. 79 Cryan, Hope Chest, 32. 80 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 222. 29 The installments were in the amount of $2 per month, and were not to total more than $60. Refugees would then be eventually refunded their installment payments “upon satisfactory personal rehabilitations and removal of the house from the campsite.”81 From the start, then, the Relief Commission took into consideration that the plan to house the homeless should also include a way to elevate the status of the refugees; to lift them out of a perpetual rent-paying cycle and possibly even into the position of home ownership.82 Genesis of the Refugee Cottage The ultimate design selected for the new permanent shelters was a joint effort between the Relief Corporation’s Department of Buildings and Lands, the Army, and the San Francisco Parks Department. It was to be a very small, front gabled cottage,83 with one door and three windows.84 An idea to vary the cottages in design to “avoid ugliness” was proposed, 85 but ultimately they became uniform and adopted three sizes (Table 2). 81 Cryan, Hope Chest, 32. 82 Cryan, Hope Chest, 30. 84 Cryan, Hope Chest, 32. 85 “Small Houses for the Poor,” The San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 1906, p. 16. Table 3: Cottage size, dimensions, and cost to build. 30 Several contractors, both local and out-of-state, were awarded refugee cottage contracts: William Mackie; L. Swenson; The Home Building & Construction Company; and the Leonard-Frost Company all participated in the significant construction effort.86 The Department of Lands and Buildings hired exclusively union labor to construct the cottages, which consisted of redwood wall planks, fir floorboards, and cedar shingles87 (Table 3). All building materials for the refugee cottages needed to be transported to San Francisco from outlying parts of California, as the Bay Area’s building materials had been rush-purchased by speculators soon after the earthquake. Two proprietary planing mills, solely to process earthquake cottage materials, were erected in the South of Market district in order to cut the lumber locally and save costs.88 The cottages were assembled using the box-frame construction method. The flimsy walls were devoid of studs and composed only of ¾” thick boards attached to a sill and top plate (Figure 8). Cottage doors were hung in two styles but were mostly four- or five-panel wood, and painted white to increase nighttime visibility. Casement windows were situated on the front and rear elevations, generally 6-light, and opened either inward 86 Cryan, Hope Chest, 33. 87 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 82. 88 Cryan, Hope Chest, 32. Table 4: Cottage elements and materials. 31 or outward, depending on the position of the cottages in the camp.89 Their interior configurations were varied--some remained single-room, while larger cottages were sometimes divided into two and three rooms.90 Ultimately, when the cottages were actually constructed, the builders did not always adhere to the design specifications. Period photographs from cottage camps show many variations in size, fenestration, location, and detailing. The exterior paint color “Park Bench Green” was selected by Superintendent McLaren, who was notoriously unhappy with the presence of the refugee cottages in his public parks. He settled on the notion that a green color would blend best with the park setting, and perhaps make the cottages less noticeable.91 A galvanized metal chimney flue was installed on the right rear roof slope of every cottage.92 The flues were attached to either a coal or wood-burning stove, sold by the Relief Corporation to the refugees at cost.93 Adequate heating was a delicate balance in the cottage camps: Families wishing to escape the maintenance of wood- and coal-burning stoves and oil lamp lighting could buy a gas stove from the Relief Corporation that, depending on the model, cost from $5.25 to $8.00. A fee of 50 cents per month for one gas jet and 25 cents per months for each additional jet for lighting was levied by the Relief Corporation. Most refugee families opted for less expensive heating and lighting methods.94 89 Several camps were so tightly packed that sliding windows replaced casement-style to avoid bumping into neighboring cottages or the foreheads of camp-dwellers. 90 Lester Walker, Tiny, Tiny Houses, (Woodstock: Overlook Press, 1987), 69-73.; Cryan, Hope Chest, 33. 91 Cryan, Hope Chest, 32. 92 Walker, Tiny Houses, 69. 93 It is a miracle that no major fires were ever recorded in the cottage camps. 94 Cryan, Hope Chest, 38. 32 Figure 8: Refugee cottage specifications. (Image: Lester Walker, Tiny Houses, p. 69.) 33 Style Versus Form While the refugee cottages may arguably be a style in their own right, they largely do not adhere to any one traditional architectural style. The turn of the 20th century in San Francisco saw a gradual departure from the highly embellished Queen Anne and Stick- Eastlake styles in residential architecture, and a migration of builders and architects toward the more understated Craftsman-style.95 At the time of their construction, the relief cottages displayed none of the elements of popular architectural style. However, when eventually relocated to private lots away from the refugee camps, many cottages were beautified and disguised by their owners with Craftsman-style and Queen Anne-style elements, among many variations. Wood double-hung windows, exterior shingles, porches, bay windows, and exterior embellishments all appeared on the newly relocated dwellings.96 Despite the cottages’ lack of architectural style as built, their form was not entirely novel.97 With a combination of both simplicity and versatility, the front-gabled cottage is a highly adaptable form type, and is found in both rural and urban environments around the United States. The front-gabled cottage has origins in English medieval forms, and was developed and influenced in the 19th and 20th centuries by Tudor Revival pattern books. Front-gabled cottages became so popular that Sears 95 The Junior League of San Francisco, ed., Here Today: San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1968), 7. 96 See shack survey information in Section II, and Appendix C. 97 A discussion of similar relief cottages in Chicago will follow in Section II. 34 advertised a small-front gabled home kit in the company’s catalogue, called “Modern Home No. 105,” from 1908-1910, right around the time of the earthquake.98 Realization of the Cottage Plan With the design, funding, and space considerations for the cottages sorted out during August 1906, it appeared that construction was ready to begin. Yet, much like the myriad of difficulties present across the entire spectrum of the relief effort, the execution of the refugee cottages, officially titled the “Cottage Plan” by the Relief Survey, was met with several strategic delays. Financially, some East Coast donors were unhappy with the sudden consolidation of the relief effort into the conglomerate San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Fund, and placed a stay on their donations until the new monetary and administrative partnerships were made clear.99 Delays in construction also came from inflated post-disaster labor costs, the preoccupation of many local contractors, lateness of insurance adjustments, and the fundamental uncertainty of which neighborhoods of the city would be regenerated for commercial and residential uses. Additionally, issues with building material supply and demand proved to be a large hurdle. Private builders had quickly purchased all the available lumber and supplies in the wake of the fire, and the Buildings and Lands Committee was forced to source lumber and shingles from outside the region and wait for them to arrive by train.100 Ultimately, by August, many of the vital needs of refugees still had not been met, and “the extraordinary amount of work involved in supplying food, clothing, water, sanitary 98 Herbert Gottfried and Jan Jennings, American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors: 1870-1960 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009), 137. 99 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 216. 100 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 216. 35 protection, and temporary shelter” provided the greatest delay in moving forward with the refugee cottages.101 In his memoir, George Leonard, part owner of the Leonard-Frost Company hired to build the dwellings, remarked “we will never make any money, but we will at least break even and these people have got to have housing.”102 This mode of determination to assist the relief effort ran through contractors, the Relief Corporation, and labor unions alike, and despite the difficult setbacks, together they planned to have 4,000 cottages constructed by October 25, 1907.103 Construction commenced on September 10, 1906, and continued steadily until March of the following year.104 Execution of the relief cottages was a feat in both design and construction, and the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the contractors were paramount to the remarkably swift construction of the cottages. Though they were not pre-fabricated per se, their assemblage was manufactured for speed and cost-effectiveness. Everything but the floorboards was pre-cut to size at the planing mill, so little lumber would have to be modified on-site, and only tall laborers were hired to avoid the necessity of scaffolding.105 The entirety of the material needed for one house was laid out at the structure’s footprint ahead of the laborers’ arrival, and small groups were assigned to 101 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 82, 217. 102 Cryan, Hope Chest, 35. 103 Cryan, Hope Chest, 34. 104 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 221. 105 Cryan, Hope Chest, 35. 36 construct each structure from start to finish, excepting the roof shingles106 The wage for the “common laborers” was $2.50 per day, skilled carpenters earned $4.00 daily, and in the early weeks of construction, they were erecting more than 25 shacks per day. Shinglers, however, unionized on the jobsite and demanded an increase in wages from $3.75 to $4.00 to match the carpenters. They held out during the middle of construction, and soon more than 200 shacks were completed but stood without roof shingles (Figure 9). The shinglers and contractor’s foremen were forced to negotiate a deal, and they reached an agreement for wages of $3.75 per shack rather than per day. Despite the arrangement being wholly against union rules, the cottages did receive their shingles.107 106 Cryan, Hope Chest, 36. 107 Cryan, Hope Chest, 35. Figure 9: Cottages in Jefferson Square await their shingles. (Image: Western Neighborhoods Project.) 37 The first twenty provisional cottages were ready for occupancy at Camp 20 in Hamilton Square on September 16, 1906, only six days after the beginning of construction and 151 days since the earthquake.108 It was another two-to-three months before a considerable number of cottages were ready for refugees, but they proved to be immediately popular and were occupied as quickly as they could be constructed.109 Camp commanders designated the following order of tenancy for the shacks: (1) those families already living in official refugee camps; (2) families living in tents and makeshift shelters elsewhere in the city, and; (3) citizens of San Francisco who had been forced to lodge with friends and family outside the city.110 Camp Life Between September 1906 and June 1908, the refugee camps cost the Relief Committee $884,558.81 to construct, and an additional $453,000.04 to maintain, at a daily maintenance cost of 6 cents per cottage.111 Predictably, the camps were a challenge to execute and sustain, as they were charged with providing for every domestic and infrastructural need of the cottage families. Individual cottages lacked their own plumbing and utilities, and in order to convert the previous tent camps into cottage camps, 667 patent flush toilets, 247 hoppers, 6 miles of gas and water pipe, 325 108 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 82. 109 “Relief Cottages Completed,” The San Francisco Call, September 18, 1906. 110 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 83.; The relief survey makes a brief note that “Some who had not been burned out, but needed to be better housed, received cottages and moved them for permanent use to lots which they owned or leased.” If some shacks indeed never made it into a camp and were immediately used for private residence around the city, I have not been able to substantiate or investigate this further. 111 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 86. 38 galvanized sinks, and 624 gas brackets were installed across the 11 cottage camps to fashion communal kitchens, baths, and laundry facilities for the inhabitants.112 Sanitation was of the utmost importance to the camp supervisors. The strict rules of decency, order, and cleanliness, in place since the days of Army camp administration, were still considered gospel in the refugee cottage camps. Remarkably, any outbreaks of disease were swiftly contained and no major epidemics afflicted the cottage camps under the organization of the Relief Committee. Each camp was assigned a skilled team of surgeons, doctors, and nurses to treat patients on location, and a greater staff of ambulance drivers, pharmacists, social workers, and firefighters were employed on retainer by the Relief Committee to respond to emergencies in any camp as needed.113 Physical life safety issues in the camps were more ambiguous, as the irony of the earthquake shacks themselves not being earthquake-proof appears to have been either overlooked by or lost on the relief officials.114 By design, plank frame structures are not sturdy and do not perform well under shear force. The cottages, with their lack of stud wall construction and solid foundations, would likely have tumbled and splintered apart in the event of another earthquake. The threat of fire was perpetually imminent, and with the presence of stoves in each shack, was difficult to police with any real diligence. The camp officials took some provisions; emergency cisterns of water were present at every 112 Cryan, Hope Chest, 32. 113 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 91-92. 114 Of course, to build earthquake-proof temporary refugee housing would have been logistically impossible, but I have not been able to locate any intimation of the issue or dilemma amongst decision- makers. 39 camp,115 and it is incredible that fire never caused any significant damage to a cottage camp.116 Life in the 11 official cottage camps was difficult, tedious, arduous, tiresome, cramped, demanding, noisy, and sometimes dangerous (Figure 10). Inhabitants of the camps had recently lost most of their earthly possessions, and had little choice but to try and make the best of their new living situation. While some campers certainly embraced their circumstances, newspapers were always quick to publish sordid stories of life in the camps and their sorry inhabitants. Accounts of drunken parents, neglected children, lecherous teenagers, violent altercations, armed robberies, and untimely deaths presented the camps to the greater public as acutely unfavorable places. Even Parks Superintendent McLaren seethed that the camps were “pestholes, breeding a pauper class, and a menace to the welfare of the community…a harbor for thieves and vagabonds and full of disease and crime.”117 However, some accounts did find the camps a charming and successful solution to the refugee crisis. The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article that considered them Picturesque and full of interest, especially at dusk when the fogs steal in and wrap them in their soft gray mists, when the lights of the little many-paned windows creep out, one by one, and lend their half timid luminance to the scene.118 115 Inspection Reports of the Commanding Officer of Permanent Camps, 12 May 1906, Box 1, Record Group 112, Correspondence and Related Records Pertaining to the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906, Records of the Office of the Surgeon General, Army General Hospital, Presidio of San Francisco, National Archives and Records Administration of the United States, San Bruno, California. 116 Louis J. Stellman, “Moving 20,000 Refugees,” The San Francisco Chronicle, August 11, 1907.; O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 91. 117 Cryan, Hope Chest, 46. 118 Cryan, Hope Chest, 46. 40 Undeniably, there were suggestions of civility amidst the unpleasantness of camp life. Several camps even opened schools “with a view of guarding [children] against the lowering tendencies of camp life.”119 Whether the camp occupants themselves were content or unhappy, many cared deeply for their temporary homes and environments. A Mrs. Mary Kelly, who we only know as “a woman past the age of 50 years,” became notorious for crusading for refugee rights. She made it her personal struggle to agitate against anything she felt might be an injustice in the camps. Kelly habitually unrightfully occupied any refugee cottages she saw fit, and consistently refused to pay her rent installments, in protest of (what she felt 119 U.S. Army, Special Report, 36. Figure 10: Close quarters in Hamilton Square. (Image: OpenSF History.) 41 to be) suspicious and underhanded conduct by the relief officials. She became a newspaper sensation, and her ongoing saga served as an overdramatized characterization of the ups and downs of refugee cottage life itself120 (Figure 11). Many other camp inhabitants also brought disputes in camp procedure to light, as in December of 1906 when a widespread rent dispute permeated through the cottage camps. As the refugees had previously lived rent-free in tent camps, some argued that they had been unfairly forced to pay rent for a new shack they did not wish to occupy. While the cottage camps were being built up around them, the dissenters refused to vacate their tents, and the San Francisco Police Department was forced to briefly intervene and involuntarily remove the protesting campers from their canvas shelters. Mayor Eugene Schmitz fueled the dispute with his vocal opinion that rent should never be collected on occupants of buildings on public lands, and furthermore, any family with the ability to pay $2 to $6 per month was not considered needy and did not deserve to live in a refugee cottage at all.121 Overall, tensions often ran high in the camps, but the they were viewed by both the public and the cottage dwellers as necessary and adequate solutions to the refugee problem. 120 “Mrs. Mary Kelly Defies Relief Corporation and Takes Ride in Cottage to Ingleside,” The San Francisco Call, November 4, 1906.; O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 41-45. 121 Cryan, Hope Chest, 38-29. As there were few endeavors in San Francisco that infamous labor boss Abe Ruef did not have his hand in, the newspapers speculated that he exerted his notorious influence over Mayor Schmitz and was the actual instigator of the cottage rent dispute. Truly, no examination of turn-of- the-century San Francisco would be comprehensive without a cameo appearance by Boss Ruef. 42 Figure 11: Mary Kelly's Ride. (Image: The San Francisco Chronicle). 43 Cottage Life Over the course of their short lives, some of the cottage camps reached the magnitude and efficacy of a small city.122 This achievement can be seen from the many available historic photographs which depict veritable seas of earthquake shacks, whose gabled rooftops undulated over the hilly topography of the city (Figure 12). A total of 5,610 shacks were constructed by the Relief Corporation; of these, 4,068 had three interior rooms, and the remaining 1,542 had a two-room layout.123 Though cottage contractors likely had a set of construction standards to build to, in reality, not all shacks were built identically. Historical images of cottages and camps show several variations in shack siding, shape, foundation, color, and fenestration type and placement. 122 Cryan, Hope Chest, 46. 123 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 221. Figure 12: Potrero Park camp. (Image: Western Neighborhoods Project). 44 Cottage residents began to alter and modify their dwellings while they still inhabited the camps. The unchinked plank walls of the cottages were highly porous and necessitated several layers of interior burlap or newspaper to fend off the elements.124 Some domestically-minded refugees hung muslin or lace curtains in cottage windows to create a “homey” environment in the bleak camps. The San Francisco Call’s October 1907 article “Enrichment of the Refugees” professed: “Many families have already begun the improvement of their homes while still in the camps.125 They have papered the rooms or even put up extra paneling. Shelves and other gimcracks add to their attractiveness.” Some camps allowed even more dramatic modifications to the cottages, with some sporting front porches, landings, sheds, and even exterior stucco126 (Figure 13). 124 One firsthand account recalls fog going inside and settling in the shacks. 125 Hanna Astrup Larsen, “Enrichment of the Refugees,” The San Francisco Call, October 20, 1907. 126 Cryan, Hope Chest, 46. Figure 13: Variations in siding and windows. (Image: San Francisco Public Library). 45 In spite of their temporary nature, the cottages themselves held up well as family dwellings. Aside from the threat of fire that thankfully never materialized, the refugee cottages were remarkably well built and substantial for their size and framing type. The Relief Committee went so far to report that “considering the number of cottages made habitable, we have had very few complaints as to the workmanship…this comment couldn’t be made in connection with many houses erected by regular contractors.”127 While this was likely not entirely the case, it is a nice sentiment that echoes the general satisfaction refugees felt with their provisional new homes. The San Francisco Relief Survey tactfully refers to residents of the refugee camps as “members of the efficient class,” and while many cottage dwellers were indeed of the working class, in reality the disaster forced together San Franciscans from across the socioeconomic spectrum (Figure 14). While the earthquake and fire did disproportionally affect lower income populations, rich and poor alike found themselves homeless in the wake of the disaster.128 Most camp families were two-parent households with two to three young children, but a significant number were also widows, “deserted wives,” (a designation which warranted its own category in the survey charts), the aged, infirm, or invalid.129 127 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 86. 128 Bronson, The Earth Shook, 106. 129 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 224. 46 Most cottage families had been self-sufficient before the earthquake, many with breadwinners who earned their wages through service or mechanical work. Yet, with the destruction of both their homes and places of employment, they now became fully dependent on the relief effort for survival through no fault of their own.130 These residents represented nationalities from many parts of the world. Irish, Italian, German, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and French populations mingled together in refugee cottage camps, which became de facto heterogeneous centers of multiculturalism in the city’s public parks131 (Table 4). Asian refugees were marginally represented in the camps, as only 37 out of the 153 cottages in Portsmouth Square, nearest to Chinatown, were allotted 130 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 226-227.; Cryan, Hope Chest, 22. 131 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 223. Figure 14: Cottage families from all walks of life. (Image: California State Library). 47 to Chinese families. The Japanese refugee population was largely relocated to the East Bay, and was assisted mostly by a relief fund established by the Japanese national government. In both cases, most Chinese and Japanese refugee families mostly did not apply for aid or shelter from the Relief Fund, opting instead to distance themselves from the official camps.132 The U.S. Army’s Special Report noted that “it is gratifying to report that…no relief committee has shown discrimination against the Chinese…,” though it is very likely that prejudice against the Asian refugee populations did occur in the cottage camps.133 The official Relief Survey summarized cottage camp life as a melting pot of people and attitudes: The large number of cottages erected made it necessary to place them close together. In the parks regular streets were laid out on which the cottages fronted with very little space intervening between the buildings. The compact housing of 132 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 95. 133 U.S. Army, Special Report, 46. Table 5: Nationalities of cottage families. (Source: The San Francisco Relief Survey, p. 233.) 48 people meant that in some cases respectable people were compelled to associate to a certain extent with the less desirable. On the whole, however, the general moral conditions were not bad, the statements of some that the camp environment was bad for young people being offset by those of others that they had been able to maintain their accustomed moral standards. Naturally, the families whose living conditions had been most favorable before the disaster were the ones most tried by the abnormal camp life.134 Closing Camps and Moving Cottages According to the “non-agreement agreement” struck between the Relief Corporation and Parks Superintendent John McLaren, the city’s parks were to be cleared of the shelters after a period of no more than 12 months.135 However, when this time arrived, around August of 1907, camp occupants were initially unhappy about what they felt to be forced removal from their homes.136 Yet, as it became clear that cottage tenants would, in fact, be refunded their promised rental installments and be permitted to remove their dwellings, their reluctance waned and the camps rapidly began to clear.137 Fortunately, the cottage plan had been as well organized as it was executed. While the cottages were anticipated to be used as temporary shelter for the first winter following the earthquake, they were simultaneously planned to be “buildings of a portable kind,” so “if [the refugees] desired to take the buildings with them, they will be given possession.”138 With the refugees able to remove the cottages from the camps themselves and use them for permanent shelter on private lots around the city, the closure of the 134 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 231. 135 “Fifteen Hundred Cottages Gone,” The San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 1907. 136 “Jefferson Park Will Be Clear,” The San Francisco Chronicle, August 23, 1907. 137 “Mission Park Free of Camps,” The San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 1907. 138 “First of Relief Cottages Erected in Hamilton Square,” The San Francisco Chronicle, September 17, 1906. 49 camps did not create a second refugee crisis. Nearly every refugee in the camps would have somewhere to go, as: The largest of the camps have given shelter to as many as a small town; and when the order was given to have the parks cleared a few weeks ago, there were two problems confronting the city – where to provide homes for the 14,000 people still remaining in the camps and what to do with something more than 5,000 cottages occupying the public squares. The two problems solved each other beautifully. The houses and the houseless ones have come together by the simple process of taking up the cottages from their places in the camp, placing them on big trucks and moving to some vacant and available place big enough to hold it. Refugees who have lived in their cottages and paid rent, or as it is called to avoid the technicality of the law, installments, on their homes, are refunded the money. Those who have not paid anything can buy a cottage of two rooms for $35 or one with three rooms for $50. The cost of moving, together with the plumbing and other necessaries, seldom amounts to more than $100 and when several families can settle close together the cost of water pipes may be lessened. Those who have been paying their monthly installments for some time generally have to their credit the sum necessary to purchase the cottage and maybe the cost of moving it.139 (Figure 15) 139 Larsen, “Enrichment of the Refugees.” Figure 15: Cottage moving, Army Street. (Image: California Historical Society.) 50 Refugees were not permitted to remove their cottages at will; they were only allowed to do so under several conditions.140 First, a “certificate of cleanliness” was required by the Department of Health to verify that the cottage was free of vermin, and most importantly, a proof of deed to an actual lot within the San Francisco Bay area was mandatory before removal was allowed.141 Thus, a refugee family needed to be financially stable enough to either purchase a lot or pay ground rent before they could assume ownership of their cottage. Ultimately, despite all of its trials and challenges, the rental installment plan worked extraordinarily well; 5,343 of the 5,610 cottages constructed were moved and used for permanent housing, and $109,373 of the $117,521.50 total rent collected was repaid to the refugees. Only $8,148 in payments went unreturned.142 McLaren and the Parks Commission were not sad to see the cottages go, as the presence of the camps in the city’s parks was seen as a blemish to both the reputation and use of the public open spaces. At the beginning of the removal process in August 1907, each cottage cost its owners an additional $50 to $70 to buy out before it could be relocated. Within a month, this fee was reduced to $35 to $50, and soon eradicated entirely at the request of the Parks Commission, who urged the Relief Committee to streamline removal procedures in order to vacate the camps as quickly as possible.143 As many as 50 shacks per day were evacuated from the camps during the peak removal 140 “Exodus of Refugees Begins From Parks,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 8, 1907. 141 “Installments Are Refunded,” The San Francisco Chronicle, March 27, 1907.; The San Francisco Relief Survey, 85. 142 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 222. 143 Cryan, Hope Chest, 47. 51 period in fall 1907. Surplus cottages soon became so abundant that camp families were permitted to remove as many cottages as they were able, free of charge; eventually, “worthy applicants” from outside the camps were permitted to purchase extra shelters as well.144 As the city’s landlords greatly inflated rent prices immediately following the earthquake and fire, it became significantly more feasible for a working class family to arrange for a private lot for their cottage than to relocate back to a rental unit.145 In fact, the concept of ground rent was new to post-disaster San Francisco, and quickly became the norm for many cottage families, as a ground rent agreement ranged from $6 to $15 per month, while lot purchases could exceed $3000. During the removal process, the greatest costs incurred by refugee families were the fee charged by house movers to relocate their cottages. Moving prices varied by distance, number of cottages, and lot accessibility, but ranged from $12 to $100. Often, landlords would advance the family funds to relocate their home to the new plot of land, and they would then pay a monthly ground rent and repay the moving advance. As a result, the cottage family owned the building, but not the land it sat on.146 A notice of evacuation was posted in the refugee cottage camps, “in nearly every civilized language known to mankind.” It stated: NOTICE: Occupants of refugee cottages in public squares are hereby notified that by order of the Park Commissioners, all refugees must move as soon as possible, and that no cottage will be allowed to remain in the city parks after the seventeenth of August, 1907.147 144 “Many Refugees Move Each Day,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 27, 1907. 145 Larsen, “Enrichment of the Refugees.” 146 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 222-223. 147 Stellman, “Moving 20,000 Refugees.” 52 Of course, this goal of August 17, 1907 was decidedly ambitious, and the last official cottage camp at Lobos Square would not close until June 30, 1908.148 However, the speed with which the shacks were removed from the camps was remarkable enough to warrant observation by several news articles. As described by the August 1907 San Francisco Chronicle article “Moving 20,000 Refugees,”149 For several months there has been a steady exodus from the city’s refugee camps in all directions, and the total population has decreased at the rate of about 150 per day. As high as forty-two cottages have been moved in twelve hours, and the movement, which was very slow at the start, has recently become cumulative to a marked degree.” The cottage relocation process itself was built on a long tradition of house moving in San Francisco. Popular beginning in the late 1850s, lightweight balloon-framed houses of considerable size were considered more valuable to move rather than to demolish and reconstruct. House moving was, surprisingly, relatively inexpensive, and building materials in early San Francisco so scarce that relocating a house simply made the most sense. Larger houses were raised off their foundations on to platforms, which were then connected to cables that fed around a capstan, a large jackscrew device secured to the street bed, which used two-horse teams to turn a large crank which would inch the shuffling house toward its new location150 (Figure 16). 148 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 32. 149 See Appendix A 150 Diane Donovan, San Francisco Relocated (California: Arcadia Publishing, 2016), 26. 53 When it came time to move the little refugee cottages, the procedure was far less elaborate. Shacks would most often be relocated by simple teams and makeshift platform trucks, and driven across the city to their new location.151 Unfortunately, during the moving process the cottages were often betrayed by their box-frame construction, and many were so flimsy that bracing elements had to be tacked to the sides in order to prevent total structural failure during the bumpy ride (Figure 17). Firsthand accounts dictate that the removal of the relief cottages was a memorable sight to behold: Everywhere one goes, from the Ferry to the Cliff House, one sees teams laden with little green cottages, moving hither and tither, without any concerted destination. Sometimes, the windows are removed and the sides of the skeleton habitations re-enforced with cross cleats; sometimes they look as if they had been picked up by some giant hand and sat upon the wagon body while the family was cooking dinner, because the inhabitants are inside of them, the furniture is 151 Donovan, San Francisco Relocated, 47. Figure 16: House moving in Michigan with a horse and capstan. (Image: Diane Donovan). 54 undisturbed, and everything is going on just as it has always done--except that the house is travelling. It is a strange sight to see a procession of these refugee cottages moving down fashionable Van Ness Avenue or busy Fillmore Street, faces peering from the windows, and men, women and children going about their household tasks as if their little home was securely perched upon a cement foundation and surrounded by a garden and a fence.152 (Figure 18) There were all sorts of physical complications in the business of transferring the cottages and the movers resorted to a variety of makeshifts. The little houses had to be taken from the hills and flats and carried long distances to heights and depths. The movers became most ingenious. They seemed to defy the laws of gravitation, handling leaden loads like feathers…Everyone remembers the days when the streets were filled with the green cottages being bumped along over the pavements on trucks drawn by sturdy horses…Few realized the full significance of this pilgrimage.153 152 Stellman, “Moving 20,000 Refugees.” 153 Simpson, “From Green Refugee Shacks To Cozy Homes of Their Own.” Figure 17: Braced for impact. (Image: Tiny Houses, p. 71.) 55 Though cottage moving was a relatively unassuming and inexpensive activity, not all refugee families had the resources to hire movers. Chinese families dismantled their homes from Portsmouth Square, strapped the pieces to their backs, and hiked back to Chinatown where they were reassembled.154 In fact, earthquake cottages were, in some instances, considered just as valuable in pieces than they were as whole dwellings. One newspaper article recounted an instance of thieves breaking into a camp while it was in the process of closing, and making off with just portions of cottages.155 A newspaper announcement advertised the sale of “only chimneys” from the shelters, while others 154 “Chinese Carry Houses on Backs,” The San Francisco Chronicle, September 10, 1907. It would be an interesting investigation to see if any shacks remain in Chinatown backyards. 155 “Steal Parts of Cottage,” The San Francisco Call, 30 January 1907. Figure 18: "Faces peering from the windows." (Source: Western Neighborhoods Project.) 56 marketed “part or all” of their cottage for sale.156 New Homes Away from Home When the mobile cottages landed in their new neighborhoods, they were not always welcomed with open arms. While the relief shelters appeared to the outside as a quaint solution to the refugee problem, as soon as they began to appear in established communities across the city they seemed to their new neighbors less charming and more like “makeshift, unsightly hovels” with “wretched conditions of living.”157 San Francisco property owners did not look upon cottage families as desirable additions to their neighborhoods, as some of the same sensational activities found in the camps did accompany the cottages to their new locations. Newspapers continuously published accounts of crime and misfortune; at least three separate articles refer to elderly women burning to death in their own refugee cottage homes.158 The greatest concern to the municipality of San Francisco was not the relocation of individual cottages, but the fear that many groups of families would move together and relocate their cottages in conditions similar to those in the camps. This concern was not unfounded, as families became fast friends while in residence at the cottage camps and reasonably surmised that they could reduce costs by sharing their new lots and splitting 156 Advertisements, Column 6, The San Francisco Call, 24 November 1907.; “Will Sell All Or Part,” The San Francisco Call, June 29, 1909. 157 Simpson, “From Green Refugee Shacks To Cozy Homes of Their Own.” 158 “Aged Woman Fatally Burned Alone in Shack,” The San Francisco Call, January 4, 1910 57 utility payments.159 After their relocation, the Relief Corporation found that at about 70% of cottage families occupied a lot with at least one other cottage.160 One cottage dweller-turned-speculator saw opportunity in the relocation of shacks en masse. His name is unknown, but when the camp closures were announced, he quickly purchased a large sand lot, graded it, installed plumbing, and was granted a permit to host relocated cottages. Opened for business on May 1, 1908, most of the cottages in this settlement, named Villa Maria, came from Lobos Square, the camp that housed the lowest-income refugees. Each cottage plat in Villa Maria was 20 feet by 37.5 feet and was contracted to a three-year ground lease costing $6-$8 per month. Sanitary conditions in this private camp were technically passable but not ideal; one toilet and water source were allocated to every four cottages, and were under no municipal inspection or regulation. However, Villa Maria residents, much like their counterparts on individual lots in the city, began to modify and beautify their cottages with small additions and aesthetic improvements. Villa Maria was structured very much like an official cottage camp; it had plank sidewalks and gravel streets, and a total of 121 cottages at its height. Though this makeshift settlement was executed by people without professional experience in housing development, the Relief Survey found that “the housing conditions of the majority of these people, seemed, on the whole, to be better than before the fire”161 (Figure 19). Indeed, the care with which the dwellings were removed and relocated signaled an inherent understanding of their value, both physically and psychologically. Not only 159 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 232.; When cottages were grouped together in the neighborhoods, as many as 10 families might share an outdoor privy. 160 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 233. 161 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 235-236. 58 were the shelters valuable for their existence as viable dwelling places for thousands of displaced refugees, but they also represented an upward transition for the low-income, cottage-dwelling people of the “efficient class.” The Relief Committee anticipated that the cottages might benefit the working-class population in the refugee camps, but the extraordinary way that the earthquake cottages brought numerous people out of poverty took many by pleasant surprise. A vital component of the 1913 Relief Survey was an examination of cottage families and their qualities of life after they had relocated and refashioned their homes. Of the original tens of thousands of people who relied on aid following the earthquake and fire, the Relief Survey counted only 703 that needed to still be cared for at the closing Figure 19: The first cottages in Villa Maria. (Image: The San Francisco Relief Survey, p. 235.) 59 of the last camp.162 It was also found that, while actual wages for the refugee families did not necessarily increase after they moved with their cottage, the fundamental difference between their lives pre- and post- disaster was their new-found status as homeowners. Without the need to pay monthly rent for their dwellings, cottage breadwinners were able to save their earnings and make longer-term investments to provide for their families.163 Some cottage families even established their own small businesses in extra cottages they were able to inexpensively remove from the camps (Figure 20). On the whole, each and every cottage meant: …the acquisition of a real home by someone who perhaps has never owned one before and under ordinary circumstances might not have acquired one in the 162 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 90. 163 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 227. Figure 20: "A plumber's new start." (Image: The San Francisco Relief Survey, p. 178.) 60 course of a lifetime… Of all the work accomplished by the Relief from the time of the bread line to the breaking up of the camps nothing is of greater importance to the city than that of establishing 5,000 families in their own homes. On the roads leading to the suburbs moving trucks are trundling the little green houses that spell comfort, independence, and happiness to these thousands.164 Single women and widows, too were given the opportunity to establish themselves as heads of households by the acquisition of an earthquake cottage. Prior to the disaster, it was generally difficult to engage in a rental agreement or sale of property as an unattached woman, but following the earthquake, many were able to obtain their own refugee cottage and become self-sufficient.165 Following the relocation of the cottages onto their new lots around the city, refugee families set to work making disguises and modifications to their homes, if they had not already begun to do so in the camps. Unquestionably, some stigma did exist surrounding residing in a relocated relief cottage, and cottage dwellers were quick to realize they could make small aesthetic improvements to conceal the true nature of their small homes. According to the taste and the means of the individual cottage owners, alterations to their dwellings included siding changes, fenestration reconfigurations, addition of porches, and in some cases, the planting of gardens surrounding their new minute homes.166 Through the various accounts of the earthquake, fire, devastated city, displaced population, makeshift shelters, tent camps, and finally refugee cottage occupation, one theme persists throughout every stage of the ordeal. The unceasingly positive attitudes of 164 Larsen, “Enrichment of the Refugees.” 165 Hanna Astrup Larsen, “No Women Need Apply, Is the Dictum of San Francisco Landladies,” The San Francisco Call, January 20, 1907. 166 An evaluation of the cottage adaptations and improvements will be explicated in Section II. See Appendix C for photographs of alterations. 61 the affected San Franciscans are noted in countless places, and signal a true resilience of the human spirit galvanized in a time of dire catastrophe. The Relief Survey commented, “there was a good-natured acquiescence in the hardships of the situation, and an optimism that was inspiring.”167 Even the official U.S. Army Special Report documented the persistence and optimism amongst the refugees: The majority of the community was reduced from conditions of comfort to dependence upon public charity, yet in all my experiences I have never seen a woman in tears, nor heard a man whining over his losses. Besides this spirit of cheerful courage, they exhibited qualities of resourcefulness and self-respect which must command the admiration of the world.168 Though tragedies of this magnitude have occurred elsewhere in time and place, the willingness of San Franciscans to loyally adhere to their ruined city demonstrates to posterity their dedication to rebuild their environment and prosper in the aftermath of disaster, a feeling that perhaps may only be inspired by a city like San Francisco. 167 O’Connor, The San Francisco Relief Survey, 77. 168 U.S. Army, Special Report, 47. 62 CHAPTER III COTTAGES AS VERNACULAR FORMS The refugee cottages are miracles of persistence. Built to act as refugee shelters for only one year, they have persevered over the decades, and remain small dwellings on the San Francisco landscape. The continued existence of the cottages is wholly a testament to their value; generations of inhabitants have understood their worth as a dwelling place, and through the years have modified their homes to create increasingly more permanent residences inscribed with their personal identities. Intentional Impermanence Stewart Brand, in his work How Buildings Learn, declared “the whole idea of architecture is permanence.” Yet, though buildings are evolving entities, few are constructed with an intended abbreviated lifespan, as the refugee cottages were.169 It is rare for buildings to be constructed with an end date already in mind. The intended permanence of most architecture is missing with the refugee cottages; they were constructed expediently with what may be considered intentional impermanence. Built with the explicit intention to be only temporarily useful, the surviving refugee cottages have endured through generations and remain remarkably viable dwellings to this day. Intentional impermanence is not limited to situations like disaster housing; buildings are also constructed to be transitory during wartime, in mining camps, and 169 Stuart Brand, How Buildings Learn (New York: Viking Press, 1994), 2. 63 occasions like World’s Fairs. Yet, these structures are rarely, if ever, still standing today. If a building was erected to be temporary, the overwhelming odds are that it is gone.170 Accordingly, the intersections of architectural intention and social usage patterns can be observed across space and time.171 As the cottages were meant only to be used for one year, that temporal quality embodies their original architectural intention. Yet, despite this temporary purpose, the Relief Committee still hoped that the shacks would somehow serve to lift the refugees out of perpetual rentership and into their own homes. When that hope turned into a reality, and a new cohort of homeowners emerged from the wrecked city, a new social pattern materialized, though it is unlikely that the Relief Committee foresaw the cottages becoming such long-lasting and extra-ordinary entities. In the case of the refugee cottages, their collective architectural intentions informed the resulting social pattern, an important characteristic of what architectural historians and historic preservationists call vernacular architecture. What is Vernacular Architecture? Nearly every building standing today has at least one thing in common, and that is its consistent use. Because these buildings are continuously in use, they also undergo many transformations, though some aspects of them may remain visually unchanged. As inhabitants change and adapt buildings, they take on qualities of their surroundings, and 170 Some notable exceptions exist: the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, the San Diego Museum of Man, and the San Francisco Palace of Fine Arts 171 Jennifer Flathman, “Rereading the Library: A Cultural Conservation Approach to Determining the Architectural Significance of the Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore, Maryland” (master’s thesis, University of Oregon, 2007), 24. 64 undergo a process of “cultural weathering.”172 Scholars of vernacular architecture examine, buildings and structures that have undergone adaptations and changes over time. As such, the classification of “vernacular” can be applied in some way to most extant buildings, especially domestic architecture, because, as its base, vernacular architecture is a humanistic endeavor that seeks to understand human behavior through the study of not only buildings but also objects, and settings.173 The study of vernacular architecture encompasses “the widest possible range of buildings” and “has been stretched--but not strained--to include the recording and analysis of structures of every age, form, and function.”174 Vernacular architecture is a broad and evolving field. Its earliest iterations brought forth consideration for buildings that had been neglected by traditional, high- style architectural history--usually buildings “that seemed to not have been consciously designed.”175 As described by vernacular scholar and theorist Susan Garfinkel, an original goal of the emerging field of vernacular architecture was to disregard “an elitist canon that limits the range of buildings considered worthy of attention.”176 The earliest incarnation of what may be called “vernacular studies” emerged from Providence, Rhode Island, where architects Norman Morrison Isham and Albert F. 172 Kingston Heath, The Patina of Place: The Cultural Weathering of a New England Industrial Landscape (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2001). 173 Thomas Carter and Bernard L. Herman, “Introduction: Toward a New Architectural History,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 13, no. 2 (2006-2007): 1.; Dell Upton, “The Power of Things: Recent Studies in American Vernacular Architecture,” American Quarterly 35, no. 3 (1983): 267. 174 Thomas Carter, Images of an American Land: Vernacular Architecture in the Western United States (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997), 3.; Camille Wells, “Old Claims and New Demands: Vernacular Architecture Studies Today,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 2, (1986): 4. 175 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 263. 176 Susan Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance for Vernacular Architecture Studies,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 13, no. 2 (2006-2007): 106. 65 Brown produced a careful documentation of Newport’s common houses in the 1890s. Their aim was to promote the understanding of all buildings, not only traditionally notable ones, through meticulous, thorough, and accurate measured drawings and comprehensive documentation. This created a documentary inventory that illuminated the value of the everyday homes. This idea had its roots in European antiquarianism, and reflected the late 19th century American fascination with science in all things.177 Additionally, Isham and Brown recognized the importance of supplementing their fieldwork with primary documents, like probate inventories, in order to compile more complete historical profiles of each building in their investigation.178 These common residences were just that, everyday houses not designed “consciously” according to established architectural principles, but built according to the specific needs of their occupants.179 Henry Glassie, with his 1975 volume Folk Housing in Middle Virginia, established the groundwork for modern vernacular studies.180 Glassie studied the vernacular housing stock in his Virginia study area and applied to it an architectural language, a grammar structure that translated into a demonstration that vernacular buildings “are the products of deliberate and often complex design processes that possess linguistic analogies.”181 He effectively created a “language” of patterns in vernacular architecture that offered a prescriptive understanding of everyday buildings. He 177 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 265. 178 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 265. 179 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 263. 180 Henry Glassie, Folk Housing in Middle Virginia, (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976). 181 Carter and Herman, “Introduction,” 2. 66 understood the houses in his study as composed of a list of features, forms, plan types, and elements to be itemized according to his superimposed rules of vernacular grammar.182 Today, formative vernacular scholar Dell Upton articulates “vernacular” architecture as applicable to “anything not obviously the product of an upper-class, avant- garde, aesthetic movement.”183 Furthermore, it has taken on a multiplicity of theoretical meanings. In his article, “The Power of Things: Recent Studies in American Vernacular Architecture,” Upton defines “vernacular” not as a type of building, but rather a way to look at them; not the kind of buildings, but instead a way to go about them.184 The vernacular idea is saturated with the relationships between buildings and the people that inhabit them. It is: …as a field of study…concerned with making informed inferences about what the built environment meant and continues to mean to the people who built it and used it and to those who continue to build and use it.185 Within a decade of the publication of Glassie’s Folk Housing in 1976, Dell Upton had absorbed Glassie’s principles, combined them with the changing tides of the new social history, and envisioned a way to apply a more complex and profound meaning to studies of vernacular architecture. Similarly, Susan Garfinkel, a student of Bernard Herman’s at the University of Delaware, described Upton’s critique of Glassie’s vernacular grammar, 182 Carter and Herman, “Introduction,” 2. 183 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 263-264. 184 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 263-264. 185 Thomas Carter and Elizabeth Collins Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture: A Guide to the Study of Ordinary Buildings and Landscapes (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2005), 45. 67 As an avowedly neutral concept, it can add little to the understanding of the social meanings which are embodied in architectural performances, and which give vernacular buildings their local character.186 To Upton and Garfinkel, Glassie treated vernacular houses as simply “an utterance” of newly invented and imposed rules. They wished to develop and expand upon Glassie’s vision of the vernacular, and believed that a vernacular house is not only an expression of architectural grammar, but also the product of the way its inhabitants have used and changed it over time.187 The New Vernacular History In response to the evolving social and political climate of the 1960s, a new lens through which to study the past was brought into focus. Known as “the new social history,” it was born out of a: Concern that history had become preoccupied with great men and events. The new historians moved to correct the injustice by bringing the forgotten people of the past--blacks, women, workers, the poor-- into the mainstream of history.188 Along with the emergence of feminism and civil rights movement, the new social history sought to bring to light the human experiences of historically disregarded, disenfranchised, and overlooked populations. The beginnings of modern vernacular architectural studies originated in a similar way. Early practitioners of vernacular architecture wanted a forum to speak out “vigorously against the elitism of traditional architectural history, [and make a] plea for understanding how common buildings 186 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 107. 187 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 107. 188 Carter and Herman, “Introduction,” 3-4. 68 occupied contexts comprising wide social and economic spheres.”189 In the same vein of the adage “history is written by the winners,” traditional architectural history is characterized by the overwhelming persistence and attention given to formal, high-style buildings.190 While the new social history began as an effort to rewrite history from a new perspective, the ideology broadened in the 1980s into a desire to “cultural wholes” and emphasize the holistic nature of society as a living and working organism.191 The arc of vernacular architecture studies and the creation of the Vernacular Architecture Forum in 1979 developed in much the same fashion. Initially a medium to raise up forgotten buildings like slave dwellings and farm houses, it evolved into a broad field dedicated to all types of common buildings. Vernacular studies attempted to move away from the traditional American exceptionalism that permeated preservation and architectural historical analysis, and began to recognize that all aspects of culture hold meaning and importance. Changes Over Time In regard to all architecture, not only vernacular, a recalibration in thinking was also necessary--away from the moment of creation often privileged in high-style architecture, and toward a consideration that current buildings are in fact are a collection of transformations over time.192 Nicola Camerlenghi proposes a new architectural narrative, one that offers a “profitable and less trodden avenue of exploration,” inspired 189 Carter and Herman, “Introduction,” 4. 190 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 279. 191 Carter and Herman, “Introduction,” 3-4. 192 Nicola Camerlenghi. “The Longue Durée and the Life of Buildings.” In New Approaches to Medieval Architecture, edited by Robert Bork, et al., 11-12. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. 69 by the longue durée philosophy from the mid-20th century work of the French historians in the École des Annales. The longue durée accounts for historical changes in terms of both medium- and long-term forces and their ability for transformation, rather than attributing changes solely to individual events.193 A philosophical and methodological application of the longue durée to the life of buildings can help illuminate aspects of their current forms, uncover the changes that brought them to their present state, and provide a more holistic understanding of a building and its history.194 The distinct vernacular nature of the refugee cottages is expressed through their transformations over time; it is their collective qualities that have evolved over generations of adaptation and use by their inhabitants that qualifies them as “vernacular.” They reflect “cultural weathering,” as explained in Kingston Heath’s article, “Assessing Regional Identity Amidst Change: The Role of Vernacular Studies,” as “the product of layers of collective change over time.”195 When applied to vernacular buildings, cultural weathering reveals that: People alter objects, buildings, spaces, and settings in accordance with prevailing opportunities, constraints, and sensibilities. These strategies of accommodation in response to a broad range of external and local factors, serve to define, collectively, the particularities of places.196 It is in this same way--the variety of alterations over time--that earthquake cottages reveal their vernacular qualities. The shelters began their lives as mass- 193 Camerlenghi, The Longue Durée 12. 194 Camerlenghi, The Longue Durée 12. 195 Kingston Wm. Heath, “Assessing Regional Identity Amidst Change: The Role of Vernacular Studies,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 13, no. 2 (2006-2007): 79. 196Heath, “Assessing Regional Identity,” 79. 70 produced, indistinctive, basic shelters, and evolved over time into manifestations of the collective personal needs, wants, and hopes of the earthquake refugee population. It was the misfortune of the disaster that acted as the catalyst for the refugee cottages--their initial raison d'etre--but it was a subsequent range of forces over the passage of time that anchored the identity of the cottages to a particular place, people, time, and situation.197 As with nearly all vernacular buildings, social practices may alter and define original spatial and aesthetic organizations.198 As “a product of ever evolving human and environmental factors,” the cottages were subject to influence from a variety of external societal forces that prompted their modifications. Here, the long-lasting quality of the relief cottages exceeds their simple material nature. Not only have they persisted over 110 years to remain meaningful dwelling places, but their sustained functionality elevates them past the traditional types of “winning” buildings that generally dominate the metropolitan landscape. The cottages are so significant as cultural informants that even though they were not “the houses of the better-off,” they have been always able to successfully communicate their value and avoid replacement by something “better” (Figure 21). As Dell Upton has noted, “the buildings that have survived in numbers are those that have been best adapted to the lives of subsequent generations.”199 When examined under the lens of this sentiment, is it not a surprise that the cottages remain today. Because their adaptations have been executed specifically in order to accommodate the needs and lives of humans, it can be easily understood why subsequent generations have 197 Kingston Heath, thesis draft comments. 198 Flathman, “Rereading the Library,” 24. 199 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 279. 71 been able to benefit from the shacks’ changes and maintain them as modern, effective dwelling places. Yet, the origins of the shacks were anything but the complex and dynamic buildings that remain today. They were originally constructed under the most dire circumstances, as the Buildings and Lands Committee needed to provide massive amounts of shelter very quickly at a low cost. The Committee was confronted with this multi-layered conundrum and needed to act swiftly: what were the very minimal accouterments and necessities for human shelter that would be able to justify the expenditure of relief funds? Whatever this looked like, it needed to be easily Figure 21: The cottage at 1448 Kearny Street remains despite its location in desirable Telegraph Hill. (Photo by author). 72 manufactured with available materials and human resources, and ultimately, be an improvement over the living conditions provided by the Army tents. Over the course of the design process, a final requirement was decided upon: the new shelters would also need to act as future permanent housing. Therefore, they must have the ability to be easily moved to a new location. 200 Vernacular Performance Theory Before scholars could assess “meaning,” in vernacular architecture, it was necessary to identify traditional building forms. These investigations of material folk culture of established regional patterns of influence, diffusion, and distribution.201 By the the 1970s, architects and folklorists began to examine how architectural intention along with human behavior shapes and defines vernacular buildings.202 Both Dell Upton and Susan Garfinkel urged scholars to scrutinize vernacular structures on a deeper level than their materiality and “consider architecture as the result of social patterns as well as the intentions of a master designer.”203 In this context, Garfinkel defined the term performance as “to carry out, accomplish, finish, or consummate” and “the intensification or completion” of a building form.204 Performance, when applied to vernacular buildings, “implies presence, audience, and the creation of meaning across the passage of time.”205 200 Amunategui, “Shelter, Dwellings, and Metamorphosis,” 19. 201 Kingston Heath, thesis draft comments. 202 Flathman, “Rereading the Library,” 23. 203 Flathman, “Rereading the Library,” 24. 204 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 110. 205 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 106. 73 These sentiments lie at the heart of performance theory in vernacular studies. Camille Wells, in her introduction to the second volume of the 1986 Vernacular Architecture Forum’s Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture,206 asserts that the multitude of ways that buildings are used is what defines their meaning, that “all ordinary buildings are the results of complex mental processes that have been shaped by learned cultural priorities and are therefore worthy of study.”207 While vernacular forms, indeed, hold intrinsic value, the initiation of their “meanings of cultural forms are constituted at the moment of their use.”208 Common building forms are enriched by their methods of use, and may remain anonymous and uninteresting without an understanding of the ways in which occupants interacted with the building itself. These patterns of use over time, in conjunction with the intentions that generated the initial creation of the building, explicate vernacular performance theory, as repetitions of use with variations, create layers of meaning unable to come from the walls and roof of the building alone.209 A building’s use, in turn, dictates the role it will play in the lives of its residents. “Multiple roles,” Garfinkel stated, “to be experienced either by design or opportunity in unpredictable, unplanned, but locally meaningful ways.”210 There can be no analysis of vernacular buildings without a simultaneous study of the people who inhabited them. Even when their inhabitants have gone, evidence of the occupants and they ways they changed and used their buildings are inevitably left behind. 206 Camille Wells, “Old Claims and New Demands: Vernacular Architecture Studies Today,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 2 (1986): 1-10. 207 Wells, “Old Claims,” 3. 208 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 107. 209 Flathman, “Rereading the Library,” 25.: Carter and Cromley, Invitation, 45. 210 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 111-112. 74 At its core, vernacular scholarship is humanistic scholarship; a study of the common people related to common buildings forms the cynosure of any vernacular conversation. Garfinkel notes, “by itself, connoisseurship of the buildings is not enough;” we must also take into consideration the roles those buildings played in the lives of the people who used and changed them.211 A vernacular approach to architecture helps us to understand the powerful relationships people form with their material world. Vernacular buildings, therefore, help us to comprehend the particular cultural circumstances and situations that shaped them.212 Vernacular “architectural historians must explore the range of relationships that surround an object: who paid for it, who designed it, who built it,” and in what ways that building was used and reused.213 Vernacular buildings are often defined as “the buildings common to a particular region or community,”214 and this community-based exploration is critical to an understanding of vernacular architecture. The common shared experience of a group of people inevitably results in similarities in their habitats, and a common consistency can often be found when studying vernacular buildings in this way. The ways these communal similarities indicate an architectural tradition is expressed not as a simple repetition of previous established examples, but “as a shared body of knowledge in which choices arise out of the tensions between individual inclinations and social context.”215 211 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 108. 212 Carter, Images of an American Land, 3. 213 Flathman, “Rereading the Library,” 24. See Kingston Heath’s discussion of the transformations of three- decker tenement houses and their resurrection as dwellings for many generations of New Bedford, Mass. mill workers in Patina of Place, pgs 122-133. 214 Carter, Images of an American Land, 3. 215 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 274. 75 Through the ages, vernacular structures have been overlooked and disregarded because they often have little “curb appeal;” they are unable to visually “tell their story” just from their looks alone. Yet, vernacular buildings come alive and demonstrate their value through their historical narrative, their dynamic story that chronicles the occupants of the buildings and how they have changed it over time. Without this narrative, vernacular buildings are often unable to communicate their highest potential. These narratives then lend the vernacular building its meaning and identity as succinctly summarized by Garfinkel: Designing a house is one thing, while living in a house is another, and both are not only legitimate but necessary activities in the process that makes a building into a house and then into a home.216 Refugee Cottages as Vernacular Forms The refugee cottages were, at their essence, the most basic conceivable form of shelter. Sergio Amunategui, in his 1989 Master’s of Architecture thesis at the University of California at Berkeley, refers to them as a “pure archetypal configuration.”217 Amunategui’s thesis expanded on the potential of the shelter in its truest form, and uncovered a depth of potential in the form type. Amunategui explicated and illustrated cottage expansions, contractions, modifications, combinations, and additions in order to explore a simple form type as a valuable model for future use. As an architectural study, Amunategui’s thesis is intriguing and foreshadows the resurgence of the tiny house movement in the 21st century. 216 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 110. 217 Sergio Amunategui, “Shelter, Dwellings, and Metamorphosis: Adaptations of the 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shelter in a Single Family Dwelling” (master’s thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1989), 22. 76 The core essence of the earthquake cottages are the multiple ways they have taken the form of a dwelling place. Initially, they were used as designed, then continued their lives in many truly unpredictable ways, perhaps the most unpredictable of all being their continued existence to the present day. Without this understanding, a cottage remains simply that; a tiny front-gabled shack with no discernible rhyme or reason. In fact, this is how they appear to the untrained eye; from the right of way they simply look like a strangely small home, and this reality lends to their being written off by the uninitiated. Yet to those who understand their extraordinary narrative, the dwellings generate interest, investigation, and explication. The cottage at 369 Valley Street exemplifies the curious nature of the dwellings compared to others on the block (Figure 22). Figure 22: Without a knowledge of its history, the cottage at 369 Valley Street is easily overlooked. (Photo by author). 77 Within the context of the close quarters of the camps, it comes as no surprise that refugee families shared and borrowed the ways they altered their dwellings. Though some alterations did take place before they were moved, the majority of modifications came after the structures were relocated. The camps fostered a sense of unity, and cottage families were inclined to help their fellow refugees improve their living conditions in any way possible. It makes perfect sense that cottages began to be altered in specific ways. If one family invented an especially effective way to improve their shelter, they would likely share their technique with others. Additionally, when refugees began to remove their cottages from the camps, they valued their new-found communities so highly that refugee families often relocated their new homes next to others on private lots in the city.218 In fact, following the closure of the camps, it was unusual to see a lone cottage on the San Francisco landscape. These camp families were bound by the shared experiences of disaster and refugee life, and their dwellings grew and changed accordingly. The consistency in the behavioral patterns of the refugee families reflected a shared and dedicated set of operating values.219 Once again, the intention behind the changes to the cottages over time indicates a deep and rich tradition that has continued to the present day. Ultimately, it is a combination of the people, place, time, and situational context that provides the refugee cottages their character and value.220 Both the circumstances initially surrounding the cottages and the subsequent chain of events that followed 218 Cottage families also relocated near each other to share costs of ground rent and utilities. 219 Carter and Collins, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 45. 220 Heath, thesis draft comments. 78 affected them in specific ways and lend them their distinct identity.221 Not only do the dwellings become reflective of a particular moment in time, but they also reveal their place in the collective refugee experience and cultural memory. This “cultural moment”-- the earthquake--combined with a shared human experience become informative benchmarks for understanding the essence of these vernacular forms in their particular human context.222 Because of their layers of alteration and change, the relief cottages have solidified their place in the complex cultural moment of the earthquake refugee experience. Architectural Blanks and Regionalism This ordinary, bare-bones property of the refugee cottage characterizes them as a valuable example of an architectural blank. The established concept of an architectural blank is a vernacular tenet well-defined in Kingston Heath’s article “Assessing Regional Identity Amidst Change: The Role of Vernacular Studies.” Heath described the blanks as a building “aesthetically neutral, regionally indistinct, perfect for adaptation...[and] a product of [the] corporate logic that shaped it originally.”223 Heath’s article focuses on the regional adaptation of manufactured trailer homes in southwest Montana and southwest North Carolina, and the modes in which they were adapted to the climate and other requirements of their specific regional environments (Figure 23). Without any stretch of the imagination, the refugee cottage--capable of being multiplied, divided, or moved--apply well to this concept of architectural blanks. 221 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 111. 222 Heath, thesis draft comments. 223 Heath, “Assessing Regional Identity,” 86-87. 79 Yet, when applied to cottages, Heath’s discussion of regional influence requires elaboration with a consideration of the shared immediacy of the disaster, functional necessity, and later, a desire for beautification. Earthquake cottages were not acutely Figure 23: A southwest Montana trailer demonstrating the specifics of regional response. (Image: Kingston Heath, "Assessing Regional Identity Amidst Change.") 80 influenced by regional elements in a “situated” sense as products of their unusual circumstances. In their most basic form, the shacks were ultimate architectural blanks, ready for adaptation and change: they were aesthetically fully neutral; devoid of any easily identifiable architectural style or influence. Ultimately, the shacks were analogous to the trailer homes studied by Heath in the sense that One can extract the [original]…container from layers of adapted response…and begin to understand…programmatic priorities, environmental strategies, material preferences, and social practices that begin to reflect the…preferences of one socioeconomic group.224 As demonstrated by the restoration of the cottages in the Presidio of San Francisco,225 changes to the cottages can be peeled away, layer by layer, to reveal the original “container” within. To examine the shelters as architectural blanks reduces domesticity to its very essence: the parameters informed and transformed the domicile itself, and how it is subsequently interpreted through space and time. Interestingly, it is the very ordinary quality of the refugee cottages that has determined their sustained survival. Carter and Herman insist that “the largest and most substantial buildings are the ones that survive, [and] the truly ordinary structures have vanished.”226 Likewise, Stuart Brand proposes, “Almost no buildings adapt well. They’re designed not to adapt; also budgeted and financed not to, constructed not to, administered not to, maintained not to, regulated and taxed not to, even remodeled not to.”227 While these sentiments may apply to most common buildings, they do not apply to the relief 224 Heath, “Assessing Regional Identity,” 89. 225 See discussion in Section V. 226 Carter and Herman, “Introduction,” 2. 227 Brand, How Buildings Learn, 2. 81 cottages, which have survived through the decades precisely because they have been adapted and changed. It may be argued that the original shelters did “vanish” as Carter and Herman contend, because today they look so different from their original forms. But, the cottages have undergone these transformations as means necessary for their survival; in order to remain relevant, they needed to adapt to the changing needs of their occupants. They, therefore, have not vanished at all. On the contrary, the human scale of the cottages combined with the creative modifications executed by their inhabitants make them stand out in San Francisco’s urban landscape, and provide, as a collection, the cultural narrative of place. The cottages are so simultaneously curious and appealing, they elicit second glances regardless of their neighborhood or location (Figure 24). They may be ordinary in their original design, but the relief cottages are truly extraordinary in their intention Figure 24: 81 Pearl Street is visually distinct from its neighboring buildings. (Photo by author). 82 and philosophy.228 Nearly synonymous with the study of vernacular architecture is the notion of regionalism. In order to understand the ways and reasons a building has transformed over its lifespan, its geographic and socioeconomic context must also be taken into consideration The specific geographic location of a vernacular building shapes and influences the way that building is used and changed over time. Most modern scholarship on vernacular architecture is regionally focused, and with good reason. Many external factors act as incentives for buildings to change, and a consideration of those factors, both local and extra-local, will illuminate otherwise mysterious aspects of a building’s history. As discussed in Kingston Heath’s article, the changes in the Montana trailers over time were highly influenced by local land and weather patterns, in addition to the needs of their inhabitants. These regional factors led to dramatically different changes in trailers found in different locales.229 In a vernacular context, the meaning of “local” not only denotes location, but, as Susan Garfinkel writes, Local also suggests an immediate community of which the architectural structure is a part, leading to the…point that the vernacular is ‘shared’ – that is it arises from and inhabits a cultural context, which by definition requires a group of people, past or present, who all have a great deal in common.230 Carter and Herman consider geographic and cultural context as a foundation for vernacular studies: “Many of the best examples of vernacular architecture research adopt 228 I do not want to appear to romanticize the shacks or camp life. Under no circumstances was daily living in the shack camps comfortable or easy, and the individual refugee reality can get lost in the midst of a philosophical consideration of the earthquake shacks. 229 Heath, “Assessing Regional Identity,” 85-87. 230 Garfinkel, “Recovering Performance,” 109. 83 a regional perspective by exploring a close connection between built form and local culture.”231 Though the framework of regional influence applies less acutely to the San Francisco earthquake cottages than it does to more conventional vernacular buildings, the closely related idea of “local” is essential to a vernacular conversation around the dwellings. With respect to regional geographic influence in vernacular buildings, the refugee cottages once again defy convention. Because the cottages were a product of a specific event, one that has the potential to occur in many places, it is difficult to think of their vernacular qualities from a fundamentally geographic perspective. In their case, the latter part of Carter and Herman’s statement applies; the shacks were inextricably tied to the local culture and the situational event, but less so by their geographic location. The mere fact that the earthquake and fire occurred in San Francisco and California did not have any measurable effect on the shack’s building type or form. Rather, it can be surmised that any disaster of this magnitude may have produced similar refugee shelter results, and in fact, it has. The Great Fire of Chicago, Illinois, burned from October 8th to 9th, 1871. It is considered one of the great disasters in American history, destroyed 17,450 buildings, left 98,500 homeless and consumed a total of 3½ square miles.232 While the Chicago fire only consumed a fraction of the area that was affected in San Francisco, the relief efforts mounted were remarkably similar. Following the Chicago fire, homeless families were able to apply for temporary housing, known as a fire relief or shelter cottage. The Chicago cottages were distributed for free by the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, and like the earthquake shelters in San Francisco, they were one- and two-room and 231 Carter and Herman, “Introduction,” 2. 232 Elias Colbert, Chicago and the Great Conflagration, (Chicago: J.S. Goodman & Co, 1872), 288. 84 extraordinarily small. Fire relief cottages came in 12 by 16 foot and 16 by 20 foot models, which cost $75 and $100 to construct, respectively.233 Also, like the San Francisco cottages, the fire shelters were exceptionally prolific: the first round of production created 5,200 shelters, and in subsequent months, 3,000 more were built.234 Fire cottages were furnished and used in largely the same way as their San Francisco counterparts. The original construction directions dictated that the fire cottages were: Completed in a simple but sufficient way for comfortable living by the addition of a cooking stove and utensils, several chairs, a table, bedstead, bedding, and sufficient crockery for the use of the family; and the total cost of the house when thus furnished was one hundred and twenty-five dollars.235 There was one critical difference between the Chicago and San Francisco cottages. In San Francisco, the shacks were constructed on site with union labor, while in Chicago the shelter were distributed in kits to survivors, who would then assemble them themselves. The kits contained everything necessary to build the fire shelter: 52 studs, floor joists, rafters, sills, battens, doors, windows, and 40 pounds of nails, among other building components (Figure 25). Though homeowners were responsible for the construction of their own shelter, it was noted that, The majority of those who received the prepared material for these houses were mechanics enough to put them together for themselves, or had the means to hire builders; but for the large class of widows, infirm, or otherwise helpless persons, the house was built and put in complete readiness for the proposed tenant by the [Relief] Committee.236 233 Report of the Chicago Aid and Relief Society of Disbursement of Contributions for the Sufferers by the Chicago Fire, (Chicago: Riverside Press, 1874), 185-189. 234 Sandy Keenan, “Treating His House Like a Museum,” The New York Times, August 6, 2014. 235 Report of the Chicago Aid and Relief Society, 187. 236 Report of the Chicago Aid and Relief Society, 187. 85 The two cottage types differed in construction as well: earthquake cottages were box-framed, while Chicago’s fire shelters were built with conventional stud wall framing. Additionally, the fire shelters were never grouped together in camps as the earthquake cottages were, and they did not undergo the migration process that lends today’s San Francisco cottages their distinct narrative. Ultimately, while the two shelters were both altered and Figure 25: Details of one-room Chicago fire shelter cottages. (Source: Report of the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, p.187). 86 modified over time to meet the needs of their occupants, they did not share the same fate. Today, 45 earthquake cottages have been so far authenticated in San Francisco, while only two officially identified fire shelter cottages exist in Chicago today (Figure 26). Figure 26: One of the two remaining fire shelters in the city of Chicago. (Source: The New York Times). 87 Buildings as Primary Documents The many elements so far discussed that comprise the materiality of a vernacular structure all contribute to the building’s utility as documentary evidence. Vernacular research methods suggest that buildings be viewed as primary documents, for the traditional types of primary sources (e.g. letters, newspaper articles, and the like) are both are essential to a complete understanding of a resource. Dell Upton notes the importance of assembling all types of primary information: “buildings are…examined for aspects of the past that can be known imperfectly, or not at all from other kinds of evidence.”237 Otherwise, the messages and narratives hidden within the walls of vernacular buildings would often otherwise go entirely unstated.238 With any investigation of primary documents, buildings or otherwise, the source of the material must be taken in consideration. Virtually all of the documentation that survives today about the earthquake cottages derives from news articles and official government documents. While such information is essential to this evaluation, or nearly any study of architectural history, an issue arises from the narrow viewpoints of the authors. The most essential news articles, especially Enrichment of the Refugees by Anna Simpson Pratt, were authored by the upper-class ladies’ relief charities. To the modern reader, such sources glaringly omit a perspective from the cottage-dwellers themselves. Similarly, the 1913 San Francisco Relief Survey was conducted and composed by professional sociologists from New York City, and while it includes a wide range of empirical data on cottage families, the survey fails to incorporate any personal testimony from the inhabitants of the cottages. 237 Upton, “The Power of Things,” 268. 238 Carter, Images of An American Landscape, 4. 88 Because the primary sources available do not originate from the refugees themselves, since they were given no forum to leave their sentiments for posterity, there is only one primary document to examine that will provide insights into to a cottage- dweller’s reality: the cottages themselves. The dwellings therefore become our most informative primary source.239 “Every Man is His Own Architect” – Cottage Modifications The realities of camp life-- most notably very close quarters, ethnic diversity, and a working class population--together amounted to a stigma against refugees amongst the general population. This stigma existed alongside the condescending paternalism expressed toward the refugees. Taken together, these attitudes amounted to a generally negative association ascribed to the inhabitants of the camps by the public. While the government charity workers and the populace agreed that the shelters and camps were overall a suitable temporary solution to the refugee crisis, the refugees themselves were viewed as distinctly “less than.” Comprised mainly of low-income San Franciscans, it would have been unlikely for the camp inhabitants to have somehow become more palatable to the general public. Still, intentions remained as noble as they had ever been. From the genesis of the cottage plan, there were objectives to improve the quality of life for the unfortunate families in the cottage camps. The cottages had always been conceived by the Relief Fund for people who had previously been renters, who would be unable to build or own 239 For example, unfortunately, there is no extant record of the way in which the Chinese reused their cottages. We do know that they dismantled them and carried them on their backs, but after that the legacy is lost. A rich tenet for further study would be an investigation of how, or if, different nationalities used and changed their cottages 89 their own house without the aid of the relief effort.240 An excerpt from an October 1907 San Francisco Call article titled “Enrichment of the Refugees” explains the favorable effects of the cottages on the lives of their inhabitants: There were many old people, especially women, who before the fire lived inexpensively in some unused and unwanted corner of a house and just managed with a little sewing, or washing, or janitor work, to earn enough for their living expenses. The fire swept away their homes and often their opportunities for making the frugal wage they depended upon. It was expected that a large number of such people would become dependent upon charity, and the charitable societies were preparing to make an especial effort in their behalf. The refugee cottages have provided homes for many of them and have enabled them for yet a while to enjoy their independence. In response to the social stigma of occupying a refugee cottage, and an intrinsic desire to improve the quality of their dwelling places, many cottage inhabitants immediately set out to improve their homes, if they had not begun to do so while already in the camps. The “elimination of everything that suggested the relief cottage” was of the utmost importance.241 Matter-of-factly, “when the cottage [was] set up in its place outside, the transformation began, that is to make of the shack a bungalow.”242 In many cases, the telltale park-bench-green color was the first feature to go. “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own” remarked: They [refugees] were all busy painting out every vestige of green, the color that made the refugee settlements look like a lot of orphan children, all dressed alike. In some places blue and even pink have been used as a decoration for the house trimmings, but never green. That would be the worst form.243 240 Cryan, Hope Chest, 38. 241 Simpson, “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own.” See Appendix A. 242 Larsen, “Enrichment of the Refugees.” See Appendix A. 243 Simpson, “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own.” 90 Exterior cottage walls were often disguised further with a siding treatment that became popular around the turn of the century: wood shingles244 (Figure 27). According to “Enrichment of the Refugees,” shingles “added warmth and beauty” to the otherwise plain cottages, and further aided in disguising the shacks as “completely as possible.”245 Interestingly, it was women who especially benefitted from the shingled exteriors; one San Francisco Call article notes that refugee “women developed remarkable skill as carpenters [and] many also became an expert in shingling. It was not an uncommon thing…to see a woman balanced on a ladder measuring and hammering shingles.”246 244 Many of the extant cottages are still clad in wood shingles. 245 Larsen, “Enrichment of the Refugees.”; Stellman, “Moving 20,000 Refugees.” 246 Simpson, “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own.” Figure 27: A refugee cottage converted to a comfortable home is clad in wood shingles. (Image: The San Francisco Relief Survey, p. 219). 91 Improvements to the actual envelope of the cottage came next, with the addition of “gables, turrets, bay windows, verandas, and every variety of architectural ornamentation…according to the taste, means, and enterprise of the owners.”247 In some cases, several cottages were joined together “in the most artistic shapes” and became relatively ornate houses, and on the whole, were upgraded from the bare shacks in the refugee camps and transformed into proud family homes248 (Figure 28). Again, the Call article “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of their Own” provides a vivid description of the changes: Some of the new homes are made up of two cottages and some of three, the cottages varying in size, some containing two, others three rooms. They were arranged in an inconceivable number of ways. Some were placed 10 feet or more apart and a room was built between them; others were placed at right angles, making a desirable L, sometimes one on each side; the position of others allowed for a side as well as a front porch. In some cases, the little green shacks were placed on top of one another, making two story houses; in other cases they were raised so that a cellar might add something to the comfort of living. Bay windows were built out and casements opened attractively to the sun and air.249 Overall, the early modifications to the refugee cottages established a set of somewhat standard architectural modifications that has endured with the cottages to the present day. Amazingly, many of the earthquake cottages, as they exist today, remain in the same or similar forms to those described in the articles from the early years of the 20th century. Images of recently relocated and modified cottages from the San Francisco Relief Survey are strikingly similar to today’s cottages. 247 Stellman, “Moving 20,000 Refugees.” See Appendix A. 248 Larsen, “Enrichment of the Refugees.”; Stellman, “Moving 20,000 Refugees.” 249 Simpson, “From Green Refugee Shacks to Cozy Homes of Their Own.” 92 Figure 28: Three cottages are joined together to make a commodious home. (Image: The San Francisco Relief Survey, p. 217). 93 THE 2016 EARTHQUAKE COTTAGE SURVEY In the spring of 2016, a reconnaissance-level survey was conducted of all extant earthquake cottages in the San Francisco Bay area. Through photography and documentation of every cottage visible from the public right of way, insight was gained into the specifics of the modifications to each cottage and the ways they have been transformed over the course of eleven decades. In total, 45 cottage sites were surveyed, all of which were authenticated by the San Francisco Planning Department, Jane Cryan, or curbed.com (Table 5). The current homes at some locations are composed of several individual cottage components, so that approximately 60 cottage components are represented at the 45 total sites. Table 5: Authenticated Extant Resources. Location Neighborhood Size*/Indiv. Components Typology Alterations 164 Bocana St Bernal Heights C / 1 X – Front gable/side entry Wood shingles, red trim 14 Elsie St Bernal Heights B / 1 VI – Front gable/flat roof addition Long setback 57 Elsie St Bernal Heights B / 1 X – Front gable/side entry Ext. shingles, high on foundation 211 Mullen Ave Bernal Heights B / 1 VII – Front elevation modificatio n Classical style, pediment gable 217 Mullen Ave Bernal Heights B / 1 IX – Additional roof forms Front landing, imbrication in gable 20 Newman St Bernal Heights B / 2 II – L/T shape Front porch, exterior shingles 43 Carver St Bernal Heights B / 2 III – Parallel forms Small gabled hyphen connects two shacks 673 Moultrie St Bernal Heights B / 1 V – Original form/rear extensions Shingles and yellow trim 848 Moultrie St Bernal Heights C / 1 V – Original form/rear extensions Stucco exterior CHAPTER IV CHAPTER IV 94 Table 5 continued: Authenticated Extant Resources. Location Neighbor hood Size/Inidv. Components Typology Alterations 48 Cortland Ave Bernal Heights C / 1 VIII – Garage under Middle front door, raised foundation 143 Cortland Ave Bernal Heights A / 1 IX –Additional roof forms Setback 148 Crescent Ave Bernal Heights unknown VII – Front elevation modification Enclosed front landing, vinyl windows 615 Ellsworth St Bernal Heights A / 1 IX – Additional roof forms Redwood exterior shingles 160 Montcalm St Bernal Heights B / 1 IX – Additional roof forms Exterior shingles, mostly obscures from ROW by fence 206 Montcalm St Bernal Heights B / 1 I – Original form Middle front door, two front windows 222 Montcalm St Bernal Heights B / 1 IX – Additional roof forms New siding, rear addition 230 Montcalm St Bernal Heights B / 1 VII – Front elevation modification Front bay window 1665 Alabama St Bernal Heights B / 1 VI – Gable end/flat roof addition Not in great shape, attached garage 1837 Alabama St Bernal Heights A / 1 I – Original form Used as garage, exterior shingles and garage door 107 Franconia St Bernal Heights B / 1 IX – Additional roof forms Side staircase, siding in poor condition 311 Prentiss St Bernal Heights unknown VIII – Garage under Recently remodeled, entrance on side 59 Bradford St Bernal Heights A (possibly B) / 1 VI – Gable end/flat roof addition Side addition with front wall 3653 Folsom St Bernal Heights B / 1 VI – Gable end/flat roof addition Attached garage, exterior shingles 81 Pearl St Mid Market B / 1 I – Original form Horizontal droplap siding, possible rear extension 1046 Diamond St Diamond Heights B / 1 Not visible from Right of Way N/A 95 Table 5 continued: Authenticated Extant Resources. Location Neighborhood Size/Inidv. Components Typology Alterations 58 Ord St Eureka Valley B / 1 IX – Additional roof forms Exterior shingles, low hipped roof 300 Cumberland St Noe Valley A & B / 2 III – Parallel forms Two shacks joined by hyphen, roofs at different elevations 369 Valley St Noe Valley B / 1 II – L/T shape Front bay window, exterior shingles 39 Diamond St Castro B / 1 Not visible from Right of Way N/A 233 Broad St Ocean View A / 1 V – Original form/rear extensions Long setback 254 Montana St Ocean View B / 1 IX – Additional roof forms Front lawn, brick basement under 74 Lobos St Ocean View B / 2 VIII – Garage under Two story, two front bay windows 30 Niantic St Ocean View A / 2 IV – Two story Two stories with side shed roof addition 16 De Long St Ocean View A / 2 III – Parallel forms Recent fire, v. poor condition, likely has orig material 252 Holyoke St Portola A / 1 Not visible from Right of Way N/A Post Hospital Shacks Presidio A / 2 I – Original forms Restored shacks 533 33rd Ave Richmond A (possibly B) / 2 Not visible from Right of Way N/A 1549 22nd Ave Sunset unknown IX – additional roof forms Hipped roof 1227 24th Ave Sunset A & B / 4 II – L/T shape San Francisco Landmark # 171 1224 46th Ave Sunset B (possibly C) / 2 II – L/T shape Stucco exterior, front bay window 1232 47th Ave Sunset B / 1 IX – Additional roof forms Hipped roof, front dormer 4329-4331 Kirkham St Sunset A & B / 2 Not visible from Right of Way N/A 1448 Kearny St Telegraph Hill unknown X – Front gable/side entry Exterior shingles, raised on foundation 330 9th Ave Santa Cruz, CA A / 2 III- Parallel forms Shacks combined with hyphen; orig massing 810 San Antonio Ave San Bruno, CA A / 2 III – Parallel forms Heavily altered, stucco exterior, front porch *Size refers to the original Type A, B, and C configurations. See page 29. 96 Similarities and differences were noted between many of the altered cottages, and gradually, a form typology began to emerge from the field research. Ten major types are distinguishable among the cottages in their current states (Tables 6 and 7). This typology serves to elucidate some of the changes and adaptations over time according to the needs of their inhabitants that make the earthquake cottages exceptional examples of vernacular architecture Table 6: Earthquake Cottage Typology. 97 Table 6 Continued: Earthquake Cottage Typology. 98 Table 7 : Cottage totals per type. TYPE NUMBER OF RESOURCES I - Original Form 4 II - L or T Shape 4 III - Parallel Forms 5 IV - Two-story 1 V - Original Form/Rear Extension 3 VI - Front Gable/Side Addition 4 VII - Front Elevation Modification 3 VIII - Garage Under 3 IX - Additional Roof Forms 10 X - Front Gable/Side Entry 3 Unknown - not visible from right-of-way 5 TOTAL: 45 The earthquake cottage typology was partly defined by subjectively chosen characteristics (e.g. entry orientation, roof forms, and cottage combinations). Although somewhat arbitrary, these defined types aid in understanding patterns in cottage adaptation and spatial distribution over time. Earthquake cottage types can also indicate changes in the situation and lifestyle amongst refugee cottage residents. For example, in Bernal Heights, at least four cottages are Type 6, gable end with a flat roof addition. These additions often take the form of garages, and suggest that the owners of the cottages eventually gained a high enough financial standing to purchase and maintain a vehicle (Figure 29). True to vernacular architecture form, owners modified 99 their homes to meet their changing needs, and today the residents of the Type 6 cottages are grateful for the parking spaces along the tight, windy streets of Bernal. Similarly, the overwhelming trend of cottages to be altered with additional roof forms may indicate a general need among cottage inhabitants to build both up and out. While the original cottage form is still considered a useful dwelling space and maintained, a growing family necessitates more room, or an increase in socioeconomic status can create an increase in personal effects, and a need for more space. The additional roof forms not only afford the home more space, but also serve to further disguise the original cottage form. Figure 29: The Cottage at 3653 Folsom Street in Bernal Heights includes a garage. (Photo by author). 100 Earthquake Cottage Survey Analysis Thomas Carter and Elizabeth Collins Cromley’s 2005 work, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture: A Guide to the Study of Ordinary Buildings and Landscapes, lays out a well-defined method for the analysis of information gleaned from a survey of common buildings. The book synthesizes the architectural properties of vernacular structures through five aspects: (1) time; (2) space; (3) form; (4) function; and (5) technology.250 An analysis of these five properties provides a basic framework to investigate vernacular buildings in their current form and work backwards in an attempt to uncover the “ideas, values, and beliefs--patterns of culture--that caused an object to come into being.”251 In application to the earthquake cottage survey, an examination of the patterns--the identified cottage typology--through time, space, form, function, and technology, helps peel back layers to understand the cultural forces acting upon the houses, and how those forces have affected the cottages over time.252 Time The knowledge of when a building was constructed is fundamental and crucial to placing it within its appropriate historical framework. An understanding of the broad patterns of history and events that may influence construction of the built environment in a certain location contextualizes a building, and can reveal intentions behind everything from its initial creation to the inclusion of certain minute details. Being able 250 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 47. 251 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, xiii. 252 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 45. 101 to place a building within its temporal context is essential to understanding its intended function, materials, and methods of execution.253 Though the relief cottages never had building permits or dedicated construction documents, the relatively concise range of their construction dates is fortunately well known. More difficult is the determination of the dates of the renovations and expansions made to the dwellings over time. Research in the building and construction records in the City of San Francisco is unusually time consuming, but may yet yield information on specific improvements made by cottage owners through the years. Space The way buildings are distributed spatially in the study area indicates their contextual relationships with their surroundings and displays consistencies (or inconsistencies) in behavioral patterns.254 Geographic analysis of the earthquake cottage survey data has generated insights into relationships between the cottages and the camps, the cottages and the city, and the cottages and each other (Figure 30). By comparing the location of current cottages with their original locations in the camps, it is possible to estimate the routes followed by the house movers as they relocated the cottages to their new permanent lot. With a visualization of this data, it is easy to see which camps are closest to the current cottages, though it is still difficult to determine which cottages originated from which particular camp. The visual groupings of cottages on the landscape corroborate the historical information that many homes were often moved as a group to one neighborhood or area. For example, with many extant cottages in Bernal Heights, it can 253 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 47-51. 254 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 52 102 be projected that these originated from Camp 23 in Precita Park, and that the cottage families consciously decided to relocate their new homes together. Form For the purposes of vernacular analysis, form can be separated into style and type. Architectural style is often the primary way to identify a building, and a jumping- off point for further research. Though the refugee cottages, in their original incarnation, were so simple that they defied discernable stylistic influence, this changed upon their relocation away from the parks. Carter and Cromley refer to style “the way in which something is done, produced, or expressed.”255 When viewed through this lens, the style of the refugee cottages may be called something as simple as “practical,” as the cottages were designed and built to meet the greatest amount of need while using the least amount of resources. These conditions precluded designing the cottages in the popular styles of building in San Francisco around the turn of the century; neither the established Queen Anne or the burgeoning bungalow styles fully apply to the original shelters. Yet, if style is viewed not as a group of character- defining features within a national popular movement--a designation which often fails to accommodate vernacular buildings--but alternatively as actions with intention, the cottages do, in fact, reflect a style: utilitarian. Alternately, type traditionally refers to a designation regarding the function and categorization of a building. “Bungalow” and “cottage” are both types of dwellings that may apply to the refugee cottages, which then, for the purposes of survey and study, may be broken down further into a typology. Invitation defines 255 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 54. 103 typology as: “a group of objects having certain features or traits in common [and]…are usually used in architectural studies to gather sets of similar buildings into manageable units for the purposes of study, and it is usually up to the researcher to determine what the distinguishing elements will be.”256 Function Function is the result of human intentions in architecture.257 In an evaluation of the earthquake cottages as vernacular structures, there is no doubt as to the original intention of the dwellings, which can often be a mystery when investigating vernacular buildings. It is certain that the relief cottages were originally intended to deliver temporary winter shelter to earthquake refugees. They were then used to provide a method for their inhabitants to relocate from the camps and become homeowners and independent of charity and aid. Also, their function as a dwelling place has persisted over time; many vernacular buildings often undergo various changes in function. Technology When perceived as the “various systems available for putting together a building so that it will be able to carry out the functions required by its builders, owners, and users,”258 technology in vernacular architecture informs conclusions about time, space, form, and function combined. With the examination of a vernacular structure, technology can point to the available methods and intentions of construction 256 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 57-58. 257 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 59-60. 258 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 6. 104 during a certain time period, geographic location, in a certain style, and for a certain purpose. The mediums and materials used in structures can carry powerful messages, and the technologies used to construct buildings can also easily denote status, purpose, and intention.259 For example, the earthquake cottages were built using box-frame construction, likely used because it was the most expeditious and economical way to provide the number of shelters needed in the shortest amount of time. A Complete Picture It is almost certain that more shacks exist unseen in San Francisco. As cottage residents gained economic status, many earthquake cottages that had initially served as homes were relocated to backyards to serve as storage sheds or garages and today remain obscured from the public view. As cottages were often moved to new locations together, the current clusters of earthquake shacks are a good place to start; if there are some in a certain location, there are likely to be more. During the course of this survey, another 60 or so homes were identified as possible earthquake shacks, simply from their size and shape visible from the right-of-way. These potential cottages will become a part of further investigation, in effort to compile a complete picture of the refugee cottages on the San Francisco landscape. Unfortunately, cottages not visible from the street will likely remain hidden, unless an informed homeowner is able to realize the magnitude of the treasure on their hands. 259 Carter and Cromley, Invitation to Vernacular Architecture, 61. 105 Figure 30: Geographic Information Survey map of historic camp and current cottage locations. (Map by author.) 106 CHAPTER V COTTAGES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION The field of historic preservation in the United States aims to identify and evaluate historic resources considered valuable in American heritage. While this may seem fairly straightforward, the incredible breadth of existing historic resources combined with a myriad of methods to interpret them leaves historic preservationists and the structures in their care at the intersection of many preservation theories. An increasing sense of urgency on the local, state, and national levels, resulting in part from the epidemic loss of historic resources during the period of urban renewal, gave the federal government impetus to establish a national historic preservation program around the middle of the 20th century. As such, the modern iteration of American historic preservation began in 1966, with the congressional passage of the National Historic Preservation Act.260 The NHPA, among many things, expanded the criteria for the burgeoning National Register of Historic Places, created the individual State Historic Preservation Offices, and designated the National Park Service, under the Department of the Interior, as the federal agency responsible for the execution of historic preservation on a national level.261 Secretary of The Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior has developed guidelines for handling historic resources, known as the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which 260 Robert E. Stipe, ed., A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in The Twenty-First Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003). 11. 261 Stipe, A Richer Heritage, 11. 107 addresses four major treatment options: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Each of these treatments has a distinctly different definition: Preservation is the process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of the historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. Rehabilitation is the process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Restoration is the process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. Reconstruction is the process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving historic resource for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.262 Often, historic buildings can benefit from multiple treatments, or a combination of treatments. Existing earthquake cottages are no different, and due to their highly vernacular qualities, the Secretary of the Interior treatments apply to them in especially interesting ways. Preservation of an extant cottage would involve a careful evaluation of its current features and their condition, and an assessment of which of these features give the home its distinctive character. Removal of any of the unique physical layers of history would not be consistent with a preservation-only treatment, and any porches, windows, trims, sidings that illustrate the historic nature of the building and its changes would be retained and repaired where necessary. A preservation treatment would be most appropriate for 262 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. (Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of the Interior Heritage Preservation Services, 1995), 17- 165. 108 property owners who are satisfied with the features, utilities, systems, floor plan, building envelope, and overall aesthetic character of their cottage, and would focus on ongoing preventative maintenance to keep the home in its current condition. Rehabilitation of an earthquake cottage would be applicable to a home that no longer meets the needs of its inhabitants. If a family requires more space, an extra bathroom, or more light, for example, rehabilitation of the cottage would include additions and alterations to make the home more comfortable and viable for its residents. Rehabilitation is often complicated in vernacular buildings due to the lack of clear delineation of which features and fabric are historic and which are not. Because it is often not clear which alterations to an earthquake shack were made at what time and for what reason, since some alterations may have been undertaken even prior to relocation, it may be difficult to decide which elements to retain under a rehabilitation treatment. Today, many extant cottages have undergone extremely extensive rehabilitation to create a marketable living environment for a modern family. Restoration of an earthquake cottage is well-represented in the “Goldie Shacks”263 which now reside at the Presidio of San Francisco. When rescued, the Goldie shacks were in poor condition but were remarkably complete for their age; by far they are the remaining earthquake cottages with greatest amount of original material intact. The two cottages were excellent candidates for restoration, and were brought back to their original condition through a combination of replacement of missing materials in kind, and a careful retention of any original material still viable. The result of the restoration is two 263 Discussion forthcoming. 109 cottages, on view in a public space, that fully communicate their original, as-built character.264 Reconstruction of an earthquake cottage is not a prohibitively expensive or labor- intensive process, due in part to their small envelope, simple materials, and the knowledge of original construction conditions. For example, a reconstruction of an earthquake cottage located in one of the original camp parks, would be an effective vessel for interpretation and public education; such a strategy might take the form of a commemoration of the refugees who inhabited the parks, include an educational history component, and provide a way to return at least one cottage to its original condition and context. For each of the four treatments, a subset of standards exist that detail the principles and values of each treatment. For both Preservation and Rehabilitation, standard number 4 reads: “changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.”265 This one tenet of the Secretary of the Interior Standards addresses vernacular properties with unconventional histories-- properties that have so uniquely changed over time--and applies to the refugee cottages quite well. Though it has not yet been possible to track and trace individual changes to specific cottages, it is clear that their modifications are an essential component to their historical narrative, and should be retained as interesting manifestations of exceptional dwellings with an exceptional story. 264 Sometimes, there is only one way to save a building, and the treatment absolutely necessary to retain the property is not always the one that would be the best application. 265 W. Brown Morton III, et al., The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Preservation Services, 1997), vii. 110 Character-Defining Features In the words of National Park Service Preservation Brief 17, The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties embody two important goals: 1) the preservation of historic materials and, 2) the preservation of a building’s distinguishing character…Character refers to all those visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic building.266 Known in the field of historic preservation as “character-defining features,” these visual aspects of character can include a building’s overall shape, materials, craftsmanship, details, interior spaces, and aspects of its site and environment. A determination of the character-defining features of a historic resource is important to understand which elements must be considered when applying and executing any treatment standard. On a general level, “the major contributors to a building’s overall character are embodied in the general aspects of its setting: the shape of the building, its roof and roof features, the various projections on the building, [and] the openings for windows and doorways.”267 At close range, exterior surface materials, their craftsmanship, and detailing act as character defining features of an historic building.268 In an examination of the character-defining features of the refugee cottages, two categories are necessary: one to compile the character-defining features of the cottages as-built, and another to understand the character-defining features as they apply to the cottages in their current state. In 1906, the character-defining features of the relief cottages included: 266 Lee H. Nelson, Preservation Brief 17, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Preservation Services, 1982), 1. 267 Nelson, Preservation Brief 17, 2. 268 Nelson, Preservation Brief 17, 11. 111 • Construction: boxed frame construction, lack of stud walls. • Siding: redwood boards approximately 5” wide, “park bench green” paint color. • Fenestration: six-light window, window openings on front and rear, casement type, simple five-panel door. • Interior: fir floorboards, wood/coal stove or gas hookups, specified room divisions, newspaper or canvas wall coverings. • Roof: cedar shingles with a 5” reveal, galvanized metal chimney flue, front gable with a 4.2/12 roof pitch. • Shape and size: rectangular, one of the three as-built sizes: A, B, and C. • Setting: located in an official refugee camp. A determination of the character-defining features of current earthquake cottages is more difficult. Because they have been so heavily altered from their as-built condition, they do not retain much of their original character-defining features in the traditional sense. As such, some of the character-defining features of extant cottages are more abstract and possibly subjective, but still equally important in uncovering the narrative and identity of the cottages: • Layers of history: changed and adapted over time to reflect the needs of the occupants. • Additions: size, shape, floor plan expanded and altered. • Oral tradition: evidence of shack authenticity through accounts from previous owners. • Relocation: moved away from the refugee camp to another site on private land. • Box frame: retention of the foundational method of construction. • Interiors: new wall cladding for insulation against the box framing. • Roof: arguably the most important character-defining feature of extant shacks. Often, the roof slope and front gable are the only cottage features identifiable from the right of way. The classification of a building’s character-defining features is essential to the evaluation of the characteristics of a historic building that should be retained, and those that need not be. Often, the loss or alteration of certain fundamental character-defining features can affect the ability of a building to properly communicate its significance, and thus compromises its integrity. 112 Integrity The National Register of Historic Places was greatly expanded with the creation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which refined the measures with which properties can be nominated and included in the Register. Today, in order to be considered eligible for the Register, a historic resource must have integrity, defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”269 Earthquake cottages, by virtue of the extent of their changes over time, at first glance may not appear to retain many qualities of integrity. However, with closer consideration and explication of the cottages’ vernacular qualities, the shacks can, in fact, be understood to communicate many aspects of integrity.270 In terms of eligibility for the National Register, the Secretary of the Interior has identified seven aspects of integrity: Location Location is “the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred…The location of the property is important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare occasions, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.” 271 Right away, an issue is evident with the refugee cottages and this aspect of integrity. When viewed through a strict lens, extant cottages appear to no longer maintain their location, and thus have lost their historic associations. Yet, another view does the cottages far more justice: because the dwellings were always intended to be moved, their 269 Patrick W. Andrus, et al., National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Cultural Resources Division, 1997), 45. 270 The rarity of the property type must be taken into consideration when evaluating integrity. If the historic resource is in poor condition but remains one of the last examples of its type and association, a greater leniency in integrity may be appropriate. 271 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 44. 113 relocation away from the camps does not detract from, but instead adds to their integrity, as it fulfills their fullest potential for their (always intended) use. If, for some reason, an earthquake shelter would be today still located in one of the parks, the full narrative of location-based integrity would not be complete, as it leaves out the essential story of the relocation of the cottages. Design Design is “the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property. It results from conscious decisions made during the conception and planning of a property…and reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics.”272 Again, earthquake cottages may present a lack of design integrity as traditionally defined. Granted, the present cottages do not entirely retain original materials, organization of spaces, fenestration patterns, textures, colors, and massing. However, the fact that these things do not remain is also an integral part of their historic narrative. It was a widespread and popular practice to disguise the cottages as much as possible, and alterations in design became an inevitable component of the lifespan of an earthquake cottage. Because there are no cottages today that have fully maintained their original design, the textbook definition must be expanded to include these less tangible but historically important elements of design. Setting Setting is “the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built…setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, 272 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 44. 114 the property is situated.”273 To discount the cottages because they no longer adhere to their original setting would also be a disservice to a major portion of their story. A fundamental, essential, and crucial aspect of the cottages’ narrative is their relocation and subsequent rebirth as proprietary homes for working class families. The current settings of the homes manifest this essence of upward mobility for the refugees; they were now able to claim as their own not only a home, but a plot of land as well. Additionally, refugees often took their cottages to locations on the outer reaches of the city, and were able to provide for their families open spaces and superior living conditions than they experienced before the disaster. Without this new setting, a refugee cottage would just be a shack, and would fail to represent the fortunate social component of the refugee cottage experience.274 Materials Materials are “the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property… A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from its period of its historic significance.275 Once again, a cursory evaluation of the extant earthquake cottages suggests an apparent loss of material integrity. However, the changing and substitution of materials over time illuminates an important aspect of the historical narrative of the cottages. New materials were carefully chosen by cottage owners to beautify and disguise their cottages once they were moved to their new locations. Additionally, the new materials, especially sidings, made the cottages far more livable, 273 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 45. 274 A lack of appropriate setting is one reason why the Goldie Shacks at the Presidio are likely not eligible for the National Register. 275 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 45. 115 and added to their functionality and viability as dwelling places that have been able to persist through the ages. In this way, the earthquake cottages do possesses material integrity. Workmanship Workmanship is “the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. It is the evidence of artisan’s labor and skill in constructing or altering a building.”276 It is true that the current refugee cottages do not entirely manifest their original workmanship; the efforts of the union contractors and laborers are largely no longer physically visible. But, the tradition of earthquake cottage workmanship did not end with the men who constructed them. After their relocation, the cottage owners began to upgrade their homes carefully and intentionally. Often, the remodel construction and carpentry work was done by the occupants themselves, and reflects an aspect of integrity in workmanship that remains true to the hands and efforts of the refugees. The energies poured into making a drafty earthquake shack into a comfortable home should not be discounted when considering integrity through workmanship. Feeling: Feeling is “a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.”277 While today’s earthquake cottages may not suggest their specific origins as refugee shelters, because of their small envelope, they communicate a distinctly human, comfortable scale and generate undeniable feelings of 276 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 45. 277 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 45. 116 homeliness that, even from the right of way, are often not experienced with other types of dwellings. Because of their diminutive stature, they stand out on their streetscapes, and to the untrained eye elicit feelings of curiosity; why is that house so small? (Figure 31). Association Association is “the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains its association if it is in the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer.”278 A direct association between the refugee cottages and the 1906 earthquake is unquestionable. Not only is it remarkable that any cottages have survived to the present day, but they remain as reminders of the incomparable disaster, and suggest a resilience of the human spirit in the face of unfathomable conditions. The cottages are made up of so many layers, and each one establishes an association with a particular occupant, and effectively links the past with the present. Association along with feeling, comprise the most subjective aspects of integrity and can depend largely on personal perceptions. As such, the presence of association and feeling alone are not considered enough to qualify the integrity of a property; other aspects must also be present.279 In turn, when considered on a more perceptive level, the remaining earthquake cottages prove to exhibit not only these subjective aspects of integrity, but the other, more objective ones as well. 278 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 45. 279 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 45. 117 Significance, Eligibility, and the National Register of Historic Places With the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places in 1966 came very specific criteria with which to judge the significance of historic resources and their eligibility for inclusion in the Register.280 These criteria outline the five formats that resources themselves must take in order to be considered eligible for the National Register. These are: 1. Buildings: principally used to shelter any form of human activity. 2. Structures: functional constructions not created for human shelter. 3. Objects: artistic in nature, small and simple in scale, and associated with specific setting or environment. 4. Sites: location that possesses historic value, often associated with a significant event or building, regardless if any physical remains are present. 280 Thomas King, Cultural Resource Laws and Practice (Lanham: Altamira Press, 2013), 83-85. Figure 31: 233 Broad Street retains its small envelope and scale. (Photo by author). 118 5. Districts: a concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites united by plan or physical development.281 Not only must a potential National Register resource fit into one of the above five categories, and possess most of the seven aspects of integrity, but it must be proven significant for at least one of four criteria: A. Associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.282 Known to historic preservationists as the four criteria for eligibility, a historic resource must demonstrate significance through at least one of the four criteria to be considered for inclusion in the Register. Significance, as conceptually applied to the National Register, comes from the determination “whether the characteristics or associations of a particular property” are important within the property’s historic context.283 As examined in this study, the context and framework for the cottages’ important place in history runs deep, and elevates them to a status that is patently significant. 281 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 4-5. 282 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665, 89th Congress (October 15, 1966), Section 36 CFR 60.4. 283 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 45. 119 Earthquake cottages are buildings that are not associated with any important individual, are not architecturally significant, and cannot yield any archaeological data; it is clear that Criterion A: broad patterns of history, is most applicable to the cottages. Criterion A is founded on the existence of the resource at the time of, and its association with, the important event or broad pattern of history.284 A checklist to determine if the property in question is significant for its associative values under Criterion A is provided in the National Register Bulletin #15: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form: 1. Determine the origin and nature of the property 2. Identify the historic context with which it is associated 3. Evaluate the property’s history to determine whether it is associated with the historic context in any important way.285 Much factual information and many period photographs exist to confirm the beginnings of the narrative of the shelters as associated both with a specific event, (the San Francisco earthquake) and a pattern of events (the refugee migration). Furthermore, “the event or trends must be important within the associated context…the property must have an important association with the events of historic trends, and it must retain historic integrity”286 in order to be considered eligible for the National Register. Even the most surface-level knowledge of San Francisco is permeated with the gravity of the 1906 earthquake, which persists as the most influential event to occur in the history of San Francisco. 284 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 12. Associations must be documented and confirmed; speculative associations are not eligible. 285 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 12-13. 286 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 7. 120 The word “our” in the Criterion A definition can mean any group of people, from a neighborhood, all the way to citizens of the United States. In their nature, Criterion A properties are, according to cultural resource historian Tom King, “judged in whatever spatial and social contexts are relevant.”287 Somewhat non-instinctively, properties eligible for the National Register do not need to be significant on a national level--local, regional or national relevance are all acceptable. Depending on the context of the resource, properties may be placed in the Register even if they are only important to their immediate surrounding community.288 As such, earthquake cottages, while part of a broad pattern of history that affected a greater area, are considered significant on the local level. The cottages were not relocated outside of the Bay Area, and remain to the local population as reminders of the disaster present on the San Francisco landscape. “Portable” cultural resources are customarily thought to be ineligible for the National Register.289 While “portable” most often refers to resources like trains, ships, and the like, (which are becoming increasingly accepted as eligible), the idea of a portable historic resource may also applies to the refugee cottages. Designed with motility and portability in mind, the shelters fulfilled their ultimate purpose by being portable for the refugees who needed them. The Register, however, does make some considerations for technically ineligible buildings that still hold great significance, referred to as Criteria Considerations. These Criteria Considerations refer to resources that can be religious 287 King, Cultural Resource Laws and Practice, 87. 288 Properties that are significant to the nation as a whole are often eligible as a National Historic Landmark, a higher honorary designation. 289 King, Cultural Resource Laws and Practice, 317. 121 properties, cemeteries, reconstructions, commemorations, properties less than fifty years old, and, most importantly, moved buildings. Criteria Consideration B reads: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for its architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.290 The relief cottages are not necessarily significant for their architectural value, but do fall under Consideration B when understood as important surviving structures of a significant event. The National Register Bulletin continues Criteria Consideration B with several points: • Significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons.291 • A moved property significant under Criteria A or B must be demonstrated to be the surviving property most importantly associated with a particular historic event or an important aspect of a historic person’s life...meaning that it must be the single surviving property that is most closely associated with the event or with the part of the person’s life for which he or she is significant. • Moved properties must still have an orientation, setting, and general environment that are comparable to those of the historic location and that are compatible with the property’s significance. • A property designed to move or a property frequently moved during its historic use must be located in a historically appropriate setting in order to qualify, retaining its integrity of setting, design, feeling, and association. Such properties include automobiles, railroad cars, and ships.292 Two main types of National Register nominations exist: nominations for individual sites and nominations for districts. A site normally includes one major component, usually a building, which stands on its own and communicates its significance separately from its surroundings. A district, “possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or 290 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 25. 291 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 29. 292 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 30. 122 continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”293 National Register Historic Districts traditionally apply to places like campuses, business districts, farms, neighborhoods, and transportation networks, all encompassing a “number of resources that are relatively equal in importance.”294 Yet, not all historic districts necessarily need to be connected geographically: A district may also contain individual resources that although linked by association or function were separated geographically during the period of significance…A district may contain discontiguous elements only where the historic relationship of a group of resources does not depend on visual continuity and physical proximity.295 The refugee cottages are prefect for a discontiguous district. Because their relocation is an essential component to their history, and are still inextricably and undeniably linked by their similar origins and associations with the earthquake and the refugee experience, a discontiguous district would suit the remaining cottages perfectly. Often, properties within a proposed National Register district are not independently significant enough to qualify as eligible for the Register on their own. It is their collective existence that makes the group significant and eligible for the National Register as a district. As individual dwellings, the earthquake cottages likely do not possess enough significance to qualify as separate nationally significant properties, but grouped together would form an excellent discontiguous district.296 293 National Register Bulletin 16a: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Cultural Resources Division, 1997), 15. 294 National Register Bulletin 16a, 15. 295 Andrus, National Register Bulletin 15, 6. 296 This is distinct from a National Register multiple property designation because resources included in a multiple property nomination generally need to be considered individually significant. 123 The Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of San Francisco’s 1906 Earthquake Shacks The National Register of Historic Places is not the only way to commemorate a significant historic property. Most states and many municipalities compile their own registers of historic places in order to recognize the resources that are locally significant to their community, but may not be significant enough to qualify for the National Register. Local registers often include many historic resources that are highly specific to their immediate communities, and the San Francisco Register is no different. Article 10, Section 1004 of the San Francisco Planning Code delineates the establishment of a “official list of properties that embody the architecture, history, and cultural heritage of the City and County.”297 Property owners in San Francisco are able to submit an application to initiate the designation of their property as a local landmark, which then must be approved by the Landmarks Board before it can be included in the local register. The National Register criteria have been adopted by the San Francisco Landmarks Board, but applied to properties significant on a local level only.298 In 1983, a San Franciscan named Jane Cryan began to research the provenance of her unusually small home in the Sunset District at 1227 24th Avenue. When she discovered that she lived in a house composed of three refugee cottages, Cryan soon became most prolific earthquake cottage advocate to date. Within the year, her landlord informed Cryan that he would be placing the cottage up for sale, and she immediately began the process to nominate her cottage, as a representative of all the surviving 297 San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 5: Landmark and Historic District Designation Procedures, (Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, 2001), 1. 298 San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 5, 6. 124 cottages, as a local San Francisco landmark.299 She presented her home for designation as a true “people’s landmark,” as a meaningful structure inhabited by the city’s poorest citizens. The Landmark Board and the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application, and 1227 24th Avenue became Local Landmark #171. The narrative of the cottages in the 1980s and 1990s did not end with the local designation. Hidden from view and thought since the 1910s, this was the first time in nearly 70 years that they returned to the public consciousness. The local landmark status of one cottage quickly snowballed into a frenzy of research and survey, as shacks and shack stories began to emerge from backyards and long forgotten memories.300 Cryan quickly formed her own cottage advocacy nonprofit, “The Society for the Appreciation and Preservation of San Francisco’s 1906 Earthquake Shacks.” The Society was soon committed to identifying as many extant cottages as possible, and to educate owners about the precious resource on their hands. Most importantly, the Society worked assiduously to save as many cottages as possible. With rapidly increasing real estate values, earthquake cottages were rapidly being proposed for demolition, and Cryan and the Society crusaded to organize neighbors, property owners, buyers, and landowners to orchestrate a surprising amount of cottage moves and saves.301 Even The New York Times took notice and ran a piece about Jane Cryan and her unusual little homes.302 One of these victories stands out above all the rest, and serves as a successful example of cooperation between refugee cottage stakeholders large and small. A dwelling 299 Cryan, Hope Chest, 63. 300 Cryan, Hope Chest, 63-65. 301 Records of the Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of San Francisco Refugee Shacks, 1983- 1999, Box 1, Record Group SFH 9, San Francisco History Center, Public Library Main Branch. 302 Carole Rafferty, “Saving Old Shacks in San Francisco,” The New York Times, February 2, 1984. 125 comprised of two earthquake cottages on 34th Avenue in the Richmond District had already been awarded a demolition permit, to make way for a more profitable multifamily building, when Cryan stepped in and began to investigate the property. She found that the owners and inhabitants of the cottages, who Goldie and Ray Raczkowsky moved in in 1974, were only the third occupants of the home, and that the original owners had informed them that the cottages came from nearby Camp Richmond.303 The “Goldie shacks” became Cryan’s most complicated save (Figure 32). The two cottages, one Type A and one Type B, retained a remarkable amount of original fabric. However, the dwellings themselves were in extremely poor condition, nearly uninhabitable, and were on the verge of condemnation by the city. Cryan was able to generate so much press, visibility, and support for the Goldie Shacks that her proposal to save them was expedited before the Landmarks Board, Planning Commission, and City Council, and even gained the participation of the United States Army. The Post Commander of the Presidio of San Francisco, a native to the city and a history enthusiast, offered Cryan a site for the Goldie Shacks on the Presidio grounds. Cryan and the Society volunteers engineered a deal in which the property owner of the Goldie Shacks would donate them to the U.S. Army, pending the Army’s assistance in their relocation. In January of 1985, members of Company D, 864th Engineer Battalion arrived at 485 34th Avenue to remove the Goldie Shacks, which conveniently also served as a training exercise for the company. 303 Archives of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Cryan Earthquake “Goldie Shacks” Collection, Record Group 2742, Presidio of San Francisco. 126 Initially, the Army engineers were puzzled about the most effective method to move the cottages. In a remarkable return of events, Cryan, on site, showed the Captain in charge several images of the same task being performed in 1907, who proclaimed, “Well I’ll be damned. Of course that’s the way to do it.” So, with clues from the first shack exodus, the cottages were successfully relocated to the Presidio.304 There, the Goldie Shacks were subject to what Cryan refers to as “mending,” but what modern preservationists would consider to be a restoration. Several original six-light windows, doors, and large swaths of siding were recovered from the Goldie site, some in condition to be restored and reused, others relegated to serve as models for reconstructions and conserved in the Presidio’s museum (Figure 33). Extraordinarily, the interior green paint and some of the newspapers used to cover inside walls to keep out the damp fog are still 304 Archives of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Cryan Earthquake “Goldie Shacks” Collection, Record Group 2742, Presidio of San Francisco. Figure 32: The Goldie Shacks are uncovered by Army soldiers (Image: Golden Gate National Recreation Area Archives). 127 present with the Goldie Shacks; these elements were preserved and can still be seen with a visit to the restored cottages today (Figure 34). Now under National Park Service jurisdiction, one Goldie Shack has been repurposed into a small interpretive center, and the other has been mock-furnished with period interior furnishings (Figure 35). Figure 33: The Goldie Shacks on the Presidio grounds. Park Ranger Jose Roldan leads interpretation. (Photo by author) 128 Figure 34: Newspaper wall lining is still visible in the Goldie Shacks. (Photo by author) Figure 35: Period and replica furnishings suggest the realities of refugee life. 129 Refugee Cottages and The San Francisco Planning Department Cryan disbanded the Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of San Francisco’s 1906 Earthquake Shacks in the late 1990s, and they once again largely disappeared from view. It was not until the most recent San Francisco real estate boom of the last decade that the cottages once again drew significant attention, but this time it was not with the public, but with the San Francisco Planning Department. The City’s historic preservation planning staff began to notice a number of requests for demolition permits for unusually small houses. Because these houses, like so many in San Francisco, were over fifty years old, a permit request automatically triggered a Historic Resource Inventory form, a brief analysis of the history, integrity, and significance of the property in question.305 The Department systematically contracts out these inventory forms to local professional historic preservationists, certified according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. These professionals performed the necessary research and evaluated the current cottages in question according to the established preservation metrics. They determined that because the resource had been moved from its original location, altered beyond reasonable recognition, and the materials had changed considerably, it did not qualify as a historic resource.306 The inventory forms they produced clearly state their conclusions--the structures no longer retain any integrity and are appropriate for demolition. Thankfully, this determination was not accepted by the Department’s preservation planning staff. On the contrary, Jane Cryan’s research and her preliminary survey list of 305 This trigger is caused by the California Environmental Quality Act. See San Francisco Preservation Bulletin 16. 306 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Building, Structure, and Object Inventory Record Form, for 1218-1224 46th Avenue and 1231 47th Avenue, 1994. 130 existing refugee cottages were uncovered and integrated into the official Property Information Map. Today, many authenticated earthquake cottages are now considered Class A Historical Resources, eligible for the National, California, or local registers, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Category A resources are subject to the highest criteria of scrutiny when under consideration for alteration or demolition permits, and any potential changes made to the property must not adversely affect their character-defining features or aspects of integrity.307 However, because the cottages have such unconventional character-defining features, it is possible to devise creative treatment strategies to protect them from demolition. By now, it is clear that the fact that the cottages have all been relocated is an essential component to their historical narrative. As such, if a current cottage is in danger of demolition, it is altogether appropriate to propose relocating it again in order to save the dwelling. Another move of a cottage would not detract from its character-defining features; because it has been already moved and because that move is important to its story, moving it again would simply continue the narrative. In the same vein, if a current cottage owner is interested in changing or adding to their home, these can also be acceptable modifications because one of the character-defining features of the cottages is that each owner has changed and crafted them into a personal dwelling space. This lends to a great deal of room for resourceful and imaginative solutions if a cottage is in danger of demolition. A Preservation Sea Change (Across the Sea) The City of San Francisco’s recognition of earthquake cottages as a worthy historic resource exemplifies a burgeoning fundamental shift in the way historic 307 San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 5, 3-5. 131 preservation evaluates its principles like integrity. While expanding definitions of integrity and authenticity are new to American preservation theory, cultural historians and conservationists elsewhere in the world incorporate traditional aspects like design, materials, and workmanship, while also considering intangible factors like function, tradition, language, spirit, and feeling when evaluating integrity.308 Pamela Jerome, in the Association for Preservation Technology journal, notes that foreign preservation standards have transcended “…that of the monumental. This shift has substantially broadened the definitions of cultural heritage to incorporate a wide range of tangible and intangible expressions of authenticity.”309 International preservation standards recognize “the legitimacy of layered authenticity, [and] evoke successive adaptations of historic places over time.”310 Historic preservation in the United States is only beginning to confront these issues of integrity and authenticity that preservation theories from other nations have already challenged and expanded upon. Jerome concludes with the pronouncement that “authenticity [according to international standards] is a concept much larger than material integrity.”311 Raging Against the (Preservation) Machine To push back against the traditional standards of integrity and authenticity so deeply engrained in American preservation theory is not an easy task. Institutions like the National Register of Historic Places have established the foundations and principles of 308 Pamela Jerome, “An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation,” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin 39, no. 2/3 (2008): 3. 309 Jerome, “An Introduction to Authenticity,” 4. 310 Jerome, “An Introduction to Authenticity,” 4. 311 Jerome, “An Introduction to Authenticity,” 4. 132 preservation; to challenge them will take a multitude of progressive, like-minded preservationists with solid examples of the way traditional interpretations of integrity and eligibility fail unconventional historic resources. Judith Wellman, in an article in The Public Historian, contests the established characterizations of integrity as they relate to her research uncovering and authenticating historic sites along the Underground Railroad. Much like the earthquake cottages, the Underground Railroad sites have been physically changed since their period of significance, and no longer retain much of their original materials, workmanship, or design. Because many current preservation models continue to focus on the treatment of historic resources expressed primarily through their architectural components and design quality, important historic places like refugee cottages and those associated with the Underground Railroad tend to fall through the cracks, because they do not always fit neatly into the guidelines drawn by traditional preservation standards.312 This modern preservation shortcoming becomes even more difficult when the resources are considered common or vernacular: Rarely imposing to begin with, most of these buildings have been continuously occupied and changed. Owners frequently view such changes as a way to save the building my making it usable for new generations.313 As understood with the refugee cottages, these changes make it difficult to divine which transformations are significant and from which era they arose. However, if American historic preservation is able to see beyond the myopic seven aspects of integrity, and perhaps begin to instead conceptualize integrity as encompassing a broad 312 Judith Wellman, “The Underground Railroad and The National Register of Historic Places: Historical Importance vs. Architectural Integrity,” The Public Historian 24, no. 1 (Winter 2002), 23. 313 Wellman, “The Underground Railroad,” 24. 133 spectrum of attributes and values, it can be understood that that all buildings change, and those changes can be incorporated into to their historical narratives in an additive way.314 Special resources like Underground Railroad sites and earthquake refugee cottages deserve attention equal to their high-style, high-integrity counterparts. As Wellman notes, “In terms of integrity, we need to balance our desire for physical integrity with our pressing need to preserve material culture resources that document and help us interpret important parts of our history,”315 even though this history may not manifest itself in conventional ways. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, whose fundamental philosophies have gone unchanged since its inception. As time goes on, and definitions of what constitutes a historic resource continue to expand, the regulations that guide the field of preservation must expand with them. The National Register and its Keeper are the one program charged with the significant task of maintaining a roster of sites important to Americans at local, regional, and national levels, and as such, have a great deal of influence on what is perceived to be historically significant to our shared heritage.316 If only resources with traditional physical integrity are considered eligible for the National Register, historic properties with unconventional displays of integrity, like the refugee cottages, will be undervalued and left unrecognized. To ensure the inclusive and affirmative future of the field of historic preservation, a departure is necessary from the viewpoint that buildings are merely things constructed in 314 Wellman, “The Underground Railroad,” 25. 315 Wellman, “The Underground Railroad,” 29. 316 Wellman, “The Underground Railroad,” 29. 134 the past, and move toward their recognition as dynamic products and representations of people and their experiences throughout history. 135 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION Andrew Jackson Downing, a father of American landscape architecture, described his primary architectural theory as: “the first object of a dwelling is to afford shelter to man, the first principle belonging to architecture grows out of this primary necessity, and it is called the principle of fitness, or usefulness.”317 As an enthusiast of the simple cottage house form, Downing divined the vast practicality and usefulness of dwellings of the simplest forms, which often germinated from the urgent and most basic need for people to have a roof over their heads. I feel certain that Downing would have appreciated the refugee cottages and their journey from the humblest origins to their persistent success in the present day. Not only have the tiny dwellings managed to survive for so many years, they have time and again demonstrated their usefulness to many generations of inhabitants. Yet, to those with a less intently focused vision of historic preservation, preserving such a small cottage in San Francisco makes little sense. The land that the cottages sit on today is worth, in some cases, over 100 times more than the structure itself. Preserving an earthquake cottage is simply bad for the bottom line, no matter how historic or charming they may be. My response to this way of thinking is twofold. First, the current cottages not only serve as one of the last physical vestiges of the 1906 earthquake, a natural disaster on an historic scale, but they also function as a reminder of the determination of the human spirit in the face of tragedy, and as such are valuable for far more than their historic qualities (though those are important, too). The 317 Andrew Jackson Downing, Cottage Residences, or, A Series of Designs for Cottages and Cottage Villas (New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1847). 136 cottages have defied the passage of time to become enduring expressions of resourcefulness and resiliency, not only at the hands of earthquake refugees, but for every subsequent occupant the cottages have had over their lifespan. The earthquake cottages inform today’s San Franciscans and the modern citizens of the world about people, places, times, and moments, and manifest stories and narratives through their physical form and the changes they have undergone over the course of time. Second, the earthquake cottages are not finished teaching their lessons. The ingenuity with which cottage inhabitants have formed and molded these simple structures over time to meet their changing needs represents a spirit of reuse and resourcefulness that should inform our attitudes toward all existing buildings. Though it may seem obvious to the preservationist, the relief cottages widely prove that a building need not be large and new to be useful and viable. The continued occupancy of the cottages over eleven decades demonstrates that is still possible to consolidate increasingly material modern lives much in the same way the earthquake refugees were forced to in 1906. Earthquake cottages are the original tiny houses, a “movement” that has become popular among people who wish to intentionally simplify their lives by residing in exceptionally small houses. This tiny house concept is firmly grounded in history, and the refugee cottages link that history with the resurgence of these small-living ideas of the present day. It is no secret that all buildings change. If buildings never changed, if they did not adapt to fit the needs of the people who occupy them, they would lose their usefulness and likely be discarded. Yet, as demonstrated by the vernacular perspective, these changes should not always be considered a bad thing. The unique ways and avenues in which the earthquake cottages changed over time make them exceptional examples of 137 vernacular architecture. However, it is these same qualities that also make these structures a conundrum when it comes to modern conceptions of historic preservation. This conundrum presents itself as a challenge to the field of preservation and its directives for the evaluation of historic resources. Currently, a historic property is not considered “eligible” for the National Register of Historic Places unless it is able to properly express its significance and integrity according to carefully-crafted criteria. If resources, like the earthquake cottages, are unable to adhere to these criteria due to dramatic changes over time, then they are simply considered not significant. However, this thesis has contended that such resources should, in fact, be maintained, presented as distinct and extraordinary in their own right, and considered eligible for acknowledgement and preservation alongside their traditional counterparts. Finally, the earthquake cottages deserve preservation in the face of perplexingly rising housing and living costs in San Francisco. Very much like the earthquake survivors, residents of San Francisco today deal with rapidly inflating housing prices, and risk the loss of their livelihood to factors entirely outside of their control. Because the cottages have low square footage and are often located in the outlying neighborhoods of the city, they become (relatively) manageable places to live and buy, and still embody the spirit of accessibility of homeownership that initially gave them so much meaning. The persistence of the cottages over 110 years of a constantly-changing landscape San Francisco can be summarized thusly: they forge a connection between the present day and the most important event in San Francisco history; they prove that they can still be useful, enjoyable, and viable places to live; and the fact that so many people have cared about them over the course of generations signals a desire to cultivate homes and habitats that have a deeper, more meaningful story than just four walls and a roof. 138 APPENDIX A NEWSPAPER ARTICLES 139 Anna  Simpson  Pratt,  "From  Green  Refugee  Shacks  to  Cozy  Homes  of  their  Own,"  The  San  Francisco  Call,  9  May  1909.   air busy painting: out every vestige of green, the color that made the/ refugee settlements look 'like a lot of orphanchildren, all dressed alike. Other thanthis green, there has been a perfect riot of color used in decorating and furnishing the houses. In some places blue and even pink have been used asa decoration for the house trimmings, but never green. That would be theworst of form. The refugees wTio had not been inany measure thrifty after the calam- ity and who could not make even a small payment on a lot or guaranteeto keep up the monthly obligation had to be helped in a different day. A ma- jority of them were .placed in a camp where they pay ground rent. Amonj? this aggregation are* some who are learning their lessons a little late, but by the time their'leases are over they, too, will have something to invest in homes. In the present arrangement the Associated Charities has provided •pipes, baths, one set for every thre*families, but where families are striv- ing to improve their condition and claim greater privacy they are helped to that end. Flowers and vines addmuch to the contentment of the peoplo livingin these camps. One settlementor Point Lobos road looks as if a lotof people were adding their best en-deavors to that of the AssociatedCnarities. Even in these camps where the houses are of necessity crowdedthe health of the children as well as that of the grown people is surpris- ingly good. The houses are small, so they are out of doors most of th* time. Even though the conditions inthese camps are far from ideal, they are infinitelybetter than the best tene- ment, could be. Results inFigures When the practical part of the hous- ing work was finished, the following interesting report was submitted: No. of . Ayerage Total Amt.Cases. Work Done. Cost. Expended.53»J— Cottaee moved $17.f.0 $9.350.00•»:\u25ba— Foundation built 15.00 G.225.00297—Plumbing Installed.... 80.00 25.245.002».3 SbinjrUns ." 20.00 3.700.0073—Buying cottage SO.OO 2.250.0024—Building cottage 137.00 8.253.C0IS—Paid one month's r*nt.... to moTe from camp. 25.00 430.00- 72—Repaired roof 3.00 2W.0037 Repaired window* . 3.00 • 111.0014—Patent chimney ...... 5.D0 "ft.OO6—Fireproof roofs 21.00 126.002&—'Paid sewer deposit.... 30.00 790.0042—Paid water deposit.... '10.00 420.C0- 6 Building rooms 20.00 13C.00• 21—Moflng furniture .... 5.50 32..*V0s—Partitions ;... 10.00 30.0011—Cesspool ..- • 4.00 44.00• 7 Screens" - 5.00 3XOO.. 3-MTelll.ns Inside of cot-• tage 20.00 «0.00115—Shingles ...- .. 9.00 1.055.C0 \u25a0. O-^Tub«rcular porches 30.00 270.00 '. Total amonnt expended $33,0C3.50 Total number cottages 703Average ;'expense per cot- '.tage .1 \u0084-. *79.e02-3 Total appropriation received from Bed.-Cross for housing.- $39,352.30Total amount expended Dtcetnber 1,. ;1908 .;.... 03.963.30 Amount on hand December 1. 1903.... $3,420.29. .' •No less - important than the actualhousing is the work being done nowby the Associated Charities —that" of•visiting the home making families. They are encouraged by the personal interest taken in them; their hands are held up a little when the burden getstoo heavy by reason of lack of em- ployment or illness; they are getting moral support that willmean for them & full"measure of success at last. Em-ployment is sought for any member of a family 'oat of work and In ways that are not possible to record, ami encouragement is given ungrudgingly.' Every **worker" of the Associated Charities Is exceedingly proud of "her ."prettier, inside than out" tell so'well .the meaning of one phase of the home making under the supervision of the As- sociated Charities. .The immediate fam- ily to be housed In this case was the invalidhusband and his wife,'both past early middle life, people .who before the calamity had been self-supporting 1, but wno could 'not get started again. Every day -.vas taking, them, fartheraway- from self-dependence when "theycame under the jurisdiction of "the As- sociated Charities. They, had se,emed destinedto become the unhappy-charges of. -overburdened ,relatives " wh,o .were making their own- fightunaided. Ifthe husband "had not been stricken after the fire the .story;would have* been* differ-ent. oAs it.w,as. this .couple got- their share of-cottages and help. The sons- who could -riot- have taken the full burden of the -care of,- their, parents..* 'are paying theV'monthiy ln~' stallments .on the a property.. .Besidesraising.' vegetables, -the mother . doeswashing and so '„provides subsistence: By this arrangement .the sons -are en-abled; to take care- of their own, fami-, lies and this x>ld=°c6upt£!ar'e livingout their lives" helpfully and practically independent; so neither^ the state ..norindividuals have- them as. burdens, as they surely -would have" been by rea- son-of their- age,= their losses. and" theirinfirmities. •• '- , ,? ;One ,of the most 'significant ;.cases handled was that of an Italian family,decent- but inept. Before^ the. fire thishousehold,: whether in' sickness \u25a0or inhealth, was always asking, aid of'the - Charities.', Jfow they have a house made up-of two refugee, shacks and a "lean- to.";Growing vegetables fill the yard, with the exception 'of a' small space'given, over to flowers. With a horse!and aSv-agon: the father and son gather- wood and sell. it. A little land, some' help and lan opportunity .have, taken this family,from the" list -of,charity" charges.' .Many a story akin to thiscould be told.of the reformation of the' shiftless and ... unfortunate .• familieswhich, through the relief money and the good" judgment and tact of the As- sociated Charities have become prop- erty owners." " -."On tho side of a hill,"and. quite alone,stands one of the most \u25a0 Interesting of the refugee cottage." transformations.Additions: have .been built, the place has vbeen made unusually substantialthroughput, comfortable within and at-tractive' outside. -But' much -more in th* way., of beauty and convenience has been planned for this 'cote. There Is always a ladder en th* outside. Just at pr*s*nt Itis leaning against a porch that is going to ba as large as a room, The San Francisco; Sunday ;Call we.r« was ''-to ;th!em .-.riot a\matter ofconjecture.- To these--, lnforrned .officials no refugee. dired tell-any p'f.the fairystories current!" after the fire-f^of laces,affluence arid, "heirlooms. With this background -. of Teslact knowledge the workers of the .Associated Charities. wer« equipped %q do the greatest good ,"for- the -greatest -number. ; ".. The -first ;step 'in this \u25a0 big1 scheme was to find "out exactly ' the real' es- tate; situationv to. ascertain to a. cer- tainty the rent- schedules. The knowl- edge this gained proved beyond ques- tion that the refugees could not af- ford the rents demanded even under . the most favorable conditions. The ma- jority = of \u25a0 the. -people under' con- jr\TEK new born San FranciscO|IJ some splendid Influences ihaTCiV^ been brooding, and ofthem there arc annals startllngly tan-gible to record. It'ha s been isar edfrom the tenement eril that seemed fora time to be an inevitable part of fe>construction. The delinquent and de-pendent children are getting the carethat willmean wholesome lires anddesirable citizenship for them instead«f threatened vagrancy. The new dis-pensation stands also for adequate rerliefin cases of distress, and it is brine?ing about a campaign for the relief:end care of tuberculosis. \Back of these efforts and accom-plishments stands tbe AssociatedCharities, bringing to the task com-mon sense, scientific knowledge andunremitting energy. >'ever seeking commendation, and almost shrinkingfrom publicity, directors and workershare gone steadily forward, until nowthe progress made Inmany directions,for the lasting good of the communitycomes as a distinct surprise.What has been done and howIWhatmust bo done and how? will be thesubject of three papers, The Call de-siring to set this important movementfairly before the people. The firstwilldeal with tbe carefully consideredaction that saved the poorer peoplefrom tenements and put them inhomes; the second, witb the closingof the San Francisco foundling asylumand the disposition of tbe deserted,neglected and generally unfortunatebabies and lanrer children of the city; the third, with the significant move-ments for the care and prevention oftuberculosis and the general questionof adequate relief for the poor aiy-'tick. . ;:\u25a0\u25a0 \u25a0 \u0084:\u25a0 \u25a0\u25a0 ."?". - •:':: \u25a0 Anna Pratt Simpson /-p-sHROUGH wisdom; kindliness andI;-..determination' San Francisco haaJ ;;been -isaved from the horrors of ;.':.;:-^;^e^l«n*meot.ilevil—a . fate fore- cast; as ;a:^oncomitani. of calamity re- construcUon.... This comfortable truth f* confidently: declared, now that the cru- cial three years, are all but over. This does riot Jjtnean;- that' there are aU th« needful buiidlrig'laws on the statute books,; b-ut.that .:the city Tias gone so far along Inthe rightroad that there could be no excuse for -a" step inthe wrong di- rection now.- Unless this community, treacherous: to itself, Is irnmindful of its t>»s4hj?s: iahd; opportunities, the yearslo;cbme: wilffind it, like Philadelphia,"a city of Jionies.*'-. . :' ;. •\u25a0 \u25a0:' : \u25a0.- " ,\u25a0^'hcn; the; problems ot housing per-raan«ihtiy;;t.!ie stricken poor of"this cityhad \u25a0-.: to be -met the relief'• commitUelftok'ed-\Qy.er;,iiV^.;;-Bttuation and wonderedwiifSSe. tr» begiri-Vand what would be the«nd; : To . the outsider the solution ,Tnlg-lit hvive . seemed . an easy mat-ter, -boraase there was a general im- PT?s?jonr that there was money enoughIn the .relief .fund to "meet a'l demandspenefpusly. ,;.Thif! was not- the case.orily tKe. rnbist 'judicious mana^enH.nt oftlie:.^mo«nt; viavailable = made adequat*a^i-starice:, possible. '':.:'\u25a0 .• • ' \u25a0 . .. th«: days Of the tents and refu-frf*-cottages were ..:oflicially numberedfinal account had to.be made of the people;.; occupying them. The able-bodied and riot actually dependent hadt6;:te "There were some oftliese tiirifiilyliving out their refugeeda^s, ihsistlng: that, they could findr,:place to- rent, .: A small percentageof /.the yjjaTk dwellers were able toe tart;on; their way when assisted toth"-. •\u25a0 \u25a0". " .'. ).As against what seemed .to be theinevitable,' Miss Katherlne '.Felton .'Of the Associated CharKies proposed that the relief.committee' permit her to use her discretion in the disposal .of the refugee cottages . or. shacks, j With these cottages and the allowance from the relief committee, she undertook the work of making.tax payers out „of de~ pendents. .Above ,all, she. was. deterr mined to preserve the Integrity:of the family,life and to leave .nothing un-done toward :providing .homes . that could.be paid for in' small. lnstallments.It was :under her. direction that themodern miracle was- 'Wrought^ .7Quite naturally she began work withthe widows and their-"families;-: and for families in which.the provider waspartially or entirely incapacitated. In the beginning cases were selected ac- cording to apparent need, but the. en- tire undertaking. =wa3./:so stupendous that Dr. Broderick^s: suggestion thatone park- at. a time b« cleared-- wasacted upon.. There were people bn.thooutside- who ;objected toi'-.tlje.":removal, of the relief cottages to-dlitererit partsof the city, foreseeing, as .they thought",a long continuance of makeshift. \u25a0 vn7sightly hovels and :wretched, conditionsof living.- Since that time' ithey havelearned a:\Jesson yvorih while. . .....Having decided -to .place families Inhomes by. themselves,; sites-. for. settle-ments as weil'as for/ii'rigte cottageshad to be found.. .:' This, part of • th.c work was- not without, its- difficultiesr— property owners; .like- some of- the- objecting: observjerß, did- not; iook up6n refugees as entirely "desirable purchas- ers. Now,CVome *'.of-:them' •are 'sorry about thfeir attlttide.J.foru.several. mostinteresting- and 'promising sections have beon built up through this scheme. In the^ are blocks iafter blocks ofshingled' cottages, with never. a .sug-gestion* of refugee shacks about . them.Each, cottage has its "flower .garden",with always a plat reserved [forkitch-en truck. Men and .women and 'chil-'drep? are working:together t'haf their comfy homes, may soon -be. unincum- bered." . .' \u0084 .' '• •,.The Associated' Charities" found «cv-excellent- sites %where there ,was plenty of sunshine arid,where beauti-ful views were on 'every ;hand.: Defl-.nitej arrangements ,were '•made 'for 'easy payments 'ana th!e -work _s of:;changingrefugee ;shacks slrito; attractive;-cot-tage's was ,soon under!; way. *There \u25a0 wereall;sorts of physical complications;; in1the' rbusiness , of;; transferring '\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 the" cot-tages and the 'movers resorted ;to a va-riety of /make'shif t?>. > The ;little-.t.thouseshad to be taken from'the tills and flat* aria carried; iong:;. distances to helgrhts. and depths. The. movers, became mostingenious.-" They; seemed ;.to -. defy, \u25a0 thelaws of: gravitation, handling leadenloads like . feathers.; ' ;Photographs ofthis part- of the work .'are among the amusing records preserved. Every one remembers the days when the streetswere filled with the green. cottages be-ing bumped along over, the pavementson trucks drawrr by'.sturdy horses. 'Itis easy to recall* alsoi:that in the doorrwiy of many of. these shacks nien andwomen were sitting be- ing mpved with 'their.. houses. Fewrealized the full. significance :'of j thispilgrimage. Many of the houses Iwere,the: property of refugees who could: af-ford to buy and remodel them,- but themajority"were destined to be homes for families that had been dependents onlytoo loing. -r-" • ,/ ''- ,-.--.; •; :',\u25a0•',.• \u25a0; .,:•\u25a0 One of the first,elements" of successin this home -making, campaign lay.-inthe. fact that. during the time the- ref- ugees livedunder relief conditions theysaved money.- Many paid rent accord-ing to. the terms, of occupancy .' made with- the committee, but when it was•shown later; that "they were desirousof having \u25a0homes qt their own the rentmoney .was .refunded. .This enabled them to make first payments \u25a0of j$100 to•$150 on building, lots. 7'Ternjs were.ar- ranged i>y which .thei remainder 'of- thecost price is "being met byinstallments' of $S a month, .or. as much more as thefamily can afford and ;yet meet:currentlivingexpenses. In every.case the, bur-den is fitted 'to the back that- had to \u25a0bear it, "'There were no • hard ;and ifast Faniily Limited to $150 . ."\u25a0 Every move had to be made. with-thefact. in.mind- that ,when\ the final, ac-counts were add6d up.tbe allowance per.family .should not be-- more than the al-lotted- $150.' -':\u25a0 From .the Istart* the Asso--clated .'Charities knew r!that 'A amountwould •have to"pe' handled- with;a" Bortof Wall street 'sapaclty.v A":large^partof the, necessary labor was done by-theemployed *who worked ;.for each ;other; and under such, conditions as the Asso-7 elated .Charl ties-: could 'offer, •which was'principally getting; supplies *for them- ;selves and 'fa*nilies;In*jexchange '.-for:!labor. ; Then, too,' a .great part ofUhework was done", by the J men and womenwho were" to .occupy. ':\u25a0 the -; cottagres. There is many" a little home upon .which:the shingles :wereZnot :laid »by^an? ex-; pert hand, but;1that .' matters *:Taot/i.Plants. and^ vines areT kirid;to'slighVlm-iperfections that come\wheri ."every,man-ia his own:architect." :And the; flowers 'are- so bright \ that ;they challenge at-1tentioni and -divert^criticism. -/.iWomen*developed remarkable [-skill;as' carpen-5ters '\u25a0and :\u25a0 saved \many 'Ja\ dollarito fadd 'to.the furnishing of;,"our,;hoine.7;' Manyof -.the;:women* also };became 5expert flnfshingling.':..? lt-was \u25a0.< not%an"uncommonthing; during? the} active "ihorriejmakingdays ito \ see a;.woman % balanced -^on^a ••ladder ;measuring aria: hamme'ririgi'^hln-'J 1|glee,^while ,^the fi"kiddies"£made£*;mWi pies "near-by. « Woman's' Ability t^o patch \ and- mead; arid -cut Tandf saw^was JHhej no time;handed: to the;' refugees. |Out-side", of the -fact ithat the Associated Charities •could-.make the "amount gothree or .four times as far as most thrifty family;, the handling-• of the~ money- -gave ,-.some \u25a0" discretion in, jits*disbursement, and made it possible to provide for many 'more families, iEvery .day in ;tb«*larger 'economy of ;the sit- \u25a0 \u25a0 uation, -Peter |trave. ta little:to|pay?: Pauland'-ther'*; was ;always' an \interesting..and 'sometimes intricate balancing of Associated Charities were made by some 'refugees,'.who, .;not/ having tto consider.the future. '^wanted 'most of-all $150 intheir hands. %Ori«-, scrappy )woman1who' \u25a0 heard 'jof4 the ..-definite -amount :allowedaby;.the [committee; went .raging, to ;theheadquarters 'arid \u25a0\u25a0. said:' '.'.'\u25a0\u25a0 . '\u25a0\u25a0 '\u25a0'• .. ' '-: :"You did riot;speds slso. on my place. Idemand rtheVdiffere.nce;; it's sniine." -.;;«; Being .gracious r and.' charitable ;'and ikindly'\u25a0 toithe) last :degree'; to ;the peoplewho; bad.lsomeiiexcuse v for > frazzlednerves ;ah3 *111^ temper,*: the 'Associated;;Charities hadTthe f accountant "look .up".;the woman's £case. '*..;By - dint ;ofjex-j.;change 'x>t >Labor Jand getting ;'materials'.Iat aminimum'price,* heir home 'had !beenputs Iniexcellentt condition'; for;$149.40.-.To;'her^utter,discomflture she /scanned,•- the\ account 'andTln :confusion' itook- the •60' cents; difference. -_ < '\'<: \u25a0.':_ \; "> \u25a0 :-.V.''Some ofitheinewshdmes. aremade up d ofItwo.:cottages 'arid\u25a0 some :of[three, ;theicottages *.varying!in;aparti; and/; at room;-.was jibullt between^them ;(others ;were!placed?atVright?angl es;jmaking, afdesirable'Liv sometimes one on:each/ side;=;the.top£of :|:another,^ making jltwo storyIhouses;; ln'othe^cases'they'Svere raisedIso]thatlat cellars mightf add;something,;to[th« comfort(ofjliving.;iBay-windows!'were ibuiltjoutyandf casements iopened{attractively}to|the;surifand^air.i.r/h*.. . One' house" is ;mad e;up;of t two\ shacks and- a hkiosk -stand" that taste. |The* house has many .nooks •and:corners .for.;beauty and 'convenience ;It has :been furnlshrd with nice- attention to comfort and harmony. \ Ifthere were'a prize for the most ingenious combina- , tlon.T of of materials" this house would win it., i * . " While .1kwas scrutinizing 'one ,of:the•new.v homes, searching; in- vain 'for Ar- trace of the. well known refugee: shack, the ';owner?; said .proudly:,: \u25a0'•\u25a0'. -"My"house is much*- prettier/ inside; 'come-in :and.* see.". -And\ she Hold, me the .story'jof;her. new home, while herparalyzed' husband near, by added .aiword•of ":praiso and thankfulness \ oc^ r.casionally, being hopeful t that he .would;soon again be:able rj,to ~do ? his. parti vHis- wife .and others '.listening fknew \u25a0that .the paralysis, while not complete, V'hadnot shown- any improvement Ifor'- many \u25a0'\u25a0'\u25a0months. " ; ! - '.';;• ;.!'See imy.; parlor,"-; this tgood German woman* said ,.with pride. ,There it;-was,-! \u25a0 bright1with color;and'adorned" with the familyIportraits,;, saved.; at. the time; of vthe.:fire*and -without .doubt carried la-•'borlously/many, miles to!safety.,; ln" all.'probability n-o;one":used 'this little place\setCapart -for]the conventions, "for;ad-V joining^."wa's 'a most' comfortable com-* i:blnatlon: dining.and sitting roomfopen-'\u25a0* ing to a side sporchUhat had 1been made;by:\a.-:right ifangle arrangement. jof^tlio\u25a0shacks." -'.But itdjd'notmatter; she was\u25a0i happy; in-'.', the ypossession *of 'it:,.'Her•kitchen,- that for.compactness and clean-,..' liness -wouldi,have > matched -that? of a"!ship;s was^'duly » presented, t-Throughoutj- the .• house • the .walls -were iclteerfully'Ipapered.tthe "\u25a0 carpets ;we-re \u25a0gay, t pottedtplahtßr,were 5in;>; the vwindows. 5VOutside'J the 'prospect', was -equally, pleasing:; -"Afwellcared for vegetable garden told an-.pother; story.'-: ' \ : ' ':^ " -.{:";%?!Hraise - alljthe ipotatoes s and ;oth>r• vegetables, ray husband and Iuse," Aridt this-,- letiitvbe*remembered^ was *on*,theiback-rof|a ;^city-lot;iANot^onlyitwas:thls-5 thriftyfound; at % the ;home Jof * the"goodIGerman wbman,v. but almost everyw.here.possible the "Associated i.Char-•lties encourageHhls \ lesson' of Independ-'vencV,l incidentally ]gettingr |the. people to%learn- the -miracle ofIthe isoil.;'*;; \u25a0~~ wVThefconditionsiobtairiing-forJthe^Ger^\u25a0"^man^ woman whose ?home ;,was tte ven \u25a0 oommandingr -an lmmenis view;of;th« southern "part of the bay. When the•weather is inclement, this man of deft hands makes furnltura for bis' house., "Nothing, -more .pathetic -had -to be considered by the Associated Charities.' than tho plaint.of the 'middle*aged un- married Vwomen.' '." During .their; -. timeIn:camp, • they - had ,made their tents, and -shacks. .'genuine* little homes andthey 4 were 1happy" in 'the individuality .that Ahad .coma ;to. them.* „Their" grief ' was .'pitiful-;when .they ;, were 6rderedto vacate ."them. . In the"scheme of _re-lief; no] provision had ,been? made forthis 1, class, the understanding; being . that single women could provide for themselves. They pleaded for.a chance to' own* a\u0084" shelter.- .There were some .who!insisted that v they'would- "haveto 'be -dispossessed;- they •:» would 'not ,move., "\u25a0 The ?.* situation, was .discussed and' the 'conclusion 'reached that these unmarried \women were 4 entitled", tosome ;consideration; :in fact. 'that" anyone, married "or single,' who craved andwas willing*to fight for a home, .'ought ,' to have* one. >None of,the refugees are "working;harder;- to':pay, 'for/the 'spotthey xcall ;•home ithan 'these "women.",*•The ;'• several 'families • ,as-| sisted may ';hay had widely differingj ;ideas .about sthej arrangement* of'their.:;houses, but;upon ione'thing>they J,wercall?agreed;" landJthatlwasVth"e^elimina- '' '. tiori;of/everything *that!suggested the.relief scottage.' "Particularly •were they I;- " : :\u25a0 \u25a0 \u25a0 '\u25a0 ; •-- \u25a0'\u25a0!"\u25a0•-\u25a0' ' FROM GREEN REFUGEE SHACKS TOCOZY HOMES OF THEIR OWN THE /TORY OF THE.FIRST OF THREE NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT/ BY THE A//OCIATED TRARITIE/ came too late for a ,vender, to us*:' -Ah' excellent 'arrangement was] made ofthese fundamentals and little ai§'.itions here and there were deftly-made. The house was well shingled, and, Holes for windows were cut, A few;ornamental,oval windows" were contributed by.a friend .having, something; to do with amill,and casement windows with leaded glass were obtained by a-member of thefamily/who worked in ah art glass fac- tory. .:The, -placing of these "accessories was |done Iwlth:- discretion and ,good kind'tnat made- the; shingles, go 'In orderly .faahlort. -:-:•'••." •• \u25a0_ i\u25a0 ;';• \u25a0: The.;. Associated Charities ,'couldtdo-' much better for\u25a0these people than they could ".do for". themselves. /7/7 The '\u25a0'\u25a0 realestate men and those who had wares. to pell, jjcould •' make •more t)satisfactoryterms v Iwith.". • the '; /organization" \u25a0: thatcould ".give Orders than' with the .individual, iwho;heeded but one.lot,' a>few bundles- of shingles and .every-- thing• in;proportion. -,.V . . -.-\u25a0 • \u25a0• - '? :.; '. .'possible Jl5O , a' family\u25a0 was- at 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MOVING 20,000 Refugees: NOTICE STELLMANN, LOUIS J San Francisco Chronicle (1869-Current File); Aug 11, 1907; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: San Francisco Chronicle pg. 4 Louis  J.  Stellman,  "Moving  20,000  Refugees,"  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  11  August,  1907. 141 The San Francisco Sunday Call.Magazine SectionPart I.ENRICHMENTOF THEREFUGEES Hanna Astrup Larsen *\u25a0 "~-r—'2B;UftS« 'extca cstt«r«« -truoCl*^I;'aJia^'tt«' :«tr»«ti^:lTA*]>*!l**-*?*B*-':I•\u25a0^^imMMMi-VM'j'lßMrflT/j'aii?lt-*ttay.t usiawglt^lfg.Tnl7l^FMi^^rieini^3.tbi\*j^iaj«f^*{^|.t^x^Si^ the. < fty"^*;!^CTjpiirt;Vi!^»>^S*|«itlTtty"C Inra Wfri«:riy"xftiiu«K^s^"^^^»^^^t^rr •with jjiiitt^^t^;y?«f^^IHar^^v»<»ti?ft.">_: F«w|^pVttti«hJb^c-otttt -i^^rwJtJtti^pJ ci tl»;tt^«Tt»^rßJi firt^ifthilr;,Tf^cottalj^w'%"«u»"inaaSSt? iaikiv»**,#•£rai^y.:,rowsf*^.'j^"iuk;.4iK«^iia^huX.^:b»J t»ulVd£;ICC evrry;ar^^*e*l"?.-. to b^Tmt^ 'et rhxi':tomtmct "nat'ur«^that i fiais (*»d.-- kj>«rtineat <-heTwes-^pa.n Vl'notera^lfli>t»^/Ti|«^^ey.wib'hai rgrownnip?: fca »'ja*^doW^i'lcnow;Wt^!it^«£av.* CBtarlMl:*rUt»'tO-tha city,- \u25a0wk«ri^ie^s\ so r^i^"i^a^r|^*i^t>»|^he;c^ ftar 4 ;pp"^«fiftgatlt»r. T^*?I*Vff'.T*l". ops •';iMuata^^pirW -Wi^-own^melon;pmtflJtr twSiv bachelor glrljijrorronnds ;hersetjTwlia her own hoa«eh.old rodi.lny: th* »hap* -of iplctnreaj . hangings^ and h trasses to produce a ieablance of a ' licn*,"bot eh*'raallx««'-«oc«>tauaxwhllß:- th»t «b*; - wo-Qld rath«r*haT« a'hammoek j la a comer ef'ths'oldporcavaVhoni-,-' vetth. \u25a0 thijmoralnj ;glories ,tannlng\u25a0--her'J. cheeks, !than & rented :;apartment r-in Ptdfia ' "aTeau*. Tt* . worlclngman's.." irtT* 6crlmp« and aares •for\halt -a*llf«^ tim* to c*t•eaoTJCB mon«y \u25a0• to -buy^iaj teas, aad acritap« i-'aßd:«»ve«.the otlur^ half of;her:llf*^to*pay.'thi;mortgage,^ and tbrocgh Itall aha "Is *ntlrely'repaid^ by th*kaowlftdg* that, she, wlil,or, s&*loes own ahonia. .-\u25a0: The prosalc^e^ tails of.getting -a cement •' floor*In'^fe* eeHar or'laying cmt a. kitchen .';gerd«n'^ becam* clorlfledby th*"Jaio^etJg^j^hai^ it Is all her own. •.' \u25a0 \u25a0jf??~r;^~'. :. la th* tcpsytorryness ofjpVesent^bßi^ £!tlons~in Baa Fraariscoj:a%ny^ peoples flnfl tbe • thing- that'. •••laetl'jbalyfJtirVff mot* vision5 sadjd«Blr;|ijrttt^^thfirS; grasp. \This"U-oa^tp^'sU^ngMtJdj^^velopments/tnat. \kiikxii.\\dlsaster'has?* brougSl In- Itsv.Waki^^^yt^l^^v swept" away »^xa*«yjhjoaea ;'hai^e«}<' the ca-aso^o^ott^^^oVjnV'W.to'.^in^.^ expected; wXya".;a»Sfpl_&cesr f:.ii*r^V>v Between- fiy•r?^4-^ilx^thon»*r^»cot- • tages built.by,th"c Bejl'ef cor-'/'poraUpn/l'K'hlcL '?hare ?houied :in\all*#0,-*f. :e^iptopJe^ATh»^ftrt^pfjtt6\l»mpy;fcartr«s glyenJT "shelter J to*j.«'J raiay'!M^"*'!.isffi^j^jra^'liin J^*ft»| ( glri^>to*h'aye|&«]p'arXs«cl*ar^s^atf &&$ .e«n£ronU^^tH«*^t^^h™^§^'ipr^;:.^«»V*^?,r^.t^*H"^*W^'W^^fJ I^'^^a1ng^fa'll^a{w^i W^tKits^^'do|th^^j^^SeJ.J^aSfs.^i f%ooi-^|ta^g^^^^i^thy:p^i|osy^^S^s^'^r»jiJ^ro^l^nf«^Bl^a,e*eh jftioieVjbe"imf1^ *^«^BA*«'^^^to^eth.eT"^^t3w^^pi«J|»^jiw/^jt;t^n^cp;thV^t^g^^ Ijs^c^etf'to.laVoifS^ :t6t*'|te^£Blcajity^"t*r jthe'Jliii^in^ta^lßien ts'-^op*•^th.yir/snp«Je£^th« fiSSpey. '^' \Thoie -'{wlib';. ,tag©jt»f JSs*br"onc 'rvithiihre^^Jffj s^^f or"':|SO/ ;" >The /;coft -; of;,Lmojhigv ;::togethe'r :;r.= wlth the'Ajil'um&V-*fig.^and-' 'others; necessaries^. vselOdni'^sjnonntsLto;more, :thjin. libp.'a^tfd^henj: sereral^ :families'.^ can "Bettje^'ciosV-.tor'-'r lessened. )•Tho'se -who;have' beenVpaylpsX thelr.tiinpntHly;'Installmen ts 5Tor-!ttae:genen^y>have^o^thcir^(^etfti^^^Bum;ne«ssaryrto vpurchaj6s|^h'|^^^S^ and maHVrtha^«t)V|^fi^t^^j :;,It]tMk;someftim»^^^e^p^^Meitlon^c^ear '^-'^^^^^^^^^^^^^ derßt^o^^^^er^^^K^^i£«;.:ffd||,,vai^|^^^^«^|:«i^pWi^|p^ffpeo^l^^^r^^^^^i^tl^jhVA-a^»p|; pearly *th« ¥,vaiWimouhPol^jrooa'"id^iwsS by.^^^>ajrrangc^[eji^^^i^y^,wpjkini>iT(wpi«;>(rho*ajwa er'e^h^r^aHvefjuari ch^e^bi^iotrl^e^hti^?begomin.g; depjendejrt^o nV^bafl/y^, ThoajUßds.'of 'j^tlUlQestsCMV'iffie^<^tiaVes'''bav^'*»be''e^l''ie returne£*.to • Jjcist| suph^ pecvp-J eT v-The- R^^jji|ef 'Vcpr^rattenf-ln^'lhta^j^ay/has ."-h»;->?o>^.vas«9rt'f|\o^^ce^pp^j^^^^af<^s^b^ink.^Th•'cottage«". th^n;beco'ipe^l'fre'|*slo»^a*ir«nt \u25a0chMg^rfor|any- 1(^^i|In^tfshap^f 1or; |^^!^j^w^l|l^^e^^^f^o^MrJle*t&WBv^ae«-|pnJ^i^bAc^i^ttno^Si^iTiie»lrftlß^Jatai \shacky?^ set jdo'wnvff^n^;^^''that"is]tpjmak"eJofHJreJ'&iiti tfk|a^bu nga^:lowr.^.Tjje^tciltale;;fffee.n- col^rfii's;^^\u25a0nfstuiiSfc^to^be taVklTi Sqaie^^a^'| coat .of-i>ninl of-'i»o.me;<»t]reric^lf»r.j?S^l^^on;•'I»ut \u25a0 rn6i '^-frc"r/uen"jj^|^^^p?J^*fe3^;skini;kAr«&3>urpn>»ea^ \u25a0^^^^^ptt^^i o^3e> crpr}sicgj|3^^^J^W>ujflc <-< > !!•\u25a0-; fivi '-ottaja*,^ f««tj upen. .;nn_lem^f^^otiJer|^ en: l'bv,-.-:: etreets^Joinlnic'*:'-them'.uTt^e^aiic.r* Vooras^rlxdiJyJimUt'^ana(cwe r^^witbJtar^p^jr^yEliJ^-A^r:^icjm^flag^f^^ liwerej\u25a0baling/ tr.ahs"-|!j -iorrn«;refug«j3greeh%.tOi*^xh3^A«l^fred.'i>.Ti^^ttageß^rl3a^iH»lrVownelrs »Ja.^.p retty.faum?each /SonitHtjTn rents. - "^, - /"''"' "" ,"" /' • t&ckedslnto^sbnie? corner^ tn^th'e ifiho»t% iWhoswas left with two.amall caEdr«n to.support.: Sjia was not csed to work- ing for her Uvtng.'but Bha^tooSc^ttp the .burden of tha famjly vrxg» .«arii«r courageously and Vdcceedad inmalting a bare *living;for herself 'aafi her chll-^ dren. \,But tha'problein oC.honslnir.'was' monumental, for tha relations between the. wages >of.-unskilled wosoaa's laborand'prss'ent San Francisco rczts 'er» atralned.'to say:th»l«ast. sTha'reTarsa cottage; solved; the probleno. .Sha'had -been* payings rent -on one of tha cot-. \u25a0 tages/ and. when she decided on mov- Ing"It:the -rent J was returned to bar. •The. sum ar.y.".The- twos houses; wera combineU into one; ana the owners ars busy *at' "odd1moments sain^lfng: thorwalls.^.'One: qf.'theax, "minds", tb.a babies -at, home -:while . the, other is the. waji learner "of"the combined families. Sha'travels^ every;*day -from •her -'home ,dn>tVe>cou'nty"llrie;to the cannesy. at'North - •.lJeach.-and nrither thedisAance uor. tha long^hours- of *t°ilse*;n hVird. becausa ,site :.knoTj?, already the.juy /of .owgins af flonse and will soon -ov.-n' the, sround\u25a0itfstands pn.-* There were many old people, < ciai'ly 'women, .who-before tiiv lire Ii«"d- Inexpensively 'in some unused an-J un - jwanted corner "of.a-house antfjasttaaaa-'-;aVed "with'a*little -sewJns. or .washing, 'of:,janitor' work, to earn cnoush/for their livingexpenses. " The fire1swept;away ;their 'homes and often- their ep-pbrtunltles/for makinr the frugal wag» \u25a0 they * dept-nde*! 'uppni . It*was 'expected'that a- large, number of'such peopla* would 'become dependent upon 'charity.VndUhe* charitable .societies' were^pr*-'pairing .to make 'an especial ',In!-their behalf.. The refugee cottages haveprovided 'homes for.many of them and ••haveTenabled, them -for yet, a while"tf>'.enjoy -their isdepemlenee. .'•' 'Qf.allTtiio!. v.orl: accompllclicd by,tha -"Relief rfrom 'th'4. -time of ..t'.ie bread1 \u25a0Hpelto uhe," breaking up o* the camp? nothing"---Is '» of:"greater iniportanc*' Ito 'the C|t>:, than.that, of;establishlnj:*s.ooo; families; ia their, own homes, Oc •'the jToadst leading to tha^uburbs mov- > 1ing .trucks. • are -trundling, th* little j-green -houses: that spellrcomfort. lnde-;- fpendenca ;and 'happiness ;to.these \u25a0 thou- \•* lands.' x - !^Tha^traveler; on/the Mission: road. Will :• often ffirid:'th"e\ progress of \u25a0;'str«?<»£ :VCArTsioPped byra.truck.bearibgiajlittle' VKre'eir _tage ..'of ..transfarma- tion.^.."Some \u25a0 are;just,as jthey/ carhe .fronV,Vjthe'.Jrefugee Vcainp /'carpenter's*.. -hand. \u2666;:3d%nj>aVe> half/covered -sTrith shlnsrlcs,, VwhlleV.the.^ other -'half :.of -the wail "Ist.;Rtarlhg.:.Ereeiily. :and -waiting/tor' the- vtbe, familylt'o;get another "cottages"' as?lf/they 'meantit'o *"»tay.';'}7ot "bnly/aro *tbeV.Vyias':'wl£h one fanother* in'"giving" \.homes t.bulltsup rofIt-pro \u25a0 or, thre«_cottages^the 1mo3trarfistic shapes^but* they are]lay-\Ing '^jatIcar4ens gand,planting' Vvege-(tables'} and jflowers. &•ilany *hark- J Ing-back? tovcountry 'lifa'and ere^add- rlnsjpigsy endj chickens "to*the; attrac- ;!tiona'of tthe. landscape.. .;••', ,ij'^.\u25a0-typical *case ils :that 'of•5,.-.woman r.ttaaxpeoted 'place jn the downtown' dls- r t.lottos', square" 1and ,at •North- Beachj are imostly peopiis'or^he'Latln :races, ijiany? /of'-them rpwn'' iojts',' and. had their fown**-'home s|be fora;•; • tnci-:flre._> '\u25a0 Others '?have»';bl»nf(sjivin«i.^ caring ;hoines ;*now. Jdayj finds *LtberaVeady^^ j-\u25a0tor*I;of8 household \u25a0 {good*.> taka^their $ \u25a0• lio^aetfen^^^way^fEYen 'beforaUhe Jfday.'set1-£or^ vacaUns.' the*camps 'j|I'ni«,ny^fl<.rth*eia.V,were :- coxnfortabjy..; set- \u25a0 jtlet'*/'---- -..\u25a0 :" vv> '"I \u25a0 " .'.•' ' Hannah  Astrup  Larsen,  "Enrichment  of  the  Refugees,"  The  San  Francisco  Call,  20  October  1907. 142 APPENDIX B EARTHQUAKE COTTAGE SURVEY FORM EXAMPLE 143 APPENDIX C COTTAGE TYPOLOGY EXAMPLES TYPE I: ORIGINAL FORM 1837 ALABAMA STREET, BERNAL HEIGHTS TYPE II: L/T SHAPE 1227 24th AVENUE, SUNSET DISTRICT 144 TYPE III: PARALLEL FORMS 43 CARVER STREET, BERNAL HEIGHTS TYPE IV: TWO-STORY 30 NIANTIC STREET, OCEAN VIEW 145 TYPE V: ORIGINAL FORM/REAR EXTENSION 673 MOULTRIE STREET, BERNAL HEIGHTS TYPE VI: FRONT GABLE/FLAT ROOF SIDE ADDITION 3653 FOLSOM STREET, BERNAL HEIGHTS 146 TYPE VII: FRONT ELEVATION MODIFICATION 230 MONTCALM SREET, BERNAL HEIGHTS TYPE VIII: GARAGE UNDER 331 PRENTISS STREET, BERNAL HEIGHTS 147 TYPE IX: ADDITIONAL ROOF FORMS 217 MULLEN AVENUE, BERNAL HEIGHTS TYPE X: FRONT GABLE/SIDE ENTRY 164 BOCANA STREET, BERNAL HEIGHTS 148 TYPE XI: SIDE GABLE/FRONT ENTRY 1 KIMBALL PLACE, NOB HILL (not yet authenticated – pending type) (All photos by author) 149 APPENDIX D HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY POSTER PROJECT 1/ 2" =1 '-0 " FE ET 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 0 C EN TI M ET ER S 0 50 15 0 1: 24 DELINEATED BY: ARIANNA URBAN EARTHQUAKE REFUGEE COTTAGE CA-XX PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO CA IF REPRODUCED, PLEASE CREDIT THE HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, NAME OF DELINEATOR, DATE OF DRAWING UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SHEET HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY INDEX NUMBER LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SAN FRANCISCO AAAP 410/510 EARTHQUAKE REFUGEE COTTAGE 1 OF 1 SA N F R A N C IS C O E A RT H Q U A K E R EF U G EE C O TT A G ES 19 06 -1 90 7 A ro un d 20 0, 00 0 pe op le w er e re nd er ed ho m el es s fo llo w in g Sa n ra nc is co 's 19 06 ea rth qu ak e an d fir e, w hi ch d es tro ye d 4. 9 sq ua re m ile s an d eq ua te d on e of th e w or st m un ic ip al d is as te rs in h is to ry . T he re lie f e ff or t i nc lu de d th e co ns tru ct io n of 5, 61 0 bo ar d- fo rm re fu ge e co tta ge s in 1 1 ca m ps in th e ci ty 's pu bl ic s qu ar es , a jo in t e nd ea vo r b et w ee n th e U S A rm y, th e R el ie f C om m itt ee , a nd th e Sa n Fr an ci sc o Pa rk s C om m is si on . T he co tta ge s w er e co ns tru ct ed fr om Se pt em be r 1 90 6 to A ug us t 1 90 7, a nd co st a ro un d $1 00 to m ak e. B ui lt of re dw oo d bo ar ds , f ir flo or in g, a nd c ed ar sh in gl es , t w o ne w p ro pr ie ta ry p la ni ng m ill s w er e er ec te d so ut h of M ar ke t St re et s ol el y to s up pl y en ou gh m at er ia l to p ro vi de fo r t he re fu ge e co tta ge s. B y de cr ee o f P ar k C om m is so ne r J oh n M ac La re n, " pa rk b en ch g re en " w as th e se le ct ed p ai nt c ol or to b le nd th e co tta ge s w ith th ei r s ur ro un di ng s. C ot ta ge s w er e di st rib ut ed o nl y to fa m ili es o f t hr ee o r m or e, a nd h ou se d 16 ,4 48 p eo pl e at p ea k ca pa ci ty . E ac h co tta ge w as fu rn is he d w ith a c oa l o r g as s to ve , s ol d to th e re fu ge es a t c os t, an d la rg el y us ed o nl y fo r s le ep in g; e ac h ca m p w as e qu ip pe d w ith c om m un al k itc he ns , l au nd ry , a nd ba th fa ci lit ie s. Th e ca m ps w er e op en fo r a p er io d of on e ye ar , a fte r w hi ch c ot ta ge fa m ili es w er e ab le to p ur ch as e th ei r s he lte r ou tri gh t. W ith p ro of o f a la nd le as e or sa le , f am ili es h ire d te am s to ta ke th ei r co tta ge a nd m ov e it th ro ug h th e ci ty to a ne w lo ca tio n. In th is w ay , t he d is as te r us he re d in a n ew g en er at io n of ho m eo w ne rs in S an F ra nc is co , a nd th e co tta ge s se rv ed a s ve ss el s to b eg in a ne w , i m pr ov ed li fe . . C ur re nt ly , t he se co tta ge s re si de o ut si de o f t he ir or ig in al co nt ex t, bu t h av e be en fu lly re st or ed a nd re si de a t t he P re si di o of S an F ra nc is co . Th is p ro je ct is a p ro du ct o f t he U ni ve rs ity o f O re go n' s H is to ric Pr es er va tio n pr og ra m a nd th e H is to ric A m er ic an B ui ld in g Su rv ey C ou rs e. PR ES ID IO O F SA N F R A N C IS C O (Renderings  and  text  by  author) 150 REFERENCES CITED Advertisements, Column 6. The San Francisco Call, 24 November 1907. “Aged Woman Fatally Burned Alone in Shack.” The San Francisco Call, January 4, 1910 Amunategui, Sergio. “Shelter, Dwellings, and Metamorphosis: Adaptations of the 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shelter in a Single Family Dwelling.” Master’s thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1989. Andrus, Patrick W. et al. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Cultural Resources Division, 1997. Archives of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Cryan Earthquake “Goldie Shacks” Collection, Record Group 2742. Presidio of San Francisco. Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn. New York: Viking Press, 1994. Bronson, William. The Earth Shook, the Sky Burned. Garden City: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1959. Camerlenghi, Nicola. “The Longue Durée and the Life of Buildings.” In New Approaches to Medieval Architecture, edited by Robert Bork, et al., Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. Carter, Thomas and Bernard L. Herman. “Introduction: Toward a New Architectural History.” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 4 (1991): 1-6. Carter, Thomas and Elizabeth Collins Cromley. Invitation to Vernacular Architecture: A Guide to the Study of Ordinary Buildings and Landscapes. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2005. Carter, Thomas. Images of an American Land: Vernacular Architecture in the Western United States. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997. “Chinese Carry Houses on Backs.” The San Francisco Chronicle, September 10, 1907. Colbert, Elias. Chicago and the Great Conflagration. Chicago: J.S. Goodman & Co, 1872. Cryan, Jane. Hope Chest: The True Story of San Francisco’s 1906 Earthquake Shacks. Unpublished manuscript, avail. San Francisco Public Library San Francisco History Center, 1999. Dabau, Emily. “This Adorable Cottage is Even Tinier Than it Looks.” HouseBeautiful, July 13, 2015. 151 Donovan, Diane. San Francisco Relocated. California: Arcadia Publishing, 2016. Downing, Andrew Jackson. Cottage Residences, or, A Series of Designs for Cottages and Cottage Villas. New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1847. “Exodus of Refugees Begins From Parks.” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 8, 1907. “Fifteen Hundred Cottages Gone.” The San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 1907. “First of Relief Cottages Erected in Hamilton Square.” The San Francisco Chronicle, September 17, 1906. Flathman, Jennifer. “Rereading the Library: A Cultural Conservation Approach to Determining the Architectural Significance of the Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore, Maryland.” Master’s thesis, University of Oregon, 2007. Garfinkel, Susan. “Recovering Performance for Vernacular Architecture Studies.” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 13, no. 2 (2006/2007): 106-114. Glassie, Henry. Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976. Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings. American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors: 1870- 1960. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009. Grove Karl Gilbert, et al., The San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of April 18, 1906 and Their Effects on Structures and Materials: Bulletin No. 234 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907): 134. Heath, Kingston. “Assessing Regional Identity Amidst Change: The Role of Vernacular Studies.” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 13, no. 2 (2006/2007): 76-94. Heath, Kingston. The Patina of Place: The Cultural Weathering of a New England Industrial Landscape. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2001. Inspection Reports of the Sanitary Officer of Camp 13, Franklin Square, May 1906. Box 1, Record Group 112. Correspondence and Related Records Pertaining to the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906. Records of the Office of the Surgeon General, Army General Hospital, Presidio of San Francisco. National Archives and Records Administration of the United States, San Bruno, California. “Installments Are Refunded.” The San Francisco Chronicle, March 27, 1907. Issel, William and Robert W. Cherny. San Francisco, 1865-1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. 152 “Jefferson Park Will Be Clear.” The San Francisco Chronicle, August 23, 1907. Jerome, Pamela. “An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation.” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin 39, no. 2/3 (2008): 3-7. Junior League of San Francisco, eds. Here Today: San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1968. Keenan, Sandy. “Treating His House Like a Museum.” The New York Times, August 6, 2014. King, Thomas. Cultural Resource Laws and Practice. Lanham: Altamira Press, 2013. Larsen, Hanna Astrup. “Enrichment of the Refugees.” The San Francisco Call, October 20, 1907. Larsen, Hanna Astrup. “No Women Need Apply, Is the Dictum of San Francisco Landladies.” The San Francisco Call, January 20, 1907. Linthicum, Richard. “Lest We Forget:” Complete Story of the San Francisco Horror. San Francisco: Hubert D. Russell, 1906. Lubove, Roy. “Lawrence Veller and the New York State Tenement House Commission of 1900.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47, no. 2 (1961): 659-677. Mack, Gerstle. 1906: Surviving San Francisco’s Great Earthquake & Fire. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1981. “Many Refugees Move Each Day.” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 27, 1907. Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, H. Ward Jandl, and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Preservation Services, 1997. “Mission Park Free of Camps.” The San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 1907. “Mrs. Mary Kelly Defies Relief Corporation and Takes Ride in Cottage to Ingleside.” The San Francisco Call, November 4, 1906. “National Historic Landmarks Program.” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-665. 89th Congress, October 15, 1966, Section 36 CFR 60.4. 153 National Register Bulletin 16a: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Cultural Resources Division, 1997. Nelson, Lee H. Preservation Brief 17, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage Preservation Services, 1982. O’Connor, Charles, et al. The San Francisco Relief Survey: The Organization and Methods Of Relief Used After The Earthquake and Fire of April 18, 1906. The Russell Sage Foundation, New York Survey Associates, 1913. Rafferty, Carole. “Saving Old Shacks in San Francisco.” The New York Times, February 2, 1984. Records of the Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of San Francisco Refugee Shacks, 1983-1999. Box 1, Record Group SFH 9. San Francisco History Center, Public Library Main Branch. “Relief Cottages Completed.” The San Francisco Call, September 18, 1906. Report of the Chicago Aid and Relief Society of Disbursement of Contributions for the Sufferers by the Chicago Fire. Chicago: Riverside Press, 1874. Roebling Construction Company, ed. The San Francisco Earthquake and Fire: A Brief History of the Disaster. New York: Roebling Construction, 1906. San Francisco City Planning Commission, Resolution No. 9952. Originating the Refugee Shack as a Landmark Pursuant to Article 10 of the City Planning Code, ordinance no. 328.84. August 3, 1984. San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 5: Landmark and Historic District Designation Procedures. Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, 2001. San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 16: City and County of San Francisco Planning Department CEQA Review Procedures for Historic Resources. Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, 2008. San Francisco Property Information Map. . Simpson, Anna Pratt. “From Green Refugee Shacks To Cozy Homes of their Own.” The San Francisco Sunday Call, 2 May 1909. “Small Houses for the Poor.” The San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 1906, p. 16. 154 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. Building, Structure, and Object Record Form, for 1218-1224 46th Avenue and 1231 47th Avenue, 1994. “Steal Parts of Cottage.” The San Francisco Call. 24 November, 1907. Stellman, Louis J. “Moving 20,000 Refugees.” The San Francisco Chronicle, August 11, 1907. Stipe, Robert E., ed. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in The Twenty-First Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Tomes, Nancy. The Gospel of Germs: Men, Women, and the Microbe in American Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. Upton, Dell. “The Power of Things: Recent Studies in American Vernacular Architecture.” American Quarterly 35, no. 3 (1983): 263-279. U.S. Army, Pacific Division. Earthquake in California April 18, 1906: Special Report of Maj. Gen. Adolphus W. Greely, U.S.A., Commanding the Pacific Division, on the Relief Operations Conducted by the Military Authorities of the United States at San Francisco and Other Points, with Accompanying Documents. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906. Walker, Lester. Tiny, Tiny Houses. Woodstock: Overlook Press, 1987. Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of the Interior Heritage Preservation Services, 1995. Wellman, Judith. “The Underground Railroad and The National Register of Historic Places: Historical Importance vs. Architectural Integrity.” The Public Historian 24, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 11-29. Wells, Camille. “Old Claims and New Demands: Vernacular Architecture Studies Today.” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 2 (1986): 1-10. “Will Sell All Or Part.” The San Francisco Call, June 29, 1909.