This document describes an NCHRP project that developed a model for identifying and evaluating the historic significance of post-World War II housing. The project created a national historic context, survey and evaluation methodology, and tested the methodology in Arlington County, Virginia and other locations. The methodology provides guidance for efficiently surveying and consistently evaluating individual properties and districts for National Register eligibility.

1. NCHRP Project 08-77
A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic
Significance of Post-World War II Housing

2. NCHRP Project 08-77
2

3. Project Team
 Emily Pettis, Mead & Hunt
 Amy Squitieri, Mead & Hunt
 Patti Kuhn, Louis Berger Group
 Debra McClane, Louis Berger
Group

4. Project Panel
NCHRP Staff and Panel

5. Project Goal
5
 Develop a model for identification (survey) and evaluation of
post-World War II residences
 Streamline the identification of postwar residences
 Provide greater consistency among state agencies in
National Register eligibility evaluations under Section 106

6. Overall Project Components
 National historic context and model context outline
 Survey and evaluation methodology
 Testing and refinement of survey and evaluation methodology

7. 7
National Historic Context

8. Literature review
8
 Articles
 Published sources
 Government publications
 Advertisements
 Plan books
 Magazines
 Theses and dissertations
 Survey reports, historic contexts,
case studies
 National Register Nominations
and Multiple Property Documents

9. National Historic Context
9
 Transportation trends
 Government programs and policies
 Social, economic, and cultural trends
WHS Image ID: 1873 WHS Image ID: 8406

10. National Historic Context
10
 Planning and development
 Postwar building materials and construction techniques
Westport, Wisconsin (WHS Image ID: 66696)
1955 Parade of Homes Madison, Wisconsin
(WHS Image ID: 4717)

11. National Historic Context
11
 Architecture, site, and landscape, including the popular
architectural forms and styles

12. Model Context Outline
12
 Model Context Outline provides guidance for developing
project-specific regional or local contexts
 Mirrors themes identified in the national context
 Tested in Arlington County, Virginia, primary demonstration
area

13. 13
Survey and Evaluation Methodology

14. Survey and Evaluation Methodology
14
 Intended to guide state and
federal agencies needing to
identify and evaluate individual
properties, neighborhoods, and
subdivisions
 Provides streamlined and
efficient survey and evaluation
process
 Allows for consistent results
across geographic areas

15. Survey and Evaluation Methodology
15
 Project preparation
 Identification
 Historic context development
 Evaluation
 Documentation

16. Survey Methodology
16
 Survey of planned subdivisions and unplanned
neighborhoods
 Survey and documentation of similar properties as a group
 Classifying resources within the grouping
 Guidelines for data collection

17. Survey Methodology
17
 Selective survey of individual properties
 Based on integrity, character-defining features, and architectural elements
 Criteria for popular postwar architectural forms and styles
• Minimal Traditional • Revival
• Cape Cod • Storybook
• Transitional Ranch • Spanish Colonial Revival
• Ranch • Asiatic
• Split-level and Split-foyer • Contemporary
• Colonial Revival and Georgian • Prefabricated

18. Survey Methodology
18
 Selective survey of Minimal Traditional Homes
 Retain massing
 Retain original siding materials
 Retain original windows and doors
 Retain original roofline

19. Survey Methodology
19
 Selective survey of Ranch Homes
 Retain original exterior materials, or replacement-in-kind
 Retain massing, roofline, and eave overhang
 Retain a minimum of three architectural elements, which include
prominent chimneys, accent siding materials, expanses of
windows, planters, wrought-iron details, patios, and applied
stylistic features

20. Evaluation Methodology
20
 Guidance for applying National Register Criteria to individual
properties and historic districts
 Illustrated with listed and
eligible examples
 Discussion of integrity and
alterations

21. Evaluation Methodology
21

22. Demonstration Areas
 Criteria for selection included:
 Distribution of postwar housing
 Proximity to major transportation
corridors
 Housing variations
 Cooperation of state and local
jurisdictions
 Available reference material Arlington County, Virginia
 Social, ethnic, and economic diversity Madison, Wisconsin
of neighborhoods Arlington, Texas

23. Primary Demonstration Area:
23
Arlington County, Virginia

24. Test of Survey and Evaluation Methodology
24
Primary Demonstration Area: Arlington County, Virginia
 Proximity to major urban center/transportation routes
 Existing survey data
 Known concentration of postwar development

25. Development of Model Context
Arlington, Virginia
25

26. Areas Selected for Field Test/Survey
Arlington, Virginia
26
Nauck Virginia Heights
East Falls Church

27. Survey and Evaluation of Selected Areas
Arlington, Virginia
27
 Windshield Survey of Selected Area
 Confirmed Which Resources Fell
Within Study Period
 Applied Survey Methodology to
Determine Resources that Qualified for
Individual Survey
 Documented Individual Resources and
Evaluated for Individual Eligibility
 Evaluated the Survey Area as Potential
Historic District

28. Survey Results
Arlington, Virginia
28
NAUCK
Total resources: 299
No. within Study Period : 140 (47%)
No. Qualified for Survey: 11 (8%)

29. Survey Results
Arlington, Virginia
29
VIRGINIA HEIGHTS
Total resources: 79
Number within Study Period: 78 (99%)
Number qualified for Survey: 12 (15%)

30. Survey Results
Arlington, Virginia
30
EAST FALLS CHURCH
Total Resources: 117
Number within Study Period: 95 (81%)
Number qualified for Survey: 25 (26%)

31. Selection of Resources
Arlington, Virginia
31

32. Selection of Resources
Arlington, Virginia
32

33. Selection of Resources
Arlington, Virginia
33

34. Selection of Resources
Arlington, Virginia
34

35. Selection of Resources
Arlington, Virginia
35

36. Selection of Resources
Arlington, Virginia
36

37. Selection of Resources
Arlington, Virginia
37

38. Survey Findings and Recommendations
Arlington, Virginia
38
Nauck
No individual resources eligible – Not a significant postwar historic district
East Falls Church
No individual resources eligible – Not a significant postwar historic
district

39. Survey Findings and Recommendations
Arlington, Virginia
39
 Virginia Heights
 One individually eligible resource (Lustron)
 Area eligible as historic district (Criteria A
and C)

40. Results of Field Test
Arlington, Virginia
40
 Methodology
 Refined survey methodology
 Proved utility of selective survey
 Streamlined documentation efforts
 Streamlined historic context development
 Evaluation
 Proved utility of evaluation
methodology
 SHPO requested additional
information on resources NOT
surveyed

41. Additional Demonstration Areas
41
Madison, Wisconsin, and Arlington, Texas

42. Additional Demonstration Area – Madison, Wisconsin
42
 Three distinct neighborhoods
 1940s - 1950s development
 1950s - 1960s development
 Isolated rural development

43. Additional Demonstration Area – Arlington, Texas
43
 Two residential developments
 Platted in 1963 and 1965
 Development occurred into
1970s

44. Results of Additional Demonstration Area Testing
44
 Historic contexts are necessary to understand and evaluate the
significance of individual homes and neighborhoods
 The model context outline is a good starting point for developing
an appropriate context

45. 45
Benefits and Dissemination

46. Benefits – National context
46
 Allows for understanding of postwar development
 Provides national framework
 Serves as a guide for development of local contexts

47. Benefits – Methodology
47
 Nationally applicable
 Opportunity for greater consistency
 Streamline the survey and evaluation process

48. Final Report
48
 NCHRP Report 723
 Publication anticipated in August 2012
 www.trb.org
 Upcoming webinars

49. Questions?
49