Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 1

Sacramento’s urban form is enriched by a collection of charming park neighborhoods that have stood the test of time. These treasured neighborhoods integrate an engaging variety of architectural styles and tree-lined streets that connect to public parks, civic and commercial amenities. Whether development was planned coherently or occurred fragmented over time, these neighborhoods have achieved harmony that keeps them viable over generations of change. StoneBridge Properties is pleased to publish this investigation into the elements that give Sacramento’s admired park neighborhoods their enduring value. Our hope is that the lessons of the past will inspire the creation of future communities where people’s lives can take root within sustainable neighborhoods.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The inspiration for this book was a research project about Sacramento’s historic neighborhoods that evolved into something much larger — a collaborative effort, bridging public and private sectors, by contributors realizing the value of an in-depth study of Sacramento’s first suburbs. Thank you for recognizing that successes of established neighborhoods can be used to inform the future development of sustainable communities. Additionally, Arcadia Publishing’s local history books series — Sacramento’s Oak Park, Sacramento’s Curtis Park, East

Sacramento, Sacramento’s Land Park and Images of Rail Sacramento’s Streetcars — provided initial resources for research, guiding the way to local libraries and archives in search of information and images. Primary among those assisting with this book were Tom Tolley and Clare Ellis (Sacramento Room, Sacramento Public Library) and Carson Hendricks (Center for Sacramento History). The services you provided for this book and continue to provide to the community are invaluable. Thank you, also, to Dr. Cortus T. Koehler, Ph.D., Mark McLoughlin and Randy Sater for suggestions, changes and project oversight. Finding the origin and owners of old pictures was an adventure leading many directions. Appreciation and thanks to those individuals and organizations that generously allowed the use of their photographs, including the Bay Area Electric Railroad Association and Western Railway Museum; California History Section, California State Library; California State University, Sacramento; Craig Crouch (SharingHistory.com); Dan Murphy; Roger Ele; Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency; St. HOPE Foundation; and Mrs. William Tuthill. Last but not least, StoneBridge Properties is gratefully acknowledged for funding this project.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 1

SACRAMENTO PARK NEIGHBORHOODS

K E R RY C . P H I L L I P S Principal Author

C O N T R I BU T I N G AU T H O R S

CONTRIBUTING ARTISTS

Kaycie I. Edwards

Residential Photography by Joshua Whiting and Satterlee Photo Design

Samuel G. Allen Andrea N. Mayer G.C. Wallace Companies

Paula J. Peper Kelaine E. Vargas E. Gregory McPherson, Ph.D. Pacific Southwest Research Station, US Forest Service

Design by Coyne Maur Bane Design Partners Original Cover Art by Kathrine Lemke Waste

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 2

Copyright © 2009 by StoneBridge Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without prior written permission of the publisher and the holders of individual copyrights, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. All requests for reprint permission should be addressed to the publisher: StoneBridge Properties, LLC, P.O. Box 13308, Sacramento, CA 95813-3308 The Street Trees and Urban Forest sections of this book were written and prepared by U.S. government employees, Paula J. Peper, Kelaine E. Vargas, E. Gregory McPherson, Ph.D., U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, as part of their official duties, and therefore, their contributions are in the public domain and not subject to copyright in the U.S. Phillips, Kerry C., 1951Sacramento’s Park Neighborhoods / by Kerry C. Phillips 99 p. ISBN 978-0-9823136-1-9 ISBN 0-9823136-1-6 Printed in the United States of America First Edition: October 2009 First Printing 1 of 300 copies HC. Cover art: “Pleasure Drives” by Kathrine Lemke Waste; copyright 2009. All rights reserved. Permission to publish previously copyrighted photographs has been granted by the following (page numbers listed in parentheses): Digital Globe, http://www.digitalglobe.com/ ; copyright 2009 Digital Globe, Inc. (50r, 75 foldout, T6). Josunshine, copyright 2009, accessed via http://www.dreamstime.com (23 foldout B2). Permission to publish images from the City of Sacramento, Carson Hendricks, Clarissa Hundley Wildy, Eleanor McClatchy, Eugene Hepting, G.F. Mix, James Henley, Maurice Read, McCurdy, Paul Schmidt, Sacramento Bee, and Weinstocks Collections has been granted by the Center for Sacramento History (CSH), City of Sacramento, California.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

3

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 3

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

Sacramento’s Park Neighborhoods — Understanding Neighborhood Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 History and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 History of Park Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Local and Regional Architectural Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Streetscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Street Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C H A P T E R 2 — O A K PA R K

Location & Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Neighborhood Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Historic Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Character and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Parks and Public Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Streetscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Residential Architecture Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 C H A P T E R 3 — C U R T I S PA R K

Location & Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Neighborhood Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Historic Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Character and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Parks and Public Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Streetscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Residential Architecture Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 C H A P T E R 4 — M C K I N L E Y PA R K

Location & Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Neighborhood Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Historic Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Character and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Parks and Public Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Streetscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Residential Architecture Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 CHAPTER 5 — EAST SACRAMENTO

Location & Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Neighborhood Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Historic Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Character and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Parks and Public Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Streetscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Residential Architecture Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 C H A P T E R 6 — L A N D PA R K

Location & Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Neighborhood Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Historic Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Character and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Parks and Public Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Streetscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Residential Architecture Development History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 CHAPTER 7 — VISION TOWARDS THE FUTURE

Creating Park Neighborhoods Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Essential Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Land Use Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 The Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Urban Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 A Vision for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

4

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 4

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

I N T R O D U C T I O N : S A C R A M E N T O PA R K N E I G H B O R H O O D S - U N D E R S TA N D I N G N E I G H B O R H O O D A P P E A L

Sacramento’s most successful early 20th century suburban communities serve as a development model that continues to be one of the most desirable in a region that has grown far beyond the visions of its early pioneers. Specifically, five distinct park neighborhoods stand out: Oak Park, Curtis Park, McKinley Park, East Sacramento and Land Park. Many of these older neighborhoods have attracted new generations of residents for various reasons. Among these are the walkable, tree-lined streetscapes that provide shade and promote pedestrian and bicyclist activity, the houses with functional front porches that provide spaces for casual interaction with neighbors, the historically referenced architecture, and the close proximity to various services and Sacramento’s emerging urban scene.

Today, these older neighborhoods are shaped by spaces that were created more than 70 to 90 years ago. By understanding what they embodied originally, how they have evolved to meet residents’ changing needs over the years, and what was invested in their physical design and construction, valuable information is gained that can direct the design and construction of newer neighborhoods that reflect these highly desirable traits. This document studies each neighborhood, reviewing the neighborhood development history, patterns of land use, character and scale, streetscape characteristics, the effects of street trees, and residential architectural development. The intent is to identify enduring characteristics that can be replicated in the development of new neighborhoods.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 5

Historical composite of Park Neighborhoods (courtesy of GC Wallace Companies).

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 6

Courtesy of CSH.

Courtesy of CSH.

Courtesy of Sacramento Public Library. Courtesy of Craig Crouch, sharinghistory.com.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

7

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 7

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND The first decades of the 20th century gave birth to a renaissance in architecture and residential neighborhood design in America. Neighborhoods outside of the central city took on a new look for a variety of reasons, but mostly through advances in manufacturing and technology that changed the nation’s industries and workforce. While the urban cores became stronger, families were establishing households away from the central cities. New industries created opportunities unheard of in an economy based on the small family farm. An emerging middle class sought new opportunities in the country’s booming urban areas, but wanted to live away from an increasingly congested urban core. The City Beautiful movement, a progressive reform with the intent of using beautification and monumental grandeur in cities to offset the perceived decay of poverty-stricken urban environments, awakened citizens, government officials and planners to envision new models for suburban neighborhood development – one that emphasized quiet garden-like residential streets with single-family houses, public parks, transportation, and sanitation. These new residential developments were about to transform the way that Americans would live and experience family and community life.

Like other urban areas of the country, Sacramento developed new residential neighborhoods at the turn of the century. New neighborhoods begun in the 1880s – Oak Park and Curtis Park – were among the nations first “streetcar suburbs.” Peaceful country living and inexpensive transportation to downtown areas (5 cents per ride) were selling points for these two neighborhoods and for the subsequent Land Park, McKinley Park, and East Sacramento developments. These early suburban neighborhoods were mostly modest and comfortably scaled – reflective of the middle-class nature of their residents who worked in government, agriculture, and transportation industries. Today, these early 20th century suburban communities are among the most desirable neighborhoods in the Sacramento region.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

8

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 8

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

MCKINLEY PARK Early development begins in 1900 along Alhambra Boulevard.

N

Downtown Sacramento

LAND PARK

EAST SACRAMENTO The earliest planned residential development east of Alhambra occurred on 32nd through 34th Streets between J and Folsom around 1910 just prior to annexation by the city.

OAK PARK

Originally part of John Sutter’s New Helvetia land grant, the development now known as Land Park was developed after William Land bequeathed $250,000 in 1911 to “purchase a public park within a suitable distance” of Sacramento.

Development of the original Oak Park neighborhood began with a standard grid of residential lots that were initially auctioned in a speculative fervor in 1887.

CURTIS PARK Curtis Oaks, surveyed in 1907, had 204 lots that were separated by alleys; most homes had a 50-foot frontage.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

9

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 9

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

HISTORY OF PARK NEIGHBORHOODS Sacramento’s Oak Park, Curtis Park, East Sacramento, McKinley Park, and Land Park neighborhoods were the first suburbs developed outside of the original Sacramento city boundary in the early 1900s and were the harbingers of modern suburban residential development. The charm of these neighborhoods, their architectural heritage, the design of their streetscapes and access to local amenities, such as parks and open space, shopping, schools, libraries and cultural institutions, all contribute to their overall desirability and exemplify the neighborhood qualities that have endured through time. Development of Sacramento’s Park Neighborhoods reflects the availability of building parcels, relationship to downtown and transportation, and the common patterns of development at the time. There were similarities and differences in their development process, architecture and in streetscape design. For example: — Oak Park was unique since its development bridged the transformations occurring between late 19th century Victorian and early 20th century suburban life, originally designed as an independent city that evolved into a series of suburban residential neighborhoods.

— Curtis Park began development years before a park plan was conceived and was then transformed and redefined as the new park was integrated with existing and new development. — The McKinley Park area grew around an existing regional park. — East Sacramento was strongly influenced by the image of its upscale Tract 24 (the “Fab Forties”) and proximity to McKinley Park. — Land Park was planned at the same time that a major city park was developed, as part of a cohesive residential community plan. Understanding the success of the Park Neighborhoods involves a thorough examination of the working relationship of all its parts. By looking at the origins of the Park Neighborhoods in Sacramento, these relationships are better understood in the neighborhood context.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

10

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 10

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

A f t e r Wo r l d Wa r I As technology in building advanced, more homeowners were able to mimic the solid masonry façades of Old World landmarks by adding newly developed brick and stone veneers to the exterior of traditional balloon-framed houses.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

11

2/1/10

3:30 PM

Page 11

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

LOCAL AND REGIONAL ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES

From 1880 through 1940 the Eclectic movement, commonly referred to as “Period Revival,” dominated architecture in Sacramento and much of the rest of the country. All areas of architectural tradition including Ancient Classical, Medieval, Renaissance Classical, and Modern styles inspired this movement. Period Revival styles gained momentum with the Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago which stressed authentic interpretations of historic architecture. The popularity of these period styles was abruptly interrupted with the advent of architectural modernism in the form of Craftsman and Prairie styles which dominated American houses built in the first decades of the 20th century. After World War I, American architecture shifted back to period styles as soldiers returning from the war desired the look of Old World structures that had been observed in Europe. As technology in building advanced, more homeowners were able to mimic the solid masonry façades of Old World landmarks by adding newly developed brick and stone veneers to the exterior of traditional balloon-framed houses. The ability to mimic this expensive solid masonry architecture caused an explosion of period styles that drew from a wide variety of historical periods. In the 1930s a second wave of modernism began that included the Modernistic (Art Moderne and Art Deco) and International styles.

During the period between the two world wars, three major eclectic architectural styles predominated in Sacramento: Anglo-American, English and French Period, Mediterranean Period, and Modern. Each of these styles divides into a wide variety of stylistic variations. In Sacramento, the Anglo-American, English and French Period styles included Tudor and Colonial Revival architecture. Mediterranean Period styles included Italian Renaissance, Spanish Eclectic, and Monterey homes. Modern styles were represented by the Craftsman, Modernistic, and Transitional Ranch styles. Although Modernistic styles were rare in Sacramento, their modern descendants, primarily the Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles, dominated post World War II residential development.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

12

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Page 12

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

ANGLO-AMERICAN, ENGLISH AND FRENCH PERIOD: TUDOR AND COLONIAL REVIVAL

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

13

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Page 13

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

Cotswold Tudor home in McKinley Park.

Colonial Revival home in East Sacramento.

TUDOR REVIVAL

COLONIAL REVIVAL

The Tudor Revival house, especially the “Cotswold” style, was the most common design built in Sacramento during the 1920s and 1930s. These extremely adaptable homes feature a wide range of variations.

In Sacramento, the Colonial Revival house falls into several categories. First, there are single-story versions, most commonly found in Sacramento as a modest single-story house. These are generally known as Cape Cod cottages, with the addition of more formal Georgian or American Southern Colonial surface details. The Dean and Dean Firm designed a two-story Dutch Colonial version that was popular in most Park Neighborhoods. The cottage forms are usually symmetrical in form, with wood siding and shake or composition roofs. Entryways have modest façade-faced entablatures. Entry porches are always simple in form and articulation when they appear. Though Colonial Revival styles are quite common, especially the smaller cottage form, they are not as prevalent as Tudor Cottage and Spanish Eclectic styles in Sacramento that reflect this city’s more relaxed temperament and architectural preferences.

The Tudor typically has a steeply pitched roof, usually side-gabled (though the Cotswold form often has one front gable), many with applied half-timbering, many with face brick, and rarely with stone in Sacramento. Gabled dormers are common, with only modest eave extension. Windows tend to be more vertically oriented, often with casements, and often with square or diamond-pane leaded muntins. Tudor houses generally have prominent chimneys. Tudor detail in Sacramento’s Park Neighborhoods tends to be fairly straightforward and plain. For example, not many have half-timbering. Rarely do they have second-story projections over the first floor. Brick facing is common, though sometimes applied with contrasting darkcolored bricks, sometimes with clinker bricks, and rarely are they applied in a decorative pattern. Occasionally, Sacramento’s Tudor houses have “arcaded wing walls” and rolled roof edges that mimic thatched forms.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

14

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Page 14

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

Italian Renaissance home in East Sacramento.

M E D I T E R R A N E A N P E R I O D : I TA L I A N R E N A I S S A N C E , SPANISH ECLECTIC AND MONTEREY I TA L I A N R E N A I S S A N C E

The Italian Renaissance house is less common to Sacramento and generally was built as larger two-story houses in more prestigious neighborhoods. Local examples show restraint on simple symmetrical façades. Most are stucco, while some have red or a variegated rust brick. Palladian windows or French doors predominate at the ground floor level with double-casement windows symmetrically placed along the second floor. Entries are sometimes recessed with arcaded columns, but more commonly have very simple entry entablatures that are subtly recessed. Roofs are typically hipped, with overhanging boxed eaves often supported with decorative brackets. There are occasional local examples with faux plaster quoins, roofline balustrades, pediment windows, and classical door surrounds. In Sacramento, there are several examples with an art deco influenced plaster arch over the entryway.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

15

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Page 15

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

Spanish Eclectic home in Land Park.

Spanish Colonial home in Curtis Park.

S PA N I S H E C L E C T I C

MONTEREY

The Spanish Eclectic house in California gained in popularity and sophistication in surface design after the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego. The single-story Spanish Eclectic house is popular in all Sacramento Park Neighborhoods, partly because of its adaptability of form and the wide variety of styles that it can emulate.

The Monterey Spanish Colonial house is less common to Sacramento than in other parts of California, given that it is a larger two-story form, and was popular among upper middle-class house buyers in the 1930s. It typically has a low-pitched gabled roof and a second-story balcony, often cantilevered and always covered. Monterey Spanish Colonials in Sacramento generally are covered in stucco, though occasionally in brick or wood, with roofs generally made with tile or wood shingles. The form is typically cross-gabled like many Spanish Eclectic houses, and it often has false shutters in imitation of its historical antecedents.

The most common form has a simple side-gabled roof. Another common form has a cross-gabled roof with the living room in the frontfacing gable. Hipped and flat roof forms are less common in Sacramento. Roofs typically are tiled. Decorative details are borrowed from Moorish, Byzantine, Gothic or Renaissance sources. Spanish Eclectic homes in Sacramento often display elaborate historically-referenced wood entry doors, tile inserts, decorative window grills, deeply recessed windows, arcaded walkways, large arched and multi-paned living room windows, and covered porches.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

16

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Page 16

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

Craftsman home in Sacramento.

MODERN: CRAFTSMAN, MODERNISTIC AND TRANSITIONAL RANCH CRAFTSMAN

The Arts and Crafts bungalow was an enormously influential form and style of architecture in Sacramento between 1906 and 1918, the first truly American vernacular style. The Craftsman bungalow was by far the most common middle-class housing style in Sacramento. The bungalow broke with earlier formal Victorian spatial arrangements and changed the way that families lived in and related to their houses. Modest Arts and Crafts, or Craftsman, bungalows were as ubiquitous in modest-priced housing developments before World War I as the Ford Model T. Architecturally, the Craftsman bungalow was designed to achieve harmony between the house and its lawn and garden, to get as close as possible to nature. A classic Craftsman bungalow has many of the hallmarks of the Arts and Crafts aesthetic: clinker brick, carved rafter tails, a mixture of cladding (brick, clapboard, tile and shingle), and oversized eave brackets painted in colors of nature.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

17

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Page 17

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

An Art Moderne inspired home in Land Park.

Transitional ranch home in Land Park.

MODERNISTIC

The Modernist styles that came of age in the 1930s are rare to Sacramento. Given that Sacramento was quintessentially a middle-class town, Modernist houses had a short development life locally. There are three Modernist styles that predominated: Art Moderne, International, and Art Deco. The International Style predominated in Sacramento while the Art Deco style is extremely rare and more influential in 1920s commercial design. Smaller cottage forms occasionally reveal the influence of the “Streamline” style. Art Moderne examples in Sacramento have rounded corner walls. Glass block and small round windows are common. TRANSITIONAL RANCH

By the end of the 1930s, another house form and style developed that was particularly well-adapted for Sacramento. The house form, sometimes referred to as the “stripped traditional” or even “minimal traditional,” reflects a transition in Sacramento from cottage/bungalow forms to the ranch form that emerged in a more mature, fully developed form after World War II. In Sacramento, the term “transitional ranch” more accurately describes both the house form and changing social pattern of living it reveals.

The “transitional ranch” is slightly more horizontal in aspect than the traditional cottage/bungalow of the 1920s and 1930s. Occasionally, they have an integral side attached single-car garage, but almost always before the war had rear detached garages. Alleys disappeared altogether with this form. The transitional ranch is a single-story form, sometimes cross-gabled, often a single side gable with front porch. This form reflected both the minimalist tendencies of Modernist houses, both in surface decoration and scale of the structure. Roof pitches generally are quite low and overhanging eaves are minimal. Porch supports are of modest scale and proportion and entries are typically simple wood single doors. Windows could be double-hung, casement or metal-framed. Exterior cladding materials are simple, typically stucco and simple wood battens, with the occasional brick façade, but almost always on the front of the house only.

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

18

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

Page 18

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

Page 19

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

STREETSCAPE

(C. 1980)

LOLLIPOPS ON A STICK

(C. 1970)

LOOPS AND LOLLIPOPS

Four of the five neighborhoods considered, developed around a primary park feature, although not always centrally located. The neighborhood streets, with their generous tree canopy of primarily planetrees, provide a shady, park-like setting away from the parks. Both the parks located in these neighborhoods and the park-like setting throughout the neighborhoods help create the identity of Sacramento’s Park Neighborhoods.

(C. 1960)

(C. 1950)

RESIDENTIAL STREET PATTERNS

F R A G M E N T E D PA R A L L E L

The street patterns in the Park Neighborhoods can be broken down into three types: gridiron, fragmented parallel, and warped parallel. Both fragmented parallel and warped parallel are not completely gridded, like downtown Sacramento, but generally provide multiple paths of through streets in a mostly gridded pattern. In the Park Neighborhoods there is

generally a mixture of warped and fragmented parallels with typical block lengths ranging from 400'-700'. Typically, the Park Neighborhood streets have a 40'-50' right-of-way which features generous landscape buffers and shaded sidewalks. The typical 20'-30' of travel lanes calm automobile traffic and allow for a continuous shade canopy across internal streets.

WA R P E D PA R A L L E L

The streetscape of the Park Neighborhoods is notably more active than that of most modern neighborhoods. Front-loaded garages positioned at the front of the house, which can contribute to a sterile pedestrian environment, are rarely found in the Park Neighborhoods. Instead, detached rear and alley-loaded garages are used almost exclusively; creating an environment that prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists over the automobile.

(C. 1900)

19

3:31 PM

GRIDIRON

PAG E

2/1/10

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

20

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

Page 20

Park_NeighborhoodsFQ6.qxd:Layout 1

PAG E

21

2/1/10

3:31 PM

Page 21

Introduction 01 Sacramento Park Neighborhoods

STREET TREES The Park Neighborhoods are known for their shade-dappled streets and avenues. The mature street trees that create this setting are a vital component of the Park Neighborhoods’ overall identity. With an average height throughout the neighborhoods of 78', the trees often dwarf the residences and provide a distinct sense of living in a peaceful, forested landscape. Five streets were randomly selected in each park neighborhood to intensively sample and measure their street tree populations. Since they were “randomly selected” the assumption is that they were representative of street trees throughout the neighborhoods. The trees along these streets were assessed to determine their overall health, the quantities and proportion of species present both currently and historically within the plant communities, their planting locations and conditions, evidence of infrastructure conflicts, and their perceived level of care and management.

The urban forest that makes Sacramento’s Park Neighborhoods so pleasant took a considerable amount of time to mature and provide the maximum benefits that residents enjoy today. The urban forest has evolved over the past century from a community dominated by a few large tree species to a more diverse collection of large, medium, and small trees. While the increased species diversity creates a more stable urban forest, the replacement of the aging large street trees with medium and small tree species provides fewer environmental benefits. As potential homeowners become more environmentally savvy, the benefits that large street trees provide, not only to the aesthetics of the neighborhood but also to the sustainability of the built environment, will become increasingly important in their decision-making process when choosing a neighborhood to spread their own roots.