JOHN HUDSON THOMAS

AND
THE PROGRESSIVE SPIRIT IN ARCHITECTURE
1910 to 1920

By Thomas Gordon Smith

Copyright 1975

Master’s Thesis, U.C. Berkeley, 1975

For more information about John Hudson Thomas, please visit:

• Flickr.com Photo Gallery: “johnhudsonthomas”
• Blog: John Hudson Thomas Journal
• Web Site: John Hudson Thomas Gallery
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

CHAPTER 1 5

CHAPTER 2 12

CHAPTER 3 27

CHAPTER 4 35

CHAPTER 5 41

APPENDIX: 45
CATALOGUE OF SELECTED JOHN HUDSON THOMAS RESIDENCES,
1907-1918

BIBLIOGRAPHY 50
 3

INTRODUCTION

John Hudson Thomas developed his idiosyncratic approach to architecture during one of
the most expansive periods of residential development in Oakland and Berkeley,
California. From 1910 to 1920, Thomas' practice consisted of residential commissions for
middle and upper middle class clients in new East Bay subdivisions. The forms which has
buildings took were influenced by the enterprising values of his clients and by the hilly
topography on which his buildings stood. Thomas' basic design must also have been an
expression of an assertive and self-confident personality

Hudson Thomas was intimately involved in defining the image of the new residential
developments. He was not an entrepreneur. Rather, he interpreted the dream which the
entrepreneurs had conceived for their developments. The first houses which he built in
the tracts were the image setters. These houses were frequently chosen by developers to
illustrate promotional brochures for their subdivisions. However few of them were built
speculatively by developers. These buildings frequently appear in early photographs is
the only houses standing in a development. Surrounded by open hillsides, they exerted an
even more imposing effect than they do today. They were dominant objects in the
landscape. They influenced the taste of potential clients of contemporary architects.

Thomas produced a strong body of domestic works despite budgetary constraints which
frequently surrounded his projects. For example, Thomas was forced to manipulate the
material to which he was restricted, wood and stucco, to achieve effects which simulated
more substantial construction.
 4

Hudson Thomas was the most innovative architect based in the East Bay involved in the
residential development of the early teens. Throughout this period, Thomas and his San
Francisco contemporaries, Bernard Maybeck and Louis Christian Mullgardt, were the
only Bay Region architects who designed houses in a style which consistently reflected
the progressive spirit of their times. The diversity of imagery in Thomas' work conveys
the impression of a young architect who admired the work of avant garde designers
which he saw in the progressive architectural periodicals of the period published in
Europe and the United States. Thomas was eclectic. Although his sources were avant
garde and had little relation to the imagery of historical architecture, Thomas' approach
mirrored the traditional nineteenth century eclectic design method. From his sources, he
selected motifs which appealed to him and re-integrated them to form a personal style.
His output was large and the style which he devised set the tone for residential
development during the teens throughout Alameda County.
 5

CHAPTER 1
FROM JACK RABBITS TO ELEGANT FOLK ON PLEASURE BENT

Oakland’s self-image, as expressed in her newspapers, changed dramatically between

1890 and 1915. An editorial in 1890 Oakland Enquirer suggests that the city was an
exploited place without amenities.

The sewer system is a rotten cesspool, filth pollutes the air because the
drains are choked and broken. Every street is a break-neck in its
disruption. Lake Merritt is a reeking pestilence, a breed-bed of slimy
ooze.1

The city was exploited politically and had no monuments: “the city officials are the worst
in the world, thieves, cut purses and abandoned wretches of the slums... the city is bowed
down with taxation and has nothing to show for the outlay."2 The city was suffering from
the political domination of the southern Pacific Railroad machine. However in 1913 the
Oakland Tribune produced a series of Sunday supplement covers which celebrated
visually a bright self-esteem in the city. While idealized, the illustrations symbolize the
group of civic pride which was felt by Oakland residents.

Throughout the 1890’s cries for reform in Oakland met with little success. However, in
the early years of the twentieth century, a group of free enterprise enterprisers and upper
middle class professionals mobilized as a strong political force behind the slogan
“Progress through Development." The word “progress” became the keyword of this
political movement and its members refer to themselves as the Progressives. The Oakland
Progressive reflected attitudes defined by upper middle class businessmen throughout
 6

urban California after the turn of the century. Mr. Progressive was aggressive in his pride
of independence and in his belief in free enterprise.3 He saw these American ideals
threatened by two forces struggling for power in California at the time, organized labor
battling the monopolistic corporation.4 The Progressive made a smug claim to moral
superiority, insisting “nearly all of the problems which fix society... have their sources
above or below the middle class man. From above came the problem of predatory
wealth...from below the problems of pigheaded and brutish criminality."5 Although the
Progressive expected to make his fortune from the growth of Oakland, he saw his
personal gain dependent upon the development of the resources and images of the entire
community. He wanted businessmen and professionals in public office. He wanted city
government to be committed to policies which would advance the economic growth of
Oakland-at-large.

The Progressives gained power and Oakland in 1905 with the election of Mayor Frank K
Mott. In 1906, Mott expressed his optimism for Oakland's future. “The city is
progressive, it is forging ahead after a remarkable rate; it is fostering public
improvements and is giving attention to the needs of the rapidly developing municipality
intelligently and broadly."6 After his election, Mayor Mott spearheaded the creation of the
Chamber of Commerce.7 The secretary of the Chamber of Commerce wrote in 1906 that
the Chamber “mirrors the civic pride and progressiveness of the community."8 Involved
in fierce competition with its West Coast urban neighbors to attract new residents from
the East and Midwest, the secretary explained that “every new family is of benefit to
every line of business.”9
10

Although Mayor Mott in the progressives saw the Oakland Harbor as the primary
resource to be developed and promoted by the city government, they saw the
improvement of Oakland's physical image as the second major responsibility. An editorial
in 1909 encouraged the “creation of municipal buildings which will give the city the
appearance of stability and character.”11

Mott called for the development of Lake Merritt, boulevards, and parks,12 and envisioned
 7

a new city hall which will be “an ornament to Oakland."13

The Progressive dream of development and expansion won popular support. In 1909 the
Oakland voters passed a bond measure to improve the Oakland Harbor and to build a new
city hall.14 In the same year, voters the adjacent towns of Fruitvale and East Oakland
annexed themselves to Oakland. The city grew from 16.6 to 60.1 miles overnight. 15

Between 1900 and 1910 the rise of Oakland's Progressives was paralleled in cities
throughout California. In the later years of the decade the movement defined itself on a
statewide level. Conferences were held in 1907 and 1909 by one hundred delegates acted
in the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican movement, a national outgrowth of the Progressive
spirit.16 In 1910 Progressives gained control of the California government with the
election of Gov. Hiram Johnson and a Progressive legislature. Strong public support for
the legislature developed in 1911 with the introduction of initiative, referendum, and
recall.17

During the first five years of the century, when the Progressives are pushing to develop
the public resources and image of Oakland, real estate speculators were promoting tracks
in the Oakland hills as ideal residential districts. A sharp distinction between Oakland and
Berkeley did not exist in the early twentieth century. Berkeley's residential subdivisions
of the Progressive period were oriented to Oakland and San Francisco by commute trains
and the development was primarily in the hands of Oakland entrepreneurs.

One of the principal Oakland entrepreneurs of the period with was Francis Marion Smith.
By 1900 Francis Marion “Borax” Smith had consolidated most of Oakland's independent
street railways into the Key System line. With Frank Colton Havens of the Realty
Syndicate, Smith hoped to “pyramid a Monopoly of street railway transportation into a
monopoly of real estate ventures."18 In late 1903 the Key System ferry to San Francisco
broke the southern Pacific monopoly on transbay traffic.19 By mid-1906 the Key System
ferries provided swift commute service to four East Bay districts. Trains ran to downtown
Berkeley in 1903. In 1904 a line opened to Oakland’s Piedmont Avenue. In 1906 trains
 8

ran out of Oakland's Grand Avenue toward Trestle Glenn and Piedmont and up Claremont
Avenue towards East Berkeley.20 The real estate holdings of the Smith-Havens interests
rivaled the expansion of their transport ventures. By 1905 much of the hill property in
Oakland, Piedmont, and North and East Berkeley was in the hands of Frank C. Havens
and Francis Marion Smith in the name of the Realty Syndicate.21

In 1905 the goals for Oakland’s civic, commercial, and residential development were set.
The success which these goals achieved by 1910 was largely a result of the stimulation
provided by San Francisco's 1906 earthquake and fire.

Oakland's response to the earthquake was immediate. Relief committees were organized,
the Salvation Army provided clothing, and citizens opened their homes to the refugees.
They were 150,000 refugees who fled to Oakland, and the Realty Syndicate opened the
Idora Amusement Park to accommodate some of them.22

Realtors saw the possibility of attracting a larger residential population from San
Francisco than they had imagined. Wickham Havens, the son of Frank C. Havens, ran a
series of enticing newspaper advertisements which promoted the amenities of living in
his East Bay hill subdivisions.

Roughly 65,000 refugees remained permanently in Oakland.23 The population influx was
immediately seen as a boon to Oakland's progressive spirit. Six months after the
earthquake an article in the Overland Monthly states that:

The great upheaval has already taken on the appearance of a blessing in

disguise. New men and new blood or appearing to take the place of old
men and old methods... Everywhere you may see new names and new
faces, new firms, and energetic methods... The chances for fortune making
are more abundance because the fire created larger opportunities for all.24

The influx of people put a new value in real estate. Realtor George Austin advertised the
possibilities bluntly: “Buy real estate and make a fortune."25
 9

The demand for houses to accommodate the newcomers initiated a building boom.
Subdivision activity was concentrated in North and East Berkeley and in North
Oakland.26 The subdivisions were oriented to downtown Oakland and San Francisco by
commute trains. Between 1904 and 1912, 43,000 new lots were created by subdivision in
the East Bay. This represents more than five times the number created in the previous
eight-year period.27

Although Francis M. Smith and Frank C. Havens and much of the East Bay hillside real
estate, their methods of selling the land obscured their monopoly. Outside real estate
firms were contracted to subdivide and market the lots. After Smith or Havens build rail
lines to a subdivision, they split the net profits of the venture with the subdivider.28 In
1917, during a hearing of the California Railroad Commission, the relations between the
Key System Lines and the Realty Syndicate were attacked as being similar to “the
relations between the two pockets in the same man's trousers."29

By 1910 Smith and Havens controlled transport, real estate, and water supply ventures in
Oakland and Berkeley. The progressive businessmen and professionals who had recently
freed Oakland from the domination of the Southern Pacific Corporation supported the
Smith-Havens combine. Smith and Havens made enormous fortunes from their exploits,
but their corporation was acceptable because it was home-based. They poured money into
sumptuous estates which enhanced Oakland's prestige. More importantly, from the
Progressive point of view, the Smith-Havens monopoly provided the machinery which
accelerated Oakland's residential expansion.

There was no doubt in the Progressive’s mind that the hillside land which stretched north
and east of Oakland and Berkeley should be developed and improved. A real estate
promotional brochure written about 1912 looked back at the post-earthquake
development proudly:

Millions of dollars worth of new homes have been added to Oakland and
Berkeley in the past five years...Large tracts of land have been wrestled
from the farmer and the truck grower; the wooded hillside slopes...have
 10

been dotted with new homes from modest bungalows to palatial

residences.30

Developers were certain that they had enhanced the natural beauty of their sites:

There are no streets the checkerboard the hills at right angles...without

regard to contours as there are in some hill-slope residence districts in San
Francisco. The avenues swing around the hills, giving at each turn new
and surprising vistas of lawn and garden, with homes that have been
adapted so intelligently to their sites that they seem to have grown where
they are placed.31

The image of an ideal lifestyle was promoted by the developers. Speaking of Piedmont,
the most exclusive of the post-earthquake developments, a brochure states:

Over fields upon which cattle browsed and jack rabbits raced seven years
ago, high powered automobiles now go purring over smooth and curving
avenues. Between rows of palms, limousines and closed electrics convey
elegantly dressed folk on pleasure bent. In practically seven years a grain
field has become the social center of the county.

Piedmont set the standard for residential developments throughout the East Bay.

By 1915 the progressives had changed Oakland's image and they could look back at the
previous decade with pride. The Oakland Harbor had been improved in commercial and
industrial development had responded. The city had been developed to set a scenario for
commerce and cultural life. The residential areas have expanded enormously. On a
smaller scale, the Progressive saw his house, his garden, and his neighborhood as his
personal contribution to Oakland's development
 11

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER ONE
 12

CHAPTER 2
THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT

John Hudson Thomas was an architect who shared the Progressives’ values of assertion
and individuality. During the early teens he developed an idiosyncratic approach to
domestic design which expressed the confident progressivism of his clients. The
buildings are dominant in relation to their sites and they convey the impression that their
owners hold an esteemed place in the community.

In 1909 Mayor Mott and his supporters called for the “creation of municipal buildings
which will give Oakland the appearance of stability and character.”32 The diverse
production of Thomas’ practice of the teens can be summarized as an attempt to develop
an approach to design which would give wood and stucco houses the appearance of the
stability and character which one associates with bold masonry buildings.

In 1901, at the age of twenty-three, John Hudson Thomas began a special three year
graduate course in architecture at the University of California at Berkeley. After
completing his degree, he worked as a draftsman for two years in the office of his
principal teacher at Berkeley, John Galen Howard. George T. Plowman was a supervisor
in Howard’s office at the time. In 1906, in advance of the residential building boom in the
East Bay, George T. Plowman and John Hudson Thomas opened an office in Berkeley.

Plowman and Thomas were among a group of young architects based in Oakland and
Berkeley whose work was limited to small-scale buildings. The buildings which Charles
McCall, Walter Ratcliff, Henry Gutterson, James Placheck, Harris Allen, Frank May, and
 13

Olin Grove designed for the residential developments of the teens were quiet period
revival houses. They provide a foil for Thomas’ more expressive buildings. The
complement to these architects was a group of established San Francisco designers who
saw in the destruction created by the earthquake an opportunity to rebuild San
Francisco’s monuments. Although Willis Polk, John Galen Howard, Ernest Coxhead, and
Louis Christian Mullgardt participated in the East Bay residential development to varying
degrees, none of them saw East Bay residential design as his primary concern.

Hudson Thomas was ten years younger than George Plowman but he appears to have
been the dominant designer in the partnership. Although drawings prior to 1910 are rare,
Thomas’ imprint is clear in the few sets which exist. Suggestions of effects which became
the hallmarks of Thomas’ later work are evident in many of the better early houses.

During the period prior to 1910 much of Thomas’ work falls comfortably within the style
of wooden Craftsmen houses designed by architects and builders throughout the United
States during the period. These houses were generally built in the flat residential tracts
which had been developed prior to the San Francisco earthquake and fire, south of the
University of California campus.

The Chisolm house of about 1907 is an excellent example of the Craftsman sensibility.
Although the house is fairly large, its exterior mass is scaled down to suggest a smaller
building. The second floor is hidden by a broad gable roof. Openings with casement
windows are limited to the side walls and an understated dormer. Thomas combined three
rustic wooden textural effects on the surface; horizontal lap siding, board and batten, and
a grid-like batten pattern. A deck, surrounded by a parapet and spanned by a pergola,
extends from the entry porch. The second floor projects several feet beyond the lower
wall to shelter the entry. Although the projection is cantilevered, it appears to rest upon
the horizontal members of the pergola.

The entry door opens informally into a corner of the redwood paneled and beamed living
room. Space flows horizontally from the living room to an inglenook and the dining
 14

room. Access to the second floor is not apparent; the stairway is in an enclosed hall and is
not visible from the public rooms. Rough redwood boards panel the upstairs attic-like
rooms.

Thomas designed the Rhorer house in 1908. Its interior could be compared favorably
with thousands of Craftsmen interiors built in the United States prior to 1910. The axial
fireplace flanked by windows, bookcases, and a settle is related to the room by a frieze
which separates the beamed ceiling from the paneled wainscote. The scale, texture, and
placement of the elements is similar to a living room designed by Frank G. Lippert in
Orange Mountains, New Jersey about 1905.33

As in the Chisolm house exterior, Thomas chose a variety of wood materials to sheath the
Rhorer house. However, the Rhorer house is more intricately massed and detailed. A
gabled pediment and bay project strongly from the foundation line of the house. The
beam ends are highly designed and the second floor is revealed by gabled dormers which
interrupt the roof plane.

In the later years of the first decade of the century, Thomas shifted his direction from the
retiring Craftsman approach to a more assertive style. The tenets of Craftsman design
which Thomas had employed are reversed. The exterior material changes from wood to
stucco, underscaled masses and details are gradually overscaled, and the interior stair
assumes a more public aspect.

One of the earliest buildings to reflect the new approach is the Coolidge house of about
1908. The projection of its roof overhang and balcony create shadows in the dramatic
contrast to the battered foundations. The entry stair juts forward emphatically and leads to
a living-dining room flanked by a deep loggia to the west. The room’s redwood paneling
is composed in the same board and batten patterns found on the exterior walls of the
Chisolm and Rhorer houses. However, a high, tent-like ceiling which spans the Coolidge
living-dining room has an expansive quality different from the horizontal spaces in the
Craftsmen houses.
 15

Thomas’ design for the Kelly house of 1909 accommodated the client’s desire for a
“mission” house. Details of the building are reminiscent of monumental Mission Revival
forms. The arches of the entry portico are deepened and the rough texture of the stucco
increases their monumentality. Squat hipped roofs, which top towers, and corner walls
which break through lower roofs to form parapets derive from the standard repertoire of
Mission Revival buildings. The masses of the Kelly house, however, are casually
composed and suggest a group of pavilions linked by loggias rather than the tighter
compositional schemes of typical Mission Revival buildings.

1910 was a turning point in Thomas’ career. In 1909 notices appeared in trade journals
that “Architect George Plowman of Berkeley has been greatly annoyed by a false report
that he intends to move to Los Angeles.”34 Nevertheless, in early 1910, Plowman left
Berkeley for Los Angeles, and Hudson Thomas gained professional independence.
During his four years of practice with Plowman, Thomas had established a reputation as a
designer of residences. At the time of Plowman’s departure, the hillside residential
developments were in full swing and clients were looking for an architect who could
design a house to reflect their pride of accomplishment in conspicuous terms. Craftsman
rusticity did not fit the clients wishes. The “simple home” was replaced by the house
which put on airs.

In 1911 Thomas designed a house for himself which commands its site. The Pratt-
Thomas house is one of three houses built by John Pratt, who sold two and rented the
third to Hudson Thomas. The house is an early member of parapet gabled buildings
which Thomas designed in the early teens. The massive buttresses and parapet gables
convey a sense of solidity. The windows of the façade are linked vertically to increase the
scale. A cantilevered glass and stucco box, which houses the interior stair landing,
projects from the side elevation to shelter the entry.

In plan, the Pratt-Thomas house represents the first of two basic types which Thomas
employed during the teens. An entry hall is flooded with light from the stair landing
 16

above and behind the door. The kitchen is to one side of the hall, the living room to the
other. The dining room is on axis with the entry hall and is separated by a wall. The
upstairs circulation hall in the Pratt-Thomas house is large enough for Thomas to have
kept a table on which he drafted at home.35 An inglenook in the master bedroom is
recessed between two wardrobe closets and focuses on a small fireplace with over-scaled
tile decoration.

The Maddan house of 1913 is a bold house on a small site. It is turned so that the capped
gable facades face the side yards rather than the street. A broad bay projects towards the
street and creates a deep recess which accommodates the entry porch. From the street the
entry path is direct, but the adjacent architecture is indirect. The parts of the building
associated with the approach are designed to exaggerate the sensation of upward
movement. The stairs constrict as they approach an arch. The arch is linked to the
windows above it by several stucco strips formed by changes in the wall plane from
vertical. As it rises, the chimney makes its final constriction at a point where a decorative
drool of plaster relieves the upward mobility. The façade of the Maddan house illustrates
a lack of relation between plan and elevation characteristic of Thomas’ work. The group
of three windows in the projecting bay, for example, is shared by two separate spaces, the
living room and an adjacent inglenook.

In the Seabury house of 1911 Thomas extends the parapet gable beyond the side walls.
This fragile planar surface is buttressed by a massive bay which projects forward. A
geometric pattern of four squares appears on the chimney and the gable. The squares are
turned diagonally on the gable and they are perpendicular on the chimney.

For the Seabury porch, Thomas designed a thick and ponderous arch. An arch of this sort
must not have been acceptable to Thomas’ Berkeley contemporary Charles Keeler, the
apologist for the “simple home.” In his book, The Simple Home, written in 1904 Keeler
instructs:

Never…use plaster with wood as if the construction were of masonry. The

 17

arch of masonry is the strongest use of stone or brick. An arch of wood, on

the contrary, has no structural value, and is a mere imitation of a useful
building form…Woodwork is vulgar when it is covered over to imitate the
architectural form of stone. The rounded arch, although the most obvious
type of faulty design in wood, is only one of many points in which the
effect of stone construction is unwarrantably imitated in wood…(A house
constructed in this manner) is unworthy as the home of an honest man.36

Keeler’s beliefs reflect the commonly held turn-of-the-century attitude that good design
was related to honest intentions. By 1904 this idea had been distilled from the writings of
John Ruskin and William Morris to become the seminal idea of the American Craftsman
movement. Hudson Thomas was not interested in the honest expression of material. With
the Seabury arch he carries the deception a step further and springs the arch from a
corbelled position. This is easily accomplished in wood and stucco, but it would be a
difficult feat in masonry.

The allusion to the stage, suggested in many of Thomas’ interiors is fully exploited in the
Seabury house. The front door is the curtain which, when swung open, reveals a glorious
space. Beyond the proscenium arch which separates the foyer from the stairs; steps,
railings and windows are designed more to be seen as a dramatic composition than to aid
upward circulation. The left section of the first three stairs is halted by a wooden screen
which substitutes for a banister. The rear wall is pierced with windows which flood the
stair with back light. The arch halts the fluid flow of space from the foyer to the second
floor. By providing an enormous stair hall, Thomas implies that such space continues
beyond the wings. However, the Seabury house is not enormous and the first impression
of spaciousness is meant to pervade adjacent rooms.

Hudson Thomas designed the Peters “Hopi” houses37 in 1914. The large house and its
smaller neighbor flank an entry court. They are composed in the bold cubic masses of the
Pueblo Revival, a style popularized by Southwestern exponents of the Craftsman
movement. The corners of associated with the approach are designed to exaggerate the
sensation of upward movement. The stairs constrict as they approach an arch. The arch is
linked to the windows above it by several stucco strips formed by changes in the wall
 18

plane from vertical. As it rises, the chimney makes its final constriction at a point where a
decorative drool of plaster relieves the upward mobility. The façade of the Maddan house
illustrates a lack of relation between plan and elevation characteristic of Thomas’ work.
The group of three windows in the projecting bay, for example, is shared by two separate
spaces, the living room and an adjacent inglenook.

In the Seabury house of 1911 Thomas extends the parapet gable beyond the side walls.
This fragile planar surface is buttressed by a massive the buildings are embellished with
sculptured finials and small faceted concrete blocks are placed in the plaster wall to draw
attention to windows and doors. The complicated window muntin patterns which
appeared in the Pratt-Thomas house are simplified here to a Greek cross pattern. A three-
sided bay projects from the cubic volume and windows are carved out of the corners
without a mullion to separate them. A mullion centered in each facet of the bay links the
two levels vertically.

The Short houses of 1913 (31 Alcatraz, Belvedere) asserts itself from a waterside site
with a boldness similar to cubic seaside Mediterranean buildings in Greece and Italy.38
Battered walls and thick buttresses extend to the ground which falls away steeply from
the upper road approach. Thomas dramatizes the tower-like quality of the building from
the lower road by thrusting bays out from the upper floor of the house. These bays
accommodate elements of the plan which Thomas preferred not to limit to the box-like
confines of the tower.

The Kidd house of 1913 demonstrates that Thomas’ ability to assert buildings
dramatically was not limited to houses with stark parapets. The Kidd house takes
advantage of its hillside site to perch a balcony on a two storied bay which is thrust out
from the main block of the house. Unfortunately, the balcony has been enclosed with a
sun porch so that the effect of a strong projecting block sheltered by a hovering roof has
been lost.

Although the Kidd house features an interior garage, the approach to the door is
 19

pedestrian. It begins with a small court defined by block-like planters. The path winds
along the side of the house until it makes a hairpin turn at the buttressed porch. At this
point a strong gable breaks through the rood to bring light to the vertically linked
windows of its face. The entry is sheltered by a deep portico and a terrace extends
beyond a second arch.

The Kidd house represents Thomas’ second basic floor plan. A foyer with a stair hall
beyond pierces through the building. A living room to one side of the hall, and a dining
room and kitchen to the other side suggest a standard central hall plan. Thomas avoids the
impression of a straight-forward plan, however, by bringing to the rooms an array of
over-scaled decorative elements which occasionally replace standard functional items.
For example, the enormous newel post of the Kidd stair functions more to halt the
cascade of stairs than to gracefully terminate a handrail.

The Kruse house of 1914 is a cubic building by a wide slab-like roof with geometric
patterns designed in its soffit. A checked wood motif links the roof to the second floor
windows and strong vertical piers bring the eye down to the large glass windows of the
dining room.

The foyer is only deep enough to accommodate the door swing and the corner of the
living room provides circulation between the living room, dining room and stair. The
over-scaled fire place commands the focus of the living room, a rare quality in Thomas’
interiors, which are generally less axial.

In late 1914, Thomas designed the tiny Reid house (628 Middlefield, Palo Alto). In this
project of limited budget, Thomas chose a solution in which the front and driveway
elevations are highly designed and the two remaining elevations are hidden from view.
The effect of the wide roof overhangs which shelter the house is exaggerated at the
driveway entrance. Thomas cantilevered the roof ten feet to protect an automobile. The
roof is supported by beams covered by tongue and groove sheathing. However, massive
corner brackets and a network of two by fours pose as the supporting structure.
 20

A project for the Ferrin bungalow (unknown address) is another small house, possibly
designed about 1917 as a summer retreat for one of the warm valleys northeast of the San
Francisco Bay. Wide overhanging eaves give the house protection from the sun and the
front third of the house is devoted to a screened porch. A stair winds from the entry hall
to an open “aeroplane deck” planned for healthful outdoor sleeping.

The Stephens house of 1916 is a long, narrow building on a corner lot shaded by a giant
oak tree. The roof overhangs are deepened in some places by the modulated wall surface
and cut back to the wall in other places to bring light into rooms. On the second level,
closets project as half-timbered boxes and provide a transition between the eaves and the
first floor. Handsome brackets transfer the load of these projections to the ground
visually, not structurally.

The ambiguous relation between the narrow front elevation and the long side elevation in
terms of entry gives the approach the spice which Thomas tried to achieve on a frontal
site. A small court at the Stephens porch may be approached by a path which swings
around the oak tree toward the broad façade. The entry is shaded by a deep overhang
suspended by a heavy chain. Its mirror image covers the service door, which makes the
approach to the formal entry more ambiguous than may have been intended.

Throughout the early teens, Hudson Thomas designed a number of shingle and wood
houses. Despite the use of innately woodsy materials, the houses project a more
aggressive image than Thomas’ earlier retiring Craftsman buildings. The Hunt house of
1912, for example, is nearly identical in mass to the stucco Kidd house of 1913. The bold
quality of the Hunt house has been tempered as the wooden materials have weathered and
melded with the surrounding trees. A two story balcony and a broad bay jut out from the
main block of the house. The balcony is supported by four corner piers of gray roughcast
stucco which are strongly vertical in their contrast to the wood. The lower half of the
house is sheathed with long shakes. The surface above is covered with horizontal tongue
and groove redwood siding, super-imposed with an external skeletal structure of redwood
 21

homes. A second story bay window nestled into the rhythm of the rafters is perched on a
constructivist array of beams. Like Thomas’ stucco buildings, the actual construction of
the Hunt house is invisible; the exhibition of structure is applied for decorative effect.

A project for the Offield house of 1912 suggests that Thomas saw little conceptual
difference between wood and stucco as materials. The building is stucco, but a network
of three by six beams covers the surface and links the new windows in a strong
compositional scheme. Had the house been built, the beam work would have contrasted
more strikingly with the plaster than it does with the shingles and redwood sheathing of
the Hunt house. However, this hybrid project which is a shingled house without the
shingles, indicates that Thomas was aiming at the bold quality which he clearly achieved
in the stucco buildings.

The Hoskins house, designed in 1913, illustrates several details which are commonly
found in Thomas’ wooden buildings. A sheltered gable projects beyond the main roof to
cover a two foot irregularity in the perimeter of the plan. Thomas had used this device in
the Chisolm house of 1908 to bring down the scale of the front elevation. In the Hoskins
house, the roof extension is a result of Thomas’ freedom in planning the layout, not an
attempt to achieve an exterior effect. A porch which projects out from the dining room
bay is supported by large wooden brackets. In this case, Thomas expresses the structural
members directly. In the fascia, however, he prefers to emphasize only three sides and
hides the real roof supports. Emphasis is brought to the ridge beam by concentrating the
exo-skeleton at the apex of the gable. Thomas projects three inch by eighteen inch beams
from the side walls to support the fascia at each end of the gable

The Hamlin house of 1916 culminates Thomas’ attempts to make wooden houses as
dominant as stucco houses. The height of the main block of the house is emphasized by a
wooden exo-skeleton which connects the window of the two floors. Visually, the broad
sheltering roof is built up by three levels of beams and rafters. The beams are located to
form a geometric pattern which runs under the fascia. The exo-skeletal unit, a grid-like
screen under the ridge pole and two swag-like boards which break the shingled surface on
 22

each side of the windows, relate to the roof to the façade. Thomas has exposed the beam
work by simulating a sectional cut through the roof and demonstrates decoratively the
principles of wooden roof construction.

A project for a swimming pool designed about 1912 for George Friend reveals the range
of structures for which Thomas considered shingles to be appropriate. The bath house, as
it is called in the plans, takes on residential proportions because walls, required by
modesty, surround the swimming tank. The entry is defined by two tiny buildings which
house changing rooms and a toilet. Pergolas stop broad corner piers, heavy brackets
which support the deck beyond the concrete tank, and the external skeletal structure of
wood beams are details which reappear constantly in Thomas’ shingle work.

During the early teens Hudson Thomas designed a small number of houses which derive
from European vernacular sources. The Murdock house of 1911 and the Johnson house of
1912 are basically English half timber buildings. In both cases, Thomas personalized the
houses by modifying authentic Tudor details to conform with his predilections for pattern
and geometric detail. The stylistic isolation during this period of the Murdock and
Johnson houses indicates that the clients demanded adherence to an established mode.
The interiors support this contention; they are identical in spirit to Thomas’ contemporary
houses and imply that Thomas was allowed free rein inside.

However, in 1914 Thomas began to design houses in which the influence of European
vernacular is more integrated. The Preble house of 1914 is unspecific in its reference to
historic buildings, but the steep gable roof with its tiny sheltered pavilion conveys the
feeling of cottage, rather than a castle. The manner in which the roof slopes nearly to the
ground suggests an attempt to manipulate scale to make a large house appear small. Still,
the decorative tile, the geometric muntins, and the “V” shaped bays are typical of other
1914 houses.

The Anthony house designed in 1915 demonstrates that Thomas’ sensibility was
definitely changing by that year. The basic element of the house is a massive thatch-like
 23

roof which extends toward the ground. A two story section of the roof is cut out to reveal
windows and a door which heralds its existence below street level by a giant arched hood.
The Anthony house is actually a large building which accommodates three town house
apartments, but the narrow end of the building is presented to the street and it conveys the
impression of a small house.

In the later years of the teens Hudson Thomas abandoned the decorative motifs and bold
forms of his earlier buildings and affirmed his commitment to historic sources. The
Gillespie house of 1917 is representative of the buildings which Thomas designed in the
Dutch colonial mode. The house is a clapboard box punched with small paned windows
and capped with a gambrel roof. It is similar to thousands of houses built in American
suburbs during the period. No traces remain of Thomas’ geometric ornament in the
Gillespie interior. The details of the mantel and stairway, for example, are designed in the
eighteenth century vocabulary of the exterior. The Blaisingame house of 1918 represents
Thomas’ rolled roof cottage style. The roof is stretched tautly over the attic and the two
hipped gables are clipped to reveal windows. The windows are overpowered by giant
balconies and wide shutters which decrease the scale of the building.

By 1920 Thomas had found his architectural style in the picturesque English Cottage
Mode. Throughout the twenties he refined his approach to this style. The best example of
this work is a house which Thomas designed for himself between 1928 and 1931 called
“Robinswold.” Its name connotes the romantic medievalism which motivated Thomas’
later design approach.

The entrance to Robinswold retires behind a high hollow tile wall on the uphill side of the
house. The introverted quality which is achieved in this scheme contrasts to the dominant
siting of Thomas’ earlier entry facades. On the down hill side of Robinswold, tall, spiky
gables and a wide hexagonal bay confront the spectacular view of San Francisco Bay.

The primary exterior material is a rough, beige stucco, but several gables are sheathed
with wood. Massive beams are composed in a constructivist manner to support the room
 24

perched above the recessed entry porch. The twentieth century requirement for a wide
garage opening is met with a medieval vernacular response made up of hefty timbers. In
buildings of this period, as in his earlier work, Thomas concentrated material in the
places where it would convey the most convincing impression.

Several reasons may account for Thomas’ striking change in imagery in 1915. A
recession occurred in 1915 in the Bay Region which limited Thomas’ domestic
commissions.39 Imagery in progressive professional journals, such as the Western
Architect, and in homemaker magazines, such as House Beautiful, was changing at this
period from progressive to traditional sources. As early as 1915, the war in Europe
inspired strong anti-German sentiments in the United States. Because many of Thomas’
early buildings had been associated with progressive German and Austrian architecture,
hostility may have influenced his change. In 1918, America’s involvement in the war cut
off non-essential construction.40 Thomas had affirmed his change in commitment by this
point, but since only one house was constructed in 1918, he had time to reflect upon the
change.

By 1915 Thomas’ designs were being imitated in the speculative developments of the
East Bay. A builder’s house of about 1915 pastes the gable and swags of Thomas’ 1914
Park house on its façade. Occasionally, Thomas’ imitators were former contractors for his
houses, but his most consistent imitator was the young architect Maury I. Diggs. Between
1913 and 1920, Diggs designed hundreds of houses in Alameda County for speculative
developments. Most of the houses employ massively overscaled decorative elements and
intricate window muntin patterns in imitation of Thomas. Upper middle class clients who
came to Thomas for a house probably would not stand for a design which resembled the
speculative houses which were covering the flatland residential districts of Alameda
County. The only projects in which Thomas reaffirms his interest in Progressive imagery
as late as 1916 are located outside the Bay Area.41

The influence which clients played in Thomas’ change of style is difficult to determine.
The implication has been made that about 1910 a series of Progressive clients, self
 25

confident with a new sense of class power, fostered Thomas’ trend toward assertive
architectural imagery. In 1915, the Progressive movement in America was over.42 When
the domestic building slump of the recession and war ended, clients with different values
were looking for an architect who could express a new sensibility. Thomas answered their
call.

The highly personal body of work which Thomas produced between 1910 and 1915
occupied a fractional part of his thirty-five year career. After 1915, Thomas’ buildings are
scaled to appear smaller than they are and the forms, materials and decorative elements of
the buildings are designed to convey an old-world hand-crafted manner.

The full explanation for Thomas’ change in style may never be found. It may reflect a
change in attitude which was barely perceptible even in 1915. Thomas was not alone in
responding to this change. In the late teens all American architects who had been
involved with progressive architectural forms changed style. Throughout the twenties
they designed buildings which derive from the gamut of historical world architecture.
 26

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER TWO
 CHAPTER 3
THE STABILITY AND CHARACTER OF STUCCO

Despite the diversity of Thomas' imagery during the period from 1910 to 1916, an
overriding aesthetic forms a common ground for his work. This aesthetic has its roots in
Thomas' belief in the assertive place of the building on its site. The details of his
buildings reflect the priorities on individuality and conspicuous notice which Thomas’
clients held.

The basic tenant which underlies all of Thomas’ work of this period is that the House
must project an image of grandeur and solidity. If it is small, the house should appear to
be large; if it is large, it should be a peer to be immense. Thick battered walls and heavy
practices springing from the contours of hillside sites to support buildings which rise
above the ground level and command attention. The scale of all visible parapet gables
walls and art soffits is increased by making them massively thick. Rough cast stucco
softens corners and implies the mass of masonry construction. Geometric decorative
motifs are used sparingly. They are placed to bring attention to the particular massive
element of the façade.

The composition of windows strengthens the bold quality of the façade. Windows on two
levels are often linked by mullions and project a strong vertical image. The elevations
need not express the interior composition of the rooms. In fact, the plan and exterior
elevations of some projects seem to have been designed from the first to achieve
independent effects. Grouped windows may be shared by two rooms or by a room and an
alcove. The kitchen is occasionally brought to the front of the house and its windows
often continue the compositional theme of the façade.

The structure of construction never shows. When structural imagery is applied, it is

overscaled and re-inforces a sense of strength and solidity for the building. Brackets and
rafters occasionally appear under roof eaves and demonstrate the principles of roof
construction decoratively.

Although Thomas’ houses frequently accommodate the automobile with a porte cochere
or an indoor garage, the intended mode of approach is by foot. On a small frontal side,
the entry is apparent, but the approach is often made indirect by a small court with an off
axis entry. On a large site, a path frequently begins with a small place. This provides a
transition from the street and sets the mood and orientation for the approach to the house.
As the path continues, the sequence of images of the building are revealed which provide
more clues for the point of entry. An arch above the entry is frequently overscaled to
define the door from a distance. As the path climbs its way to the entry, parts of the
interior may be glimpsed through windows. At the point of entry, the scale of the door is
dwarfed by the projecting arch which served as its beacon.

The entry generally opens to a central stairhall plan. A generous proportion of space is
devoted to the foyer which is flooded with light from the stair hall beyond. In smaller
houses, the large proportions of the central hall create an impression of spaciousness
which pervades adjacent rooms. A broad arch frequently separates the foyer from the
stairhall. It provides a proscenium format for a dramatic play of light upon gracious stairs
and rectangular stage flat-like panels which they serve as railings.

In plan, the central hall scheme is straightforward. However the diversity of decorative
elements which Thomas introduces in the hall, stair landing, living room, and dining
room decrease one's awareness of the simplicity of the plan. The ornamental schemes
work together for a visual effective richness, but the four basic spaces of the central hall
scheme do not relate spatially. Walls, opened by arched doorways, separate the spaces
and break the flow of the ceiling plane from room to room. The ceiling patterns in each
space reflect the perimeter of the room. A glass paned window frequently opens the living
room or dining room to the stair landing. But the spatial flow is limited by the punched-
out quality of the opening.

The living room and dining room rarely have a dominant axis. The view through a large
window or bay often suggests a focus for the room. However, an overscaled fireplace is
frequently placed on a side wall and limits the axial effective the room in its long
direction. Occasionally a fireplace is recessed in an inglenook. In this case, the fireplace
is generally overscaled and dominates its surroundings.

The upstairs circulation hall and the adjacent bedrooms are generally large. The stairhall
provides a compelling entreaty to ascend, but subtle changes in design suggests an
intended division between public and private areas. Occasionally the rich decorative
scheme of the stairhall ends behind the wing-like arrangement of walls. In other cases,
the stair may constrict to become utilitarian once it turns and becomes invisible from the
foyer. The public spaces of Thomas’ houses are glorified to impress the visitor and to
bring pride to the owner. The private spaces are spacious and comfortable, but they are
intended solely for the inhabitants.

The following case studies provide visual material to illustrate the tendencies in Thomas’
design approach which had been outlined above.
W. A. LOCKE HOUSE, 1911

The diverse elements which compose the Locke house are held together in a tense
balance. The interlocking rings of the building are surmounted by a tower. The front wing
and the tower are faced with eared parapet gables which project 18 inches beyond the
roof and adjoining walls. The tower parapet steps back to meet the vertical wall. The
parapet on the front wing steps back as it descends, but before it reaches the plane of the
wall it splays out toward the ground and becomes a massive buttress. A wide bay at
ground level adds lateral support to the façade. The bay is flanked by another pair of
buttresses which constrict as they ascend. These forms imply that the lock house is
constructed of stone. The effect is heightened by deep arches which are punched into the
portico-porte cochere at ground level. The thick roughcast stucco which covers the
building increases its massive effect. Tile decoration attracts the eye to the front
buttresses and embellishes the tower window. Taut linear designs painted on the fascias
and articulated in the window muntins heighten the effect of mass of the building.

The Locke house conveys a convincing quality of solid mass. However, the freedom with
which the volumes of the building are handled betrays a more flexible structure than
masonry. Most of the Locke house walls are standard wood frame thickness; 6 to 8
inches. However Thomas concentrated material in the places which would convey the
strongest impression of massiveness. All parapets and arch soffits are 18 inches thick and
convey the image of pondorosity. The space created by the hollow buttresses which
support the walls is put to use. Thomas provided recessed bookcases for the living room
by sinking them into the front buttress cavities.

The importance of the thickened walls in Thomas’ work is illustrated by a comparison

between the Locke house and a building designed during the same year. Thomas’
drawings for the First Presbyterian Church of Patterson, California show thick parapets
and arched soffits. The church was constructed without supervision, however, and the
standard thickness parapets which were built are too weak to convey the bold quality
which Thomas was striving for.
In the Locke house, a somber portico provides a transition to the interior. The theme of
masonry construction is carried into the house with a growing vault which spans the
circulation hall. The depth of the arches which terminate the vault is conveyed by
indentation in their soffits. The hall provides circulation between the living room, the
entry, the smoking room, the dining room, and the stairhall. All of these rooms are
spatially distinct. The distinction is emphasized by the variety of ceiling textures and
decorative ornamentation found from room to room.
GEORGE WINTERMUTE HOUSE, 1913

The Wintermute house is a large building which was designed to appear immense. An
unsymmetrical gabled façade accommodates a three story wing which projects from the
main block of the house. A smaller gabled volume is thrust out over the drive and serves
as a porte cochere to define the entry. The buttresses and other structural details which
appear on the entry façade are more massive than other Thomas projects. Because of their
size they still appear overscaled in relation to the larger bulk of the Wintermute house.
The entry stairs wind to the door from under the porte cochere. They change direction
three times before the door is reached. At the final turn, a large window exposes the
dining room.

The door opens to a central hall, surrounded by four rooms. The pierced grill and an open
archway admit light from the stair landing. Light reflects from the gold leaf surface of the
dining room and from the large expanse of glass in the living room and conservatory to
bring a rich, diffused light quality into the insulated hall. Despite the openness between
rooms which accounts for the flow of light, each room is spatially distinct. Arches
between rooms exclude the possibility of spatial flow from room to room. The ceilings
emphasize the segregation. The hall is spanned by a vault. Recessed lighting fixtures
form geometric ceiling patterns which follow the perimeters of the living room and the
dining room. The conservatory is a two story space which links the upper hall and
bedrooms to the first floor. The spaces are clearly distinguished, however, by window
openings. One interior space can be closed off from another.

The fireplaces in the living room and dining room assert themselves from their sidewall
positions. However, light, which pours in from bays at the end of each room, defines a
longitudinal axis.

The gracious driveway and porte cochere of the Wintermute house suggest that the
approach to the building was generally by automobile. However, Thomas designed an
elaborate pedestrian path from the downhill corner of the property which was intended as
the primary approach. The transition point from street to path is marked by an enclosed
court. The walls, fountain, planters, and seats compose the most elaborate court which
Thomas designed. Concrete stairs flanked by pylons topped with urns lead to the house.
The Wintermute house can be seen from its most impressive angles from points along this
path. To approach by automobile is to enter through the rear door.
J. M. PARK HOUSE, 1914

The Park house is sited at the rear of a large lot behind a mature grove of oak trees. The
working drawings reveal that the building is composed of severe cubic masses. However,
this impression has never been perceptible behind the dense foliage. The path which
Thomas designed to the house takes advantage of its obscured position. Elements of the
building, such as the two-story gable facade, collaborate with the winding approach to
suggest the direction of travel. A bold “V” shaped bag directs the eye to the point of
entry. An overscaled arched hood above the doorway provides the basic clue for the entry
location, but a bay window perched above the door, forms a strong composition which
reinforces the importance of the area from a distance. At the entry, dwarfed by the
enormous arch, one may integrate the visible elements of the house to form a composite
picture of the whole.

The highlight of the Park house interior is a stairhall which is similar to a proscenium
stage. Behind the shallow arch a platform landing provides an uninterrupted surface for
movement. A stair trickles in behind wing-like railings to bring actors to the stage. A
brilliantly lit alcove is visible beyond the railings and suggests unlimited space. Behind
the wall with a settle, however, the stair turns and becomes functional. The stairhall is
designed to impress the visitor. The family members should be comfortable upstairs, but
they do not require the sumptuous circumstances which the stairhall suggests.
CHAPTER 4
IS AN ECLECTIC SECESSIONIST POSSIBLE?

The sources for Hudson Thomas’ work of period 1910 to 1915 were varied. During this
period Thomas closely followed the literature of the world-wide progressive movement in
architecture. In the manner of a 19th-century eclectic, he borrowed forms and details
from illustrations published in progressive architectural journals and reinterpreted them to
produce new effects. Thomas rarely attempted to reproduce the imagery of his sources in
toto. He successfully integrated them and developed an innovative and highly personal
approach to domestic architecture.

The architectural imagery which particularly appealed to Thomas was produced after the
turn-of-the-century in Glasgow, Vienna, Chicago, San Diego, Pasadena, and the San
Francisco Bay Region. The photographic comparisons in this chapter are not presented to
insist, for example, that Charles Rennie Mackintosh's Hill house in 1902 was the specific
source for the massing of Thomas’ 19/11 Seabury house. The photographs demonstrate
the similarities of intent and expression which Thomas’ work shares with the work of the
better known figures of the progressive movement in architecture.

The use of taut linear ornament in Thomas’ buildings of the early teens suggest that he
was influenced by the work of the Viennese secessionists. Many projects part published
in the Viennese journal Der Architekt relate to Thomas’ work. A sommer-pavillon
designed in 1901 by Rudolf Tropsch is one example.43 A simple gable roof covers the
richly textured pavillion and produces an effect similar to Thomas’ Martell house of
1911. A project for a house by F. W. Jochem published in Der Architekt has a pediment
gable which breaks through the roof overhang in a manner similar to the gable of
Thomas’ Kidd house.44 The work of the major Viennese designers Josef Hoffman and
Joseph Olbrich was presented to the American public in articles by Gustaf Stickley in the
Craftsman Magazine.45 Thomas may have had his introduction to European progressive
architecture through these articles.

Thomas was aware of the Prairie School work of Frank Lloyd Wright and his
contemporaries. The Loring house of 1914 is an unfortunate case in which Thomas
attempted to duplicate the Prairie idiom without following the rules which govern Prairie
composition. The Loring house is similar in intention, if not in effect, to many Prairie
buildings, including Wright’s Gilmore house of 1908. The clean plaster soffit of the
Loring roof hovers over the blocky mass of the building in a convincing manner.
However, the horizontal and vertical elements of the façade are unresolved according to
the tenets of Prairie architecture. Thomas made a commitment to a specific style, and the
Loring house fails when it is held up to Prairie standards. On the other hand, it cannot be
judged in terms of Thomas’ more accommodating design approach because the derivative
elements were not personalized and re-interpreted.

Thomas’ Haehl House of 1914 is more successful in its integration of Prairie School
motifs. Replicas of the planters which Walter Burley Griffin designed for his Solid Rock
house of 1911 cap the corner peers of each wing. Other Prairie features have been
modified. Wide eaves overhang the broad base of the wings, but the Prairie style soffit is
missing; exposed beams support the roof. A bold chimney breaks the roof line, a detail
which is anathema to Prairie School principles, but accommodated by Thomas’ approach.
The house accepts foreign elements but it does not attempt a charade. The Haehl house
displays the exotic mixture of motifs held together in a fragile balance which is typical of
Thomas’ work.

A project for the Boise house of 1914 is another building which displays influence from
the Prairie School. The corner piers capped by the “Solid Rock” planters were again lifted
from Walter Burley Griffin. The source for the basic design of the house, however, is
second-hand Prairie. About 1910 a San Jose, California firm, Wolfe and Wolfe, produced
numerous stucco buildings in an adapted version of the Prairie style. The work of the
Wolfes has been described as “an example of what happens when a minor talent needs a
major movement."46 If this statement contains the stature of the Wolfes, it is distressing
that Thomas imitated one of the worst features of their buildings in the Boise house. The
shallow parapet which extends above the roof slab destroys the sheltering quality of the
wide overhanging eaves.

In the Wolfes houses, a clerestory of leaded glass windows and the vertical projection of a
central block suggest a high ceiling room inside. This promise does not materialize. In the
Boise house, however, Thomas spans a two story living room with the barrel vault
crowned by a skylight. He adds a complex system of overscaled ornament to the
amenities of space and light to produce a quality richness which is rare for a room which
measures only 300 square feet.

In 1914 Hudson Thomas designed several buildings which he called “Hopi Houses."
Apart from their blocky composition, the houses hold little in common with the Pueblo
Revival style. The harsh, cubic purity of the Johnson house, in particular, suggests that
Thomas was intrigued by the pristine buildings which Irving Gill designed in San Diego
after 1908.

The sources for much of Thomas’ a shingle work are also found in Southern California.
Coupled with Thomas’ approach to wooden houses as dominant objects, this suggests that
it is inappropriate to relate his wooden buildings to the quieter work of the Bay Region
shingle tradition. The rhythm established by the projecting rafters of Thomas’ Hunt house
of 1912 is reminiscent of the Blacker house roof in Pasadena, designed in 1906 by the
Greene Brothers. The exposed, constructivist structural display sheltered by the Blacker
eaves is re-interpreted in a bay window which projects from Thomas’ Hunt façade.

The San Francisco Bay Region architects Louis Christian Mullgardt and Bernard
Maybeck were the local designers influenced Hudson Thomas. When Thomas began
independent practice in 1910, both Mullgardt and Maybeck had well-established firms.
Their offices were located in San Francisco, but they participated in the residential
building boom which occurred in Oakland and Berkeley after 1906.

Mullgardt designed a number of houses in Oakland and Berkeley which assert themselves
proudly from their site on battered stucco walls.47 Frequently he imposed a horizontal
force upon the surging foundations, however, with banded windows in emphatic
horizontal shadows cast by low gable roofs. In 1910, however, Mullgardt designed the
Sclater house in which the vertical surge of the walls is emphasized by parapet gables
which cut through the roof structure.48 Although the Sclater gable does not determine the
shape of the entire building, its effect is somewhat similar to the gables of Thomas’ Locke
house of 1911.

Mullgardt’s Taylor house of 1908 was one of the early buildings constructed in Berkeley's
Claremont development. Thomas built 25 houses in Claremont between 1908 and 1918
and many of them reflect the dominant quality of the Taylor house on its spectacular site.

Bernard Maybeck was 18 years older than Hudson Thomas. By 1910 he had established a
mature approach to design which Thomas’ said to have admired.49 Maybeck drew motifs
from the repertoire of Eastern and Western architectural history and blended them with a
component of California agricultural vernacular to develop imagery which was well-
integrated and gained strength from its hybrid background. Maybeck’s Roos house of
1909 and his Chick house of 1913 seem to provide some of the imagery for Thomas’
Stephens house of 1916.

The architectural styles which were popular during Thomas’ youth may have had an
influence on his work. Elements of the Mission Revival style and the Queen Anne phase
of Victorian design appear in Thomas’ buildings. The ponderous adobe walls which
Mission Revival architects simulated in word and stucco buildings provide a prelude for
Thomas’ massive buildings. Thomas may have assimilated his relaxed approach to
forming decoration from the extravagant great extravagant Queen Anne buildings of his
youth. The effect of disparate elements massed together with minimal integration seen in
Thomas’ Locke house bothers some observers. That same quality is acceptable, however,
when seen in Queen Anne residences of the 1890’s.

One expects architects of the early 20th century to be more single-minded in their
orientation and John Hudson Thomas was. The image of architects aligned behind a
manifesto which imposes an exclusive set of design criteria has been sketched by such
diverse figures as Ralph Adams Cram and Frank Lloyd Wright. Whether the ideology
was based upon correct interpretation of historic precedent or upon a progressive system
of priorities it established guidelines which provided a strict outline for design decisions.

The Bay Region was insulated from New York and Chicago, the centers of these two
directions in architectural thought. California was considered isolated and provincial by
the leaders of both movements. They pay little regard to architecture in the state, and
California remained a place which permitted freedom from rigid ideologies.

The better Bay Region architects were eclectic in their acceptance of foreign architectural
imagery, but they re-integrated these motifs to design domestic buildings which formed
the basis of a regional style. Most of these structures have as little relation to the climate
and topography of the San Francisco Bay Area as Wright's houses built in suburban Oak
Park have to the prairie. The imagery of the Bay Region houses is a product of an
intellectual process in which a variety of foreign sources are completely revised. It is a
process which leaves no room for strict ideology and which encourages rich hybrid
results. Ernest Coxhead, Willis Polk, and Bernard Maybeck innovated this direction as
first generation Bay Region architects. With different sources and a different clientele,
John Hudson Thomas carried on the approach during the early teens and produced a large
body of innovative and visually exciting work.
 FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER FOUR
CHAPTER 5
LITTLE HACK HORNER WAS SHOVED IN A CORNER

The buildings which John Hudson Thomas produced between 1910 and 1920 have been
neglected until recently. On the other hand, the work of the early century Bay Region
architects, Ernest Coxhead, Bernard Maybeck, and Julia Morgan has been re-evaluated
by several generations of architects since the 1930’s. They saw in the Coxhead, Maybeck,
and Morgan buildings a precedent for a regional style but their response to Thomas was
negative. The traditional view of Thomas holds that he was a builder-architect who
produced masses of speculative houses for entrepreneurs. To prove that Thomas wasn't
really an “Architect,” critics cited awkward houses which were actually built by his
imitators.

Thomas work did not command the serious attention of architects and historians until the
late 1960s. Two factors prevented the appreciation of Thomas’ work prior to this date.
First, until recently a complete catalog of his work was not available. Superficially
similar buildings by contemporary designers were frequently cited as his. Second, people
in the Bay Region have long held a strong prejudice against as a material. Redwood and
shingles have reigned and have been equated with humanity.

The conception that the residential work of Coxhead, Maybeck, and Morgan consisted
mainly of quiet single buildings nestled unobtrusively into wooded sites has persisted
since the 1930’s. As recently as 1974, a book, Building with Nature, by Sussman and
Frieudenhiem, supported this premise. This work contends that the East Bay domestic
dwelling buildings of Coxhead, Maybeck, Morgan, Thomas (!), and others illustrate the
attitudes which their contemporary, Charles Keeler, expressed in his 1904 publication,
The Simple Home. In my opinion, the “simple home" is a literary concept of Keeler’s. It
is not a visual factor of the work of Coxhead or Maybeck. However, the rich color and
texture of weathered redwood sheathing has de-emphasized the complex and mannered
qualities which are characteristic of the Maybeck and Coxhead buildings. These are the
qualities, of course, which are most similar to Thomas’ approach to design.

Keeler’s “simple home" concept reflects the ideal of a rustic utopia which is found in
much of the literature of the Arts and Crafts movement. William Morris, for example,
dreamed of his News from Nowhere utopia as a feasible place. In a letter which he wrote
to a friend in 1874 Morris said, “I very much long to have a spell of the country this
spring, but I suppose that I hardly shall...suppose people lived in little communities
among gardens and green fields, so that you could be in the country in five minutes walk,
and had few wants, almost no furniture, for instance, and no servants, and studied the
(difficult) arts of enjoying life...then I think one might hope civilization had really
begun."

Between 1895 and 1910 a large number of professors and their families who resided
adjacent to the north side of the University of California campus developed a community
which, when one looks back romantically, realized Morris's dream. This accomplishment
owes a great deal to Keeler's guidance. Many modest houses were built there. Swiss
Chalet motifs and other vernacular forms were used to allude, along with the rustic
shingle, to an unpretentious building tradition. However, the community was sprinkled
with houses by Coxhead and Maybeck which were mannered and sophisticated despite
their modesty. They were rustic in material perhaps, but highly refined in their design
concepts.

If it is the use of shingles which has attracted attention to the excellent buildings of
Coxhead and Maybeck, it may be Thomas’ predominant use of stucco which has
prevented architects from seeing his buildings as design sources. Thomas’ buildings
frequently hold an aggressive relation to their site and their stucco composition enhances
their boldness. This relation between site and building is opposite to Keeler's approach.

During the 1930s, when the Bay Region architect William Wurster was defining his non-
heroic design approach, he can hardly be expected to have been attracted by Thomas’
assertive work. For Wurster, the woodsy houses of Coxhead and Maybeck provided a
precedent for his consciously artless approach to design. The conception of the early
designers as "simple” was being continued. In the late 1940’s and early 50’s members of
the generation of designers have been trained in Wurster oriented studios looked at early
regional architecture from a different angle. They were not looking for imagery, they
were looking for pioneering uses of structural systems and industrial materials. Maybeck
provided some inspiration in this regard, but Thomas, with his reliance on standard wood
frame construction did not. Esther McCoy wrote Five California Architects in the late
1950’s. Her appraisal of Bernard Maybeck reflects the approach which Nicholas Pevsner
has taken to several late 19th century European designers as proto-moderns in his
Pioneers of Modern Design. For McCoy, and many architects of the 1950’s, Maybeck's
work was a pioneering stab toward the ideals of rational architecture. In the Bay Region
the astringency of the International Style was tempered by the use of natural materials in
the anti-heroic stance of the designers.

A Guide to the Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Region was written in 1960 by
John and Sally Woodbridge for an American Institute of Architects convention held in
San Francisco. The book provides a good indication of the Bay Region buildings which
are considered notable by professionals in the late 1950’s. The work of John Hudson
Thomas does not appear within its covers. A second guidebook to the area was published
in 1973 by a group of authors which includes the Woodbridges. A Guide to Architecture
in San Francisco and Northern California notes 15 buildings designed by Thomas and
one section of the guide refers to Thomas along with Maybeck and Wurster as one... “of
the major practitioners of the Bay Area.” Thomas was rarely published during his lifetime
and depended upon his local reputation among clients for commissions. It is only in
recent years that Thomas’ work has enjoyed a wider audience.
Thomas’ work is of interest to architects and historians of the 1970’s because it provides
examples of vital buildings which were built on relatively low budgets within a non-
innovative system of technology. Thomas’ ability to make a simple material suggest a
grand one, and a small space suggest a large one provides valuable lessons for today's
architects who struggle with the constraints of expensive materials and high labor costs.
In addition, architects with the caprice and will to let architectural forms tickle them can
find in Thomas’ imagery a rich source of forms.
APPENDIX
CATALOGUE OF SELECTED JOHN HUDSON THOMAS RESIDENCES,
1907-1918

Hudson Thomas completed 125 documented projects prior to 1920. Eighty-five of these
buildings have been included in the following list. Buildings which have been destroyed
or significantly altered, and projects which were not constructed are not listed.

Time has been kind to Thomas’ work. With the exception of about 15 houses which
burned in the North Berkeley fire of 1923, few of his buildings have been destroyed.
Although one-color paint jobs frequently de-emphasize the design effect of tiles and other
decorative elements in his buildings, massive alteration projects are rare. Between 1910
and 1920 Thomas designed approximately 15 houses which were not constructed. During
the same period, he probably designed 20 undocumented houses for speculative
developers in Oakland subdivisions. These buildings are excluded from the list, but if
they are his, they boost Thomas’ output prior to 1920 to about 145 buildings.
Unfortunately no sketch books exist which might reveal additional design schemes which
were not realized.

Thomas was prolific. The volume of his production is even more impressive when one
realizes that after 1909, he worked alone in his downtown Berkeley office. Working
drawings for a project generally consisted of 10 sheets of drawings. Modifications in
construction and frequent references on the drawings, quote, “full size detail to be
furnished," suggest Thomas spent a good deal of time supervising his buildings.
Most of the buildings are listed in chronological order according to the date when their
contract notice appeared in the Daily Pacific Builder, a trade journal published in San
Francisco. Buildings constructed prior to mid-1908 are assigned approximate dates
determined from city directories.

(A more comprehensive list – with later year houses included as well - is now available
online with links to photos of many of the houses. See the links on the title page of this
document for details).

excellent
1907 Chisolm House 2821 Ashby Ave Berkeley condition
1907 Moody House 2826 Garber St. Berkeley good condition
good condition,
1907 Plowman House 2830 Garber St. Berkeley shingles painted
1908 Coolidge House 3003 Dwight Way Berkeley altered
c. 1908 house 997 Vermont Berkeley good condition
June 11
1908 James house 1410 Holly Street Berkeley good condition
June 24
1908 Boyd House 2814 Prince St. Berkeley altered
July 8 sleeping porch
1908 Chowen House 94 The Uplands Berkeley enclosed
July 15
1908 Tieslau House 6436 Regent St. Berkeley good condition
July 27
1908 Turner House 2400 Woolsey St. Berkeley altered
August 18
1908 Rohrer House 2937 Magnolia Berkeley good condition
August 20
1908 Hall duplex 51 Oakvale Berkeley good condition
February 6
1909 Dubrow House 123 Parkside Dr. Berkeley altered
March 9 3016 and 3020
1909 Legge House Benvenue Berkeley good condition
Sept. 1909 Kelly House 455 Wildwood Ave. Piedmont good condition
Sept. 3 2733 Benvenue
1909 Randall House Ave. Berkeley good condition
Sept. 27
1909 Tibbitts House 1035 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley good condition
Nov. 10 2905 Benvenue
1909 Alderson House Ave. Berkeley good condition
Oct. 10
1910 house 842 Santa Ray Ave. Oakland good condition
Nov. 16 915 Indian Rock
1910 Grigsby House Ave. Berkeley fair condition
Feb. 17 excellent
1911 Pratt-Thomas House 800 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley condition
Feb. 17 Pratt-Verper House 959 Indian Rock Berkeley good condition
1911
Feb. 17,
1911 Pratt House 961 Indian Rock Berkeley good condition
March 17
1911 Hoyt House 20 San Mateo Berkeley poor condition
April 28 2710 Claremont excellent
1911 Seabury House Boulevard Berkeley condition
May 20
1911 Merrill House 10 Hillcrest Court Berkeley good condition
May 25 excellent
1911 Dungan House 41 Oakvale Berkeley condition
June 12
1911 Locke House 3911 Harrison St. Oakland good condition
asbestos
shingles
July 20 replaced the
1911 Johannsen House 5000 Manila Ave. Oakland wooden shakes
July 22
1911 Hunt House 2201 Los Angeles Berkeley good condition
Aug. 26 Kluegel apartment
1911 house 2669 LeConte Ave. Berkeley good condition
excellent
Sept. 13 condition, some
1911 Murdoch House 1874 Yosemite Ave. Berkeley alterations
Oct. 3
1911 Jeffres House 605 Mira Vista Ave. Oakland good condition
Oct. 16 poor condition,
1911 Martell House 1081 Mariposa Berkeley altered
Feb. 2
1912 Johnson House 2 Hillcrest Court Berkeley good condition
March 29 1012 Ashmount excellent
1912 Conners House Ave. Oakland condition
May 2 1960 San Antonio
1912 Spring House Road Berkeley fair condition
May 2 Spring gardeners 1901 San Antonio
1912 cottage Road Berkeley good condition
June 21 excellent
1912 Hunt House 26 Tunnel Road Berkeley condition
June 27
1912 Ferrin House 30 Oak Ridge Road Berkeley some alterations
July 10
1912 Dow House 820 Calmar Ave. Oakland good condition
July 16
1912 Wright House Terrace Walk Berkeley good condition
July 23
1912 Kay House 892 Arlington Ave. Berkeley good condition
August 3
1912 Mitchell House 1010 Oxford Ave. Berkeley good condition
altered,
Dec. 26 1834 Monterey drawings specify
1912 Bosch House Ave. Berkeley shingle surface
Jan. 25
1913 Gardner House 1130 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley good condition
good condition;
Jan. 29 1936 Thousand some alterations
1913 Sill House Oaks Blvd. Berkeley by JHT in 1920s
 March 8
1913 Hupp House 12 Hillcrest Court Berkeley fair condition
March 26
1913 Beasley House 878 Spruce St. Berkeley fair condition
April 21 919 Mendocino
1913 Maddan House Ave. Berkeley good condition
May 2 excellent
1913 Wintermute House 227 Tunnel Road Berkeley condition
May 9
1913 Hoskine House 945 Cragmont Ave. Berkeley good condition
June 9 excellent
1913 Randolph House 636 Vincente Ave. Berkeley condition
Sept. 6 1185 Cragmont
1913 Newman House Ave. Berkeley good condition
Sept. 8
1913 Runnels House 2507 Marin Berkeley good condition
good condition;
altered by JHT;
Oct. 3 683 Santa Barbara his brother's
1913 Thomas House Ave. Berkeley house
Nov. 8 good condition;
1913 Short House 31 Alcatraz Belvedere some alteration
Feb. 11,
1914 Loring House 1730 Spruce St. Berkeley fair condition
April 15 29 and 35 Hillcrest
1914 Johnson House Ave. Berkeley good condition
April 30 14 and 18 Hillside
1914 Peters Houses Court Berkeley good condition
fair condition;
two wings
divided in 1930s
July 1 t form two
1914 Haehl House 1680 Bryant St. Berkeley houses
excellent
condition; sun
July 7 3115 Claremont room added by
1914 Park House Ave. Berkeley JHT in 1920s
good condition;
wrought iron
July 11 564 Santa Clara brackets not
1914 Kruse House Ave. Berkeley original
good condition;
Aug. 7 1121 Mandanna upper right hnd
1914 Jackson House Boulevard Oakland wing enlarged
Dec. 19
1914 Sellander House 35 Oakvale Berkeley good condition
Feb. 23
1915 Cherry House 5950 Cross Road Oakland good condition
March 13 Thomas house and
1915 store 1001-7 Heinz St. Berkeley good condition
Aug. 18 1010 Cragmont
1915 Antony House Ave. Berkeley good condition
Nov. 3
1915 Reid House 628 Middlefield Palo Alto poor condition
Nov. 5
1915 Ross House 319 El Cerrito Ave. Piedmont good condition
 good condition;
1111 Mission Ridge wood painted
c 1915 Kelly House Road Santa Barbara though
April 29 6421 Benvenue excellent
1916 Hamlin House Ave. Berkeley condition
May 22 Goldman-Pugh
1916 House 1033 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley good condition
June 23 1230 and 1232
1916 Jarvis House Allston Way Berkeley good condition
excellent
c 1916 Stephens House 756 First St. Woodland condition
Sept. 8
1917 Garroutte House 1209 Oxford St. Berkeley good condition
June 2 865 Contra Costa
1917 Gillespie House Ave. Berkeley good condition
June 8 excellent
1917 Crosby House 431 Wildwood Piedmont condition
Jan. 18 excellent
1918 Blassingame House 12 Sierra Ave. Piedmont condition
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Timothy J.; Moore, Eudora M.; Winter, Robert W. ed. California Design 1910.
Pasadena: California design publications, 1974.

Bean, Walton. California, An Interpretive History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1973.

Beringer, Pierre N. “Greater Oakland." Overland Monthly, October, 1906, page 278.

Blishop, Harris. How Oakland Aided her Sister City, Souvenir and Resume of Oakland
Relief Work to San Francisco Refugees. Oakland: Oakland Tribune, 1906.

Clark, Robert Jenson. “The Life and Architectural Accomplishment of Louis Christian
Mullgardt (1866 to 1942)." Unpublished Master's thesis, Stanford University, 1964.

Comstock, William Phillips. Bungalows, Camps and Mountain Houses. 3rd ed. New
York: William T. Comstock Co., 1924.

Cummings, G. A.; Pladwell, E. S. Oakland, A History. Oakland: Grant D. Miller

Mortuaries, 1942.

Gebhardt, David, et al. A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California.
Santa Barbara: Peregrine Smith, Inc., 1973.

Higginbotham, Halbert. “Oakland the Beautiful." Overland Monthly, October, 1906, Pete
pages 301-302.

Keeler, Charles. The Simple Home. San Francisco: Paul Elder & Co., 1904.

May, Judith Vanish. “Struggle for Authority: A Comparison of Four Social Change
Programs in Oakland, California." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, 1974.

Mott, Frank K. “Oakland as a Municipality." Overland Monthly, October, 1906, page

280-281.

Mowry, George D., “The California Progressive and His Rationale: A Study in Middle
Class Politics." The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXXVI (September 1949).

Smythe, Dallas Walker. “An Economic History of Local and Inter-urban Transportation
in the East Bay Cities with Particular Reference to the Properties Developed by Francis
Marion Smith." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1937.

Stearns, Edwin. “Oakland Chamber of Commerce." October, 1906, page 282-284.

Stickley, Gustaf. “Thoughts Occasioned by an Anniversary: A Plea for a Democratic Art."

Craftsman Magazine, VII (October, 1904).
1
Editorial, Oakland Evening Tribune; June 3, 1890.
2
Ibid.
3
George E. Mowry, “The California Progressive and his rationale: a study in Middle Class Politics,” The Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, XXXVI, No. 2; September 1949, pages 243-244.
4
Ibid., p. 243.
5
Mowry states that the source for this quote, the California Weekly published in San Francisco, was the statewide organ of
the Progressive movement. Editorial, California Weekly, Dec. 18, 1908, p. 51.
6
Frank K. Mott, “Oakland as a Municipality,” Overland Monthly; XLVIII, No. 4, October 1906, page 280-281.
7
May, “Struggle for Authority, page 54.
8
Edwin Stearns, “Oakland Chamber of Commerce,” Overland Monthly, XLVIII, No. 4, October, 1906, page 283.
9
Ibid., page 283.
10
11
Editorial, Oakland Enquirer, October 28, 1909.
12
Mott, “Oakland as a Municipality,” page 280.
13
Editorial, Oakland Enquirer, October 28, 1909.
14
Judith Vanish May, “Struggle for Authority, A Comparison of Four Social Change Programs in Oakland, California;
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1974, page 59.
15
Ibid., page 61.
16
Mowry, “The California Progressive,” page 244.
17
Walton Bean, California, an Interpretive History, (2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973), pages 326-328.
18
May, “Struggle for Authority,” page 23.
19
May, “Struggle for Authority,” page 53.
20
Dallas Walker Smythe, “An Economic History of Local and Interurban Transportation in the East Bay Cities with
Particular Reference to the Properties Developed by F. M . Smith”; unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley, 1937, page 100.
21
G. A. Cummings and E. S. Pladwell, Oakland: A History (Oakland: Grant D. Miller Mortuaries, Inc., 1942) page 87.
22
Lois Rather, Oakland’s Image, A History of Oakland, California (Oakland: Rather Press, 1972), page 77.
23
William M. Lunch, Oakland Revisited
24
Pierre N. Berringer, “Greater Oakland,” Overland Monthly, XLVIII, No. 4, October, 1906, page 278.
25
George Austin, Advertisement, Oakland Enquirer
26
Smythe, “An Economic History,” pages 98-99.
27
Ibid., page 130.
28
Ibid., page 130-131.
29
Ibid., page 104.
30
B. L. Spence, “Why Pay Rent?”, The Oakland Tribune, January, 1911.
31
Beautiful Piedmont: A Study in Contrasts (Oakland, 1913).
32
Editorial, Oakland Enquirer, October 28, 1909, page 1.
33
William Phillips Comstock, Bungalows, Camps and Mountain Houses (3rd Ed. New York: William T.
Comstock Co., 1924), page 42.
34
“Among the Architects,” Daily Pacific Builder, November 6, 1909.
35
Mrs. Taylor W. Bell, private interview, Piedmont, California, March, 1975.
36
Charles Keeler, The Simple Home (San Francisco: Paul Elder and Co., 1904), page 34.
37
Ibid., page 20.
38
John Wickson Thomas, private interview, Berkeley, California, October, 1974.
39
Judith Vanish May, “Struggle for Authority: A Comparison of Four Social Change Programs in
Oakland, California,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1974, page
65.
40
“War Building to be Approved Only When Essential,” Daily Pacific Builder, October 15, 1918, page
1.
41
Hudson Thomas’ design work was centered in the hillside residential districts of Oakland and
Berkeley. He designed a number of houses in the greater San Francisco Bay Area Region, of which the
Short house in Belvedere is one. The client for these houses were generally family members or friends
of local clients. The buildings are consistent with Thomas’ east Bay work and I am including them in
the discussion of the Oakland and Berkeley buildings.
42
May, “Struggle for Authority,” page 65.
43
Rudolf Tropsch, “Sommerpavillon,” Der Architekt, April, 1904, page 40.
44
F. W. Jochem, “Herrschaftliches Wohnhaus,” Der Architekt, January, 1902, page 28.
45
Gustaf Stickley, “Thoughts Occasioned by an Anniversary: A Plea for a Democratic Art,” Craftsman
Magazine, VII, October, 1904.
46
David Gebhard and others, A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California, (Santa
Barbara: Peregrine Smith, Inc., 1973) page 178.
47
Robert Judson Clark. “Louis Christian Mullgardt,” in California Design, 1910, ed. By Timothy J.
Andersen, Eudorah M. Moore, and Robert W. Winter, (Pasadena: California Design Publications, 1975)
page 135.
48
Robert Judson Clark, “The Life and Architectural Accomplishment of Louis Christian Mullgardt,
1966-1942,” unpublished Master’s thesis, Stanford University, 1964, page 51.
49
Mrs. H.L. Dungan, private interview, Orinda, California, May, 1974.