diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65859-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65859-0.txt | 1949 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1949 deletions
diff --git a/old/65859-0.txt b/old/65859-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index d54210a..0000000 --- a/old/65859-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1949 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Architecture of the North -Louisiana River Parishes, Volume I: Ouachita Parish, by F. Lestar Martin - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Architecture of the North Louisiana River Parishes, Volume I: - Ouachita Parish - -Editor: F. Lestar Martin - -Release Date: July 17, 2021 [eBook #65859] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NORTH -LOUISIANA RIVER PARISHES, VOLUME I: OUACHITA PARISH *** - - - - - - THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NORTH LOUISIANA RIVER PARISHES - - - VOLUME I - OUACHITA PARISH - - [Illustration: Map showing location of Ouachita Parish] - - Dedicated To The Memory Of - WILLIAM KING STUBBS - (1910-1986) - Who practiced Architecture in Ouachita - Parish for over 50 years - - - - - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... - - - LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY - SCHOOL OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE - - STUDENTS - - Peter Aamodt - Lance Ballard - Andrea Beaver - George Bendeck - Paul Bratton - Jeff Brown - Steve Butler - Tom Clark - Darryl Cockerham - Steve Dixon - Jim Funderburk - Charles Gaushell - Scott Gay - Amy Grafton - John Greer - Harmon Haley - Juan Hidalgo - Billy Mack Hogue - Donna Hammons - Rico Harris - Teresa Harris - Johnny Hembree - Teresa Henderson - Keith Matthews - Brian McGuire - Philip Morse - Roberto Mossi - Cheong Muikit - Laura Netto - Jn Obasi - David Peterson - Wayne Renaud - Terry Roye - Ken Smith - Lloyd Smith - Shawn Sprinkel - Alexis Torres - Brian Veal - Ellen Wilson - - FACULTY - - F. Lestar Martin, Professor, Editor - Peter Schneider, Head, Department of Architecture - Dr. Joseph Strother, Director, School of Art and Architecture - - Partial funding for publication was provided by: - - Central Bank of Monroe—West Monroe—Ruston - Convention and Visitors Bureau of Ouachita Parish - Downtown Development Authority of Monroe - -This book was also has been financed (in part) with Federal funds from -the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, administrated -through the Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation, Office of -Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. The -contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies -of the Department of the Interior. - -This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification -and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil -Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, -the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the -basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap in its federally -assisted programs. - - - LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY - Ruston - 1988 - - - - - INTRODUCTION... - - -A most useful tool for understanding the culture of a region is the -study of its architecture. Buildings in which people live, work, learn, -and worship reflect their tastes, economics status, and aspirations. And -it is through research of extant architecture of an area that knowledge -of past culture is ascertained. - -The Louisiana Tech University Department of Architecture has received -grants from the State Division of Historic Preservation and the Division -of the Arts to conduct field surveys of various parishes in North -Louisiana. The purpose of the surveys has been to ascertain the types, -location and quality of buildings 50 years or more in age. The -architecture students toured the highways and back roads and -photographed houses, outbuildings, churches, schools and commercial -buildings. They interviewed occupants and area historians in search of -information concerning original builder/owners. Each building was then -documented, and the compilation of documentation was cataloged by the -Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation in Baton Rouge. - -Each student was required to prepare eight pen or pencil sketches of -buildings of individual choice. The original drawings, of which there -are now over 1300, were placed in the William King Stubbs Architectural -Archives, the permanent collection of North Louisiana architectural -drawings at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston. - -The Ouachita Parish publication is the initial volume of a series -entitled “The Architecture of the North Louisiana River Parishes.” The -Ouachita River divides the parish into two distinct regions, the western -portion being hilly country with the eastern portion being flat river -delta terrain. - -Thus, a unique opportunity exists to study in one parish various -lifestyles and cultures as reflected in historic architecture. Not only -is there the rural architecture of the western hills which contrast with -the rural architecture of the delta lands, but these elements may be -examined in relation to the urban architecture of Monroe and West -Monroe—The Twin Cities on the Ouachita. - -Following is the history of the settlement of the parish and -descriptions of the areas west of the Ouachita, east of the Ouachita, -and the urban fabric of the Twin Cities. A catalog of extant buildings -according to plan type and characteristic details concludes the booklet. - -So, join us now for a tour of the architecture of Ouachita Parish. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 1. Rear view of Cadeville Masonic Lodge, west - of the Ouachita._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 2. A rural bungalow, east of the Ouachita._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 3. In the old city cemetery, Monroe._] - - - - - THE SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUACHITA PARISH.... - - - [Illustration: _Map of Monroe and West Monroe, 1895_.] - - -18th AND 19TH CENTURY SETTLEMENT - -The area now identified as Ouachita Parish had been occupied by -aborigines since pre-historic times. Early European explorers included -DeSoto (1542), La Salle (1682), and Bienville (1703). But it remained -for Don Juan Filhoil with a commission from the Spanish governor to -establish the first permanent settlement on the banks of the Ouachita. -When Filhoil arrived in 1783, he named the site for the outpost Prairie -des Canots for the Indian and trapper canoes gathered there. The -military post was later named Ft. Miro in honor of the Spanish governor -of Louisiana. - -A colonization scheme formulated by the Spanish government enticed the -Marquis de Maison Rouge to establish a settlement further north near the -conflux of the Ouachita River and Bayou Bartholomew, the site of the -present town of Sterlington. But this settlement lost its position as a -rival for the seat of parish government after Filhoil laid out a plot in -1811 for a town on his plantation adjacent to Ft. Miro. - -An exciting event occurred at the townsite in May, 1819, one which was -to have a two-fold effect on the 400 inhabitants of Ft. Miro. The event -was the docking of the _James Monroe_, the first steamboat to ply the -Ouachita to this northerly point. - -The ensuing excitement effected a village name change to “Monroe.” And -for nearly a century the Ouachita River and steam powered boats combined -to form a great highway of commerce and transportation for the region. - -Overland transportation systems developed throughout the territory -during the 1800’s. The earlier Indian trails often became bridle paths. -In 1839 a road was cut through from Monroe to Vicksburg, but it was -passable only in dry weather. Stage coach service was initiated in 1849. -During this era a road was established westward through the hills beyond -the river; another went northward toward Arkansas. These westerly roads -later became wagon roads bringing caravans of wagons from Jackson and -Claiborne Parishes to river trade centers such as the former town of -Trenton, two miles north of the present town of West Monroe. But it -would be the advent of the Vicksburg to Shreveport railroad in the -1880’s which would provide the communication link between the east and -west portions of the Ouachita Parish. In 1853 the state legislature -granted the first charter for the construction of the Vicksburg, Texas, -and the Pacific Railroad through North Louisiana. The first passenger -service from Vicksburg to Monroe was in 1860. The tracks were destroyed -by Union forces in the Civil War but were reconstructed and replaced in -service by 1870. In 1882 the railroad bridge spanning the Ouachita was -opened. It contained wood planking for vehicular and pedestrian -circulation. Rail passenger service from Monroe to Shreveport commenced -on July 10, 1884. - -Ironically, the installation of the railroad service initiated the -demise of two regional institutions, the town of Trenton on the west -side of the river and the steamboat industry. Trenton, which had been -platted into town lots in 1851, declined with the location of the -railroad two miles south. Cottonport, a tiny community at the bridgehead -on the west side of the Ouachita, changed its name to West Monroe and -eventually developed into an important business and industrial -community. - -Steamboat traffic on the Ouachita, which had begun in 1819, yielded to -the speed and flexibility of railroad service. The glamorous -steamboating era of nearly a century of luxurious but sometimes tragic -travel came to an end in the 1910’s. - - -20TH CENTURY DEVELOPMENT - -Thus, the parish of Ouachita, which had been created in 1807 and which -was subsequently divided into nine parishes, entered the 20th century as -a rural agricultural region containing small urban entities. Surrounding -Monroe were large plantations with cotton production as the major source -of wealth. But with the discovery of gas by Louis Locke in 1916 in -Morehouse Parish, the area became known as the Monroe Gas Field, one of -the largest gas fields in the world at the time. With this wealth came -progress—paved streets, “skyscrapers” and a salt water natatorium in the -city of Monroe. And the parish prospered as well. Industries using -available natural gas and paper mills using yellow pine from the nearby -hilly region located in the area. - -Transportation routes have continued to unite the parish to the region -and to the world. U.S. Highway 80 was constructed in the 1930’s as a -major east-west artery. Delta Air Lines began in Monroe as a small -cotton dusting operation. And Interstate 20, completed in the 1960’s, -now serves as an important coast-to-coast transportation route. - -Ouachita Parish has been called the “mother parish” of northeast -Louisiana. It has contributed much to the welfare of the region, and it -continues to offer the leadership of a pacemaker parish as the -twenty-first century approaches. - - [Illustration: _Map of Ouachita Parish, 1980’s_.] - - - - - WEST OF THE OUACHITA.... - - - [Illustration: Map] - - -CONTRASTS ACROSS THE RIVER - -The rolling piney hill landscape of Ouachita Parish west of the river -contrasts with the delta overflow land east of the river. This contrast -was reflected in settlement patterns with different land allocations and -building techniques. The delta lands had been acquired by pioneers in -the late 18th century and a plantation economy evolved. The less -productive western hilly area was settled in the 19th century as small -farm holdings. The eastern lands were subject to river overflows; houses -were elevated and were generally of wood frame construction. Pioneer -houses west of the river were often constructed of logs on wood or stone -piers in close proximity to the ground. - -Thus, contrasting cultures existed on opposite banks of the river. In -this section the architecture of the western bank will be explored -through an explanation of its extant architecture as evidenced in -housing, out-buildings, churches and commercial buildings. - - -THE LOG HOUSE, 19TH CENTURY - -The early North Louisiana pioneers were more concerned with the erection -of a shelter for protection from the elements and wildlife than they -were with architectural styles. Folk houses were constructed of either -horizontal logs or wood frame. - -The typical log folk house plans of the mid 19th century in the hilly -country were the single pen (room) wide and the dogtrot. The dogtrot -plan consisted of the two single pens (rooms) separated by a floored and -roofed but open walled space. (The designation “pen” is used only in -reference to the rooms built of log construction). - -Folk house plans constructed of wood frame during the 19th century were -the one room, two room, saddlebag, dogtrot, central hall and later the -gable front and wing. These house types will be examined subsequently. - -Pictured on this page are examples of log construction. In figure 4 the -logs were split; the inner room wall surface would be even. In figure 5 -may be seen several elements of folk log house construction in the -drawing of a house being dismantled. This dogtrot with open passage -between pens had an attached porch, square logs with square notches, an -end exterior chimney (base visible), three inch round pole roof rafters -and gallery door openings with the head occurring at the seventh log. In -figure 6 a close-up detail shows the square hewn logs and square notches -on this dogtrot. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 4. Log notch detail (Bldg. 76)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 5. An 1880’s square notch log dogtrot (Bldg. - 6)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 6. Square notch detail (Bldg. 6)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig 7. An 1898 central-hall house with integral - gallery (Bldg. 55)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 8. Late 1890’s gable-front-and-wing house - (Bldg. 15)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 9. Late 1880’s two room house with vertical - board and batten siding (Bldg. 77)._] - - -THE WOOD FRAME HOUSE, 19TH CENTURY - -During the late 19th century and early 20th century wood frame -construction was used to build high style and vernacular houses in the -Greek Revival and Queen Anne styles. Figure 7 depicts a late vernacular -Greek Revival house with a symmetrical plan, and figure 8 shows a Queen -Anne house with asymmetrical plan. - -The central hall plan in figure 7 has a steep roof with an integral -gallery. Windows are six lights over six lights. A wing was attached to -the rear. The original chimney is still visible. - -The gable front and wing plan house in figure 8 was popular in the -period from 1890 to 1920. The key feature was the forward wing which -occupied a portion of the full gallery and the resultant half porch. -Often the front wall of the wing was angled, or cut away, but the full -roof gable remained. Or, an additional polygonal bay was added. Note the -Queen Anne scroll and trim on the porch. This replaced the simple 6″ × -6″ square post of older house forms. This house plan sometimes featured -a central hall. - -Though in a deteriorated state, the two room house in figure 9 has -features worth noting. The siding is vertical board and batten, a -technique of construction which appeared with the erection of lumber and -railroad worker housing in the 1880’s. The front covered area does not -extend the full width of the core; therefore, it is termed a “porch” in -contrast to the “gallery” of the previous two examples. Also, it is -“attached” and not “integral” with the main core roof structure. - - -THE WOOD FRAME HOUSE, 20TH CENTURY - -The 20th century houses shown on this page exhibit a quest for -individuality and contemporary expression. Figure 10 depicts a typical -central hall plan. The roof is hip and not the usual gable. This detail -required a shorter gallery which was not flush with the extreme end -walls. The front door is flanked by full width windows. Shutters were -added to the front gallery windows. - -The bungalow plan appeared in North Louisiana in the mid 1910’s. This -two room wide and two or more room deep house type (figure 11) -proliferated in rural and urban areas. In its simplest form there was a -forward facing gable with a porch. Here is depicted a half porch. Double -windows were used. - -The 1930’s house illustrated in figure 12 is typical of the one room -wide, several room deep shotgun plan found throughout much of Louisiana. -This plan type became the typical house type for workers in New Orleans -after the Civil War. It was seldom found in the hill parishes away from -the waterways. In the shotgun depicted in figure 12 plywood siding has -been installed over the original horizontal siding on the porch. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 10. A 1910’s central hall house with attached - gallery (Bldg. 3)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 11. The typical bungalow, two rooms wide with - gable front (Bldg. 52)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 12. Circa 1930 shotgun, one room wide with - gable front (Bldg. 50)._] - - -THE FARM OUTBUILDING - - [Illustration: _Fig. 13. A transverse crib barn with wood shingles - (Bldg. 73)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 14. Animal shelter with round logs, saddle - notches (Bldg. 47)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 15. Storage building with wood floor and an - addition with dirt floor (Bldg. 40)._] - -The small farms in the hill country were to a large extent -self-supporting. Certain elements, such as food staples and clothing, -were purchased at area or regional stores. But the rural farmer needed -additional facilities to provide for his other needs. Facilities were -built on the farm separate from the dwelling itself. - -Farm outbuildings may be placed in two categories, dwelling-related -outbuildings and farm-related outbuildings. Dwelling-related buildings -were used on a daily basis and included the well house, smoke house, -storage room, chicken house, privy, and sometimes the storm shelter. -Farm related buildings, those necessary for agriculture and caring for -livestock, included barns (single crib, double crib, transverse crib), -storage buildings and often the potato house, blacksmith shop and syrup -mill. “Crib” is a term used as a designation for room in farm -outbuildings. - -The drawings on this page depict the nature of the construction of farm -outbuildings. They are basic structures erected by the farmer and his -neighbors from available materials. Usually they are in the rear of the -dwelling. Style and quality and finish of materials were not of great -importance. These buildings were altered as needed. - -The largest outbuilding was the barn which was used for the protection -of horses and cattle and the storage of wagons and farm equipment. The -transverse crib barn in figure 13 included, in addition to the log crib, -an open wagon shed, a sealed storage area and a loft for hay storage. -Note the wood shingle roof and combination of rough sawn horizontal -siding, logs, and vertical plank siding. - -The small building in figure 14 is similar in design to a smoke house -but was probably used for animal shelter. The round logs have saddle -notches and no chinking between logs. Ventilation was thus provided. The -side addition gave storage area. - -The clean, simple storage building in figure 15 was constructed of flush -sawn siding with a raised floor. The opening was for ventilation and -light. The side addition has a dirt floor. - - -THE RURAL PLACES OF ASSEMBLY AND COMMUNITY - - [Illustration: _Fig. 16. 1920’s rural church with single tower - (Bldg. 20)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 17. The 1885 Cadeville Masonic Lodge. (Bldg. - 54. Rear view in fig. 1)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 18. The Red Rock General Store, circa 1910, - with gallery and flagpole (Bldg. 7)._] - -The physical area required for the small farm caused the dwellings to be -dispersed among the hills. One result was the existence of the lonely -farmstead and the extended neighborhoods. Community feelings developed -and interactions occurred at places of meeting. These meetings were both -formal and casual. The formal occasions would occur at the church, -school, or in rare cases the Masonic Lodge. Informal gatherings occurred -at the rural general store. - -The predominant religions in the hilly country west of the Ouachita were -Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. Church services would be held on -Sunday. Some denominations would also have weekly prayer services. -Additional community happenings were the annual graveyard clearing with -“dinner on the ground” and a revival. At these events family and friends -would discuss newsworthy events. Figure 16 is an example of the small -rural church which was built in the region. - -The Masonic Lodge was once an important community establishment. The -Cadeville Lodge, figure 17, is one of the few lodge buildings remaining -in North Louisiana. The first floor could be used for public services or -community meetings. But the second floor was reserved for the private -functions of the lodge members. - -The general store not only provided for the physical needs of the rural -inhabitants, but also it contributed to their emotional well-being as -well. The store owner would stock his business by traveling to -distribution centers, often on the Ouachita River, purchasing goods and -selling them to area residents. The regular weekly journey from the farm -to the store would be a time for sharing news and discussing public -events. Thus, supplied both physically and emotionally, the family -member, or members, would return to the rural dwelling. - -The general store shown in figure 18 had a porch for neighborly use, -wide openings and a high ceiling for ventilation, and it even featured a -flag pole in the front yard. - - - - - EAST OF THE OUACHITA... - - - [Illustration: Map] - - -THE RIVER PLANTATION HOUSES, 19TH CENTURY - -The alluvial lands on the east side of the Ouachita fostered a -settlement pattern which contrasted greatly with that of the hilly -country west of the river. Large holdings had been claimed during the -latter part of the 18th century and early 19th century. The Ouachita -River then was the only source of regional transportation. Therefore, it -was necessary from a communication transportation aspect that the land -holdings possess headrights on the river. - -The resulting land holdings tended to have narrow frontage but deep -extent. Annual spring overflows deposited silt near the river edge, and -this high bank was the obvious location for the main buildings of the -holding. Thus, the land also determined the hierarchy of architectural -development on the holding. - -This hierarchy of spaces on the plantation followed a definite pattern. -First, the river landing provided an entry to the owner’s house. Behind -the house would be the workers’ quarters, and beyond these were the -buildings necessary for the operation of the plantation. - -Pictured on this page are details of two plantation houses typical of -those which once lined the east bank of the Ouachita. The 1838 Filhoil -raised cottage of figure 19 has a Greek Revival portico with fan light -in the front gable, Doric columns and a balustrade. The house was -elevated for protection from the river overflow. - -The Whitehall Plantation house, figure 20, was built in 1858. Greek -Revival style details include the squared transom and sidelights at the -front door, low roof pitch, and pedimented window trim detail on the -front gallery, figure 21. The gallery siding was flush but beaded. The -windows extended to the floor allowing easy passage from interior rooms -to the gallery. Operable, slatted shutters allowed sun control, -ventilation, privacy. - -Whitehall is a 1½ story house with dormers, attic rooms, and an integral -gallery. These were typical features for the Greek Revival cottages of -both North and South Louisiana. The central hall plan is another -characteristic of this type, which is generally associated with American -settlement. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 19. The 1830 Jean Baptiste Filhoil Greek - Revival plantation house (Bldg. 134)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 20. Whitehall Greek Revival plantation house, - 1858 (Bldg. 127)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 21. Detail of Whitehall gallery window, - pilaster (Bldg. 127)._] - - -“TURN OF THE CENTURY” ONE ROOM, TWO ROOMS AND SHOTGUN HOUSES - - [Illustration: _Fig. 22. Circa 1910 two room house with integral - gallery (Bldg. 120)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 23. Front view of a circa 1920 one room house - (Bldg. 115)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 24. Side view of 1920 one room house (Bldg. - 115)._] - -The alluvial lands east of the Ouachita contained two categories of -dwellings, those of the plantation owner as previously described and the -houses of the tenants and small land owners. The dwellings depicted on -these and subsequent pages are typical of the latter category. The basic -folk house plan types used were the one room, two room, shotgun and -later the bungalow. Houses were usually constructed of wood frame with -vertical board and batten siding or horizontal milled siding. - -A feature which the basic one room and two room plan dwellings had in -common was the integral front gallery. The gallery roof framing was part -of the roof structure of the core of the dwelling. One might notice in -figure 22 that although two gallery columns are absent, the roof is -still standing. - -The one room type is illustrated in figures 23 and 24. The front view of -the circa 1920 house shows a side addition to the original core room. -The side view, figure 24, shows that this was originally two rooms deep -since the space usually occupied by the rear gallery was enclosed. The -roof had wood shingles on wood lath. The shingles were later replaced -with sheets of tin. - -The two room plan houses in figures 25 and 26 were expanded as the space -requirements of the occupants increased. The first example has a rear -appendage. Vertical board and batten siding was used on the addition, -but an inconsistency in window sash selection occurred. In figure 26 the -appendage was built as a shed addition on the side. This large two room -house is two rooms in depth. This additional depth allows the roof to be -higher, a definite advantage for the reduction of summer heat. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 25. Two room house with board and batten siding - (Bldg. 118)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 26. Circa 1910 two room house on the O.Z.O. - Plantation (Bldg. 129)._] - -The shotgun type house plan, figure 27, was used abundantly on the river -plantations. The typical plan was one room wide and two or more rooms -deep. There were front and rear gables. Variety occurred at the front -gallery as evidenced in the pair of shotguns illustrated. The gallery -might be the full width of the core allowing space for chairs and thus -creating an extra “room” for relief from the summer heat of the interior -rooms. This gallery also provided a place for social interaction between -the occupants and passersby. In contrast with this situation, the porch -on the right was of the width necessary only to protect the door from -the elements and to provide shelter for those entering. As shown, -shotgun houses were often in close proximity to each other. This feature -may have had its background in the fact that the shotgun plan had been -used in urban situations in New Orleans where property was extremely -valuable. However, when the plan was transported to a rural situation, -the close proximity characteristic remained. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 27. A pair of 1920’s shotgun houses (Bldg. - 125)._] - - -THE 20TH CENTURY FARM BUNGALOW HOUSE - -As the 20th century advanced so did the plans and techniques of -constructing the folk house. The bungalow plan was introduced into North -Louisiana circa 1915. This plan type was two rooms wide and two or more -rooms deep with front and rear gables. The bungalow plan would continue -to be a popular house type in the region until the advent of the ranch -type plan after World War II. - -The dwelling pictured in figure 28 was typical of the bungalow of the -1920’s. As previously mentioned in reference to the shotgun house, the -type of bungalow front gallery varied. The contrast may be observed in -figures 28 and 29—the nearly full width gallery with hipped roof and the -half porch with gable roof. An almost universal feature of the bungalow -house was the use of exposed rafter ends. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 28. A 1933 bungalow plan with hipped gallery - (Bldg. 123)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 29. Gable screened porch on a Circa 1920 - bungalow plan house. (Bldg. 95)._] - -It might appear that the occupant of the two room house in figure 30 -desired to update his dwelling to have contemporary characteristics -similar to those of the bungalow. The remaining half porch was similar -to those of many of the bungalow houses. The currently popular double -window was used in lieu of the usual single opening. And the rear -extension created the multiple room depth characteristic of the -bungalow. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 30. A 1930 house with bungalow features (Bldg. - 143)._] - - -OUTBUILDINGS - -As was the case with the small farms west of the river, so the -plantations and farms east of the river required outbuildings. Several -examples of these outbuildings are represented. - -On this page are shown transverse crib barns; the major openings occur -on the end elevations. In figure 31 the typical transverse crib barn -plan is evident with the center aisle being flanked by several cribs as -shelter for stock. Above the opening is a loft for hay storage. This -drawing is also descriptive of the landscape of the delta -plantation—broad level expanses of open land in cultivation. Twentieth -century communication systems are evident with the dirt road and -telephone poles. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 31. Transverse crib barn in a delta landscape - (Bldg. 140)._] - -In figures 32 and 33 variations of the transverse barn are illustrated. -A barn with side shed additions, vertical plank siding and loft storage -would have sheltered a wagon in the center aisle (figure 32). A unique -solution to the high water problem is evident in the barn shown in -figure 33. The structure is raised and provides vehicle and stock -shelter in dry seasons, but any valuable equipment could be removed as -spring overflows inundated the land. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 32. Vertical planks on transverse crib barn - (Bldg. 93)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 33. A barn raised for high water protection - (Bldg. 112)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 34. Circa 1900 log storage building (Bldg. - 128)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 35. Half dovetail notches on 1900 log building - (Bldg. 128)._] - - -A LOG OUTBUILDING - -Log construction of outbuildings directly on the ground was not a common -model of construction in the delta land. The obvious reason was that -frequent overflows would tend to produce rapid decay of the wood members -in contact with the soil. But a rare exception to this practice was -found in the building illustrated in figures 34 and 35. The relatively -tall log storage building has continuous timbers as cantilever supports -for side shed roofs. Whether these sheds ever had vertical post supports -was not obvious on site inspection. - -The corner wall detail, figure 35, indicates that the large hewn timbers -were assembled using half-dovetail notches. The horizontal logs were so -closely cut that a minimum air space between logs remained. Chinking -material was not used to fill these spaces. - - -COMMUNITY BUILDINGS ON THE PLANTATION - - [Illustration: _Fig. 36. Commissary store on Garrett Plantation - (Bldg. 131)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 37. 1920’s church on the plantation (Bldg. - 98)._] - -A commercial establishment which was necessary in the delta was the -commissary. It served the same function as the general store previously -described for the hill lands west of the river. The commissary depicted -in figure 36 has double doors flanked by large display windows. High -windows on the side walls provide light and cross ventilation. This, -too, would be a place for exchange of conversation as well as purchase -of goods. - -The community church would serve the plantation workers and their -families. The buildings were generally composed of one large assembly -room and classrooms as appendages to the main building. A porch -protected the double entry doors. A mark of individuality might have -been created in the treatment of the belfry. The church illustrated in -figure 37 has a single small belfry, but often twin towers were -constructed. In addition to this function as a summons to worship, the -bell was often used as a community signal of momentous events such as a -birth or death on the plantation. - - - - - MONROE AND WEST MONROE, - THE TWIN CITIES ON THE OUACHITA... - - - [Illustration: Map] - - -THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE TWIN CITIES - -Field research of the buildings of Ouachita Parish has revealed that -there are three distinct characteristic types of architecture. In the -western hilly region of the parish is the small farm type, and in the -eastern river delta region the rural plantation type prevailed. Both of -these have been previously described. The third category of architecture -is the urban type, found within the environs of Monroe and West Monroe. - -Whereas the rural architecture, with the exception of the plantation -owner’s house, tended to be utilitarian and unconcerned with stylistic -trends, the urban architecture very often was reflective of the -currently popular national architectural styles. The styles most evident -in extant residences in Monroe and West Monroe include Greek Revival, -Queen Anne, Colonial Revival and California Bungalow. - -Styles found in ecclesiastical, civic and commercial buildings include -Victorian Gothic and the Classic Revivals of the twentieth century. - -Following is a sampling of the various folk and styled architecture -found within the city limits of Monroe and West Monroe. - - -19TH CENTURY HOUSES ON THE RIVER - -The Greek Revival house pictured in figure 38 was built circa 1835 as -the residence of the overseer for Lower Pargoud Plantation. A companion -residence was constructed on the Upper Pargoud Plantation and exists at -the end of Island Drive in Monroe. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 38. The Lower Pargoud Plantation overseer’s - house (Bldg. 143)._] - -Layton Castle, figure 39, was begun before 1820 as the residence of -Judge Henry Bry. John James Audubon was a guest in the home during his -visits to the wilderness of North Louisiana. In 1910 the house was -renovated to resemble a European chateau. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 39. Layton Castle, begun before 1820, - remodelled 1910 (Bldg. 144)._] - -The 1882 Cox house depicted in figure 40 was approached through an oak -alley facing the road, which later became South Grand Street. In the -rear was a flower garden leading to the river. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 40. The 1882 Cox House on South Grand, Monroe - (Bldg. 122)._] - -These examples of 19th century houses were originally constructed in -rural farming areas which have subsequently been incorporated into the -city of Monroe. - - -“TURN OF THE CENTURY” QUEEN ANNE HOUSES - -The popular circa 1890 through 1910 house style, Queen Anne, had -numerous identifying features. A steeply pitched roof of irregular shape -often had a dominant front facing gable. Patterned shingles, cutaway bay -windows and various other elements were used to avoid a smooth-walled -appearance. The facade was asymmetrical, and often it had a partial or -full width porch along a side wall as well as on the front. - -Queen Anne dwellings were also noted for their decorative detailing. -Delicately turned porch columns and decorative spandrels with knob-like -beads were common. Spindle work was used on railings, at porch ceilings, -and under the roof overhangs at cutaway bays. - -The house in figure 41 was constructed with forward gables, a partial -porch on the front and a cutaway bay. Decorative elements include the -ornamented gables and a spindlework frieze between the porch posts at -the ceiling. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 41. Queen Anne detailing on a circa 1890 house. - (Bldg. 145)._] - -Miss Julia Wossman’s house, figure 42, was moved from downtown to St. -John Drive in the 1950’s. Note the forward gables, turned porch columns, -the wrap-around porch, and spindlework at the cutaway front and side bay -windows. The porch also has spindlework, brackets and knob-like beads in -the frieze. Gables contain fish scale patterned shingles. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 42. Miss Julia Wossman’s house, circa 1890 - (Bldg. 146)._] - -The houses described represent only a sampling of the full range of -extant Queen Anne houses in the urban area of the Twin Cities. - - -20TH CENTURY COLONIAL REVIVAL HOUSES - - [Illustration: _Fig. 43. The 1905 E. L. Neville Colonial Revival two - story house (Bldg. 147)._] - -Houses built after 1900 with the characteristics described as follows -have been designated as being Colonial Revival style. A basic -characteristic feature of this style was the accentuated front door with -a porch supported by slender columns. Doors often had overhead fan or -transom lights with sidelights, and windows contained double hung sash -with multi-pane glazing in one or both sashes. As the 20th century -advanced, windows were grouped in pairs of even units of three. - -The Ernest L. Neville house on Hudson Lane, Monroe, figure 43, was -erected as a two story house with a dominant front gable with a -multi-paned Palladian window, complete with keystone. The half-porch is -full height with a railed balcony and Doric columns. - -The circa 1914 James Harvey Trousdale house, figure 44, on Hudson Lane -is Colonial Revival in detailing, but the dominant, nearly square, -configuration resembles that of a 19th century Louisiana raised cottage. -Note the full story height raised basement area with the broad entrance -steps. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 44. The J. H. Trousdale House circa 1914 (Bldg. - 148)._] - -The George Weaks House on Riverside Drive, Monroe, figure 45, was built -during the first decade of the 20th century. The full two-story -semicircular porch with columns and pilasters has a balustrade and broad -dormer at the roofline. The front door is accentuated with square -transom and sidelights. Note the elaborate expanse of entry steps at the -porch floor. Windows are glazed with multiple upper sash panes and a -single lower sash pane. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 45. Classical porch on circa 1900’s Weaks - house._] - -Closer examination of the Weaks House in the porch detail, figure 46, -reveals elaborate Colonial Revival detailing. The columns have Ionic -capitals and fluting. The curved entablature with dentils is enhanced -further with the application of moulded wood brackets under the roof -eaves. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 46. Ionic column capitals on Weaks house (Bldg. - 149)._] - -The Neville, Trousdale, and Weaks Houses were built near the river in -the area expanding to the north of Monroe. They, along with the Governor -Hall house which follows, are examples of the early Colonial Revival -period in Monroe. - -The Governor Luther Hall Colonial Revival home pictured in figures 47 -and 48 was erected on Jackson Street in the older section of Monroe -circa 1906. It contains the characteristics of the style previously -described—accentuated front door with full pedimented portico supported -by slender columns, fan light and sidelights and multi-panes over single -pane sashes. The Hall house also contains elaborate detailing in -addition to these usual characteristics of the Colonial Revival style. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 47. Gov. Luther Hall’s circa 1906 home (Bldg. - 150)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 48. Elaborate porch detail on Hall home (Bldg. - 150)._] - -The detail drawing of the Governor Hall house, figure 48, is -illustrative of elaborate, nearly excessive, detailing. The window not -only possesses pilaster trim with an entablature and pediment, but also -a design featuring interlocking segmental and square panes in the upper -sash. The entry door is slightly recessed which allows space for three -segmented arches with keystones on Doric columns. And, in addition, the -balcony above is supported by four curved fan-like wooden brackets. Note -the large scale column bases. - -The Travis Oliver house at the north end of Riverside Drive in figure 49 -is indicative of the continued popularity of the Colonial Revival style -in the cities. Built circa 1930, this two story house, similar to those -previously described, has a full porch with slender columns, a small -balcony and accentuated front door with an elliptical transom and -sidelights. But certain mutations make this Colonial Revival house -distinct from those previously described. The lower front windows are -wood casement with a semicircular wood fan above. Second story windows -are large eight over eight pane double-hung sash. Most importantly, the -house is of brick veneer construction. Those previously described have -horizontal wood siding. The 1930’s decade witnessed the apparent -popularity and desirability of the use of brick in preference to wood as -an exterior cladding material. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 49. Circa 1930 Oliver house on Riverside, - Monroe (Bldg. 151)._] - -Although Colonial Revival has been a dominant style for house -construction in the Monroe and West Monroe area during the 20th Century, -other styles are represented and will be described following. - - -VARIOUS 20TH CENTURY HOUSE STYLES - -During the first three decades of the 20th century, while the Colonial -Revival houses were being built in both one and two story versions, -other styles were being represented in the Twin Cities. The Tudor -Revival, Prairie Style and the California Bungalow received widespread -acceptance in the 1920’s and 1930’s. One selection each of the Tudor -Revival and Prairie Style are illustrated herein; also depicted is an -example of a hybrid Queen Anne-California Bungalow House. - -The Tudor Revival style, popular in the United States from 1890 to 1940, -received only nominal acceptance in North Louisiana. Characteristics -included a simple box plan with extensions, facade dominated by two or -more prominent cross gables and windows in multiple groupings with -multipane glazing. Also used were massive chimneys with chimney pots. - -The Masur Museum on South Grand Street in Monroe was constructed 1929 by -Elmer Slagle, Sr. Depicted in figure 50 are the characteristics of the -Tudor Revival described above. This stone veneer house has a mezzanine -porch in the rear overlooking a formal garden and the Ouachita River. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 50. The 1929 Slagle house, now Masur Museum - (Bldg. 152)._] - -A Monroe landmark is the 1926 G. B. Cooley house also on South Grand -Street. See figure 51. Designed by the architect Walter Burley Griffin, -an associate of Frank Lloyd Wright, the plan was laid out to resemble -the decks of a steamboat. Mr. Cooley, the owner, was a steamboat captain -who plied the Ouachita for many years. The Prairie Style house has 100 -windows which may be opened to take advantage of summer breezes. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 51. Cooley house designed in the Prairie Style - (Bldg. 153)._] - -An interesting Trenton Street house in West Monroe, figure 52, -represents a mingling of stylistic detailing. The gable has wood -shingles similar to those used in the Queen Anne styles, and the small -patterned window panes of that period are reused in a new form. But the -exposed rafter ends and expansive overhangs are characteristics of the -California Bungalow style. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 52. On Trenton Street, West Monroe, a gable - detail. (Bldg. 154)._] - -Thus, Monroe and West Monroe contain a variety of residential stylistic -expressions as evidenced in the extant houses. - - -THE 20TH CENTURY CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW HOUSE - - [Illustration: _Fig. 53. A California Bungalow in north Monroe - (Bldg. 155)._] - - [Illustration: _Fig. 54. An expressive West Monroe California - Bungalow (Bldg. 156)._] - -An innovation in housing design and stylistic detailing occurred in -North Louisiana during the second decade of the 20th century. The houses -of two California architects, Charles and Henry Greene, led to the -establishment of a style known as “Craftsman.” Several influences—the -English Arts and Crafts movement, interest in oriental wood architecture -and training in the manual arts—may have encouraged the Greene brothers -to design intricately detailed buildings. Their work and other -California residences received publicity in the various national -magazines. Thus, the one-story Craftsman house soon became the most -popular and fashionable smaller house in the country. In Louisiana these -houses have been labeled “California Bungalows.” - -The characteristic features occurred normally on the facades, that -portion of the house most visible to the public. The low-pitched gabled -roof had wide, unenclosed eaves and overhangs and roof rafters were -exposed and decorative false beams or braces occurred under the gables. -Porches were full or partial width across the front. - -The porch or gallery columns had distinctive detailing. Typically, short -square upper columns were placed over more massive masonry piers or a -solid porch balustrade (skirt). The columns, piers, or balustrades often -began at ground level and extended with no interruption to a level above -the porch floor. - -The California Bungalow style houses constitute the most numerous group -of extant styled houses in the Twin Cities. As such, they represent a -definite attempt to establish a styled expression of individuality for -the houses of the general populace. The examples illustrated on these -pages are representative of this style. - -In figure 53 a California Bungalow in north Monroe was built with the -front gable expressed in the broad three-windowed dormer. Note the -extensive dormer roof overhang. The full width front gallery is provided -with screens between the straight full height wood columns; the gallery -roof overhang contains exposed rafter ends. - -Another expression of the California Bungalow appeared in the circa 1930 -West Monroe house shown in figure 54. This two story house has a front -gable and multiple groupings of windows. But the greatest expression -occurs in the one-story gallery. It has a smaller low pitched gable roof -with four full height square brick piers and a half height brick pier -near the door. The balustrade continues to the side porte cochere, or -car shelter. - -The freedom of design offered by the California Bungalow style allowed a -house form beyond that of the standard simple rectangle, and the West -Monroe circa 1920 house in figure 55 used this freedom. The roof -contains no gables, the front porch is allowed to wrap around the side, -and the rear porch is enclosed providing additional room. The exposed -rafter ends support a rather deep overhang. The porch supports are -constructed of massive wood posts on half height brick piers. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 55. A rambling California Bungalow on Trenton - St., West Monroe (Bldg. 157)._] - -Yet another expression occurs in the West Monroe circa 1926 house in -figure 56. The high roof allows space for attic rooms. Note shed roof -dormer. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 56. Another expression of the popular - California Bungalow (Bldg. 158)._] - -The California Bungalow style continued to be popular in the region -until after World War II when it was supplanted by the “ranch” form -house with a concrete slab floor. - - -A 20TH CENTURY COMPLEX—IN THE CITY - -When the J. E. Peters house and auxiliary buildings were built in the -late 1920’s and 1930’s, the site was on the southern limits of the city -of Monroe, but it subsequently was included within the city boundaries. -Thus, today a unique rural atmosphere exists within an urban context. - -The complex depicted in figures 57 through 60 contains a two story -house, garage apartment, storage or quarters building and a pair of -water storage tanks. - -The two story house, figure 57, contains four rooms over four rooms and -a stair and bath facilities. The one story gallery on the front and side -provides ample opportunity for relaxation and relief from the heat of -the interior rooms in the summer. Note the absence of a chimney; winter -heating would have been provided by the newly discovered natural gas. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 57. The drawings on these pages are of the same - site in south Monroe, the Peters house (Bldg. 126)._] - -In the rear of the Peters house is a 1930’s garage apartment, figure 58. -This element is a unique feature in the history of urban residential -architecture. The automobile became obtainable by the urban family -during the second decade of the 20th century, and it was sheltered in a -structure separate from the residence. The garage would usually provide -shelter for one to two automobiles. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 58. A garage apartment adjacent to the house. - (Bldg. 126)._] - -Often an apartment would be placed above the garage, as shown. Note the -exterior access stairway. In post World War II residences the automobile -would be sheltered in a garage attached to the main residence; -subsequently this garage would relinquish its walls and doors and be -known as a “carport.” Thus, the garage apartment holds a unique place in -America domestic architecture. - -The Peters store house, or quarters, figure 59, also was representative -of the era described. This building has exposed rafter ends, five panel -doors, milled (not brick) siding, and is raised three steps above the -ground. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 59. The storage building in the rear (Bldg. - 126)._] - -The water towers shown in figure 60 are elevated to provide gravity -pressure for water needed on the farm complex, whether for irrigation or -livestock or domestic use. The towers are situated in a grove of pecan -trees. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 60. Water tanks on the farm site (Bldg. 126)._] - -As urbanization increased, the opportunity for complexes such as this to -survive decreased. Holdings were subdivided into residential lots, and -the rural feeling and inherent privacy which it provided yielded to an -environment of urban compactness. This is the price of progress as a -city expands. - - -URBAN ECCLESIASTICAL - -A distinct contrast exists between the rural ecclesiastical building and -that of the urban area. The urban congregations tended to require more -stylized edifices for worship. This may be apparent in the examples -illustrated herein. - -The 1899 St. Matthews Roman Catholic Church is an excellent example of -the Gothic Revival style. Characteristics of this style include the -tower with belfry and spire, the single or grouped pointed-arch windows, -the stepped buttresses and deeply recessed openings and wooden doors. -These characteristics are evident in the church in figure 61. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 61. The 1899 Gothic Revival St. Matthews Church - (Bldg. 159)._] - -The Tabernacle Baptist Church on Beard Street, Monroe, was a later -version of a style conscious church building. The opening is recessed -and has a round arch over the door. A vertical accent was obtained by -use of the small tower, figure 62. Brick as an exterior wall finishing -material was commonly used in the towns; this contrasted to the almost -universal use of wood siding on churches in the rural areas of the -parish. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 62. Tabernacle Baptist Church on Beard Street, - Monroe (Bldg. 160)._] - - -EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS - -There are a number of extant 50 year old educational buildings in the -Twin Cities which are excellent examples of the various prevailing -architectural styles. The Mediterranean style is evident in such -elementary schools as Georgia Tucker, Lida Benton, and Barksdale Faulk. -Jacobean Revival may be seen in the old Ouachita Parish High School -building on South Grand; Art Deco is represented in Neville High School -on Forsythe Avenue, Monroe. It is very fortunate that these buildings -remain and are either still being utilized as educational facilities or -are being converted for contemporary adaptive reuse, the latter being -the case in the South Grand building mentioned. - -Georgia Tucker School, figure 63, was built in 1919 and named for Mrs. -Georgia Tucker Stubbs, a member of a pioneer Ouachita Parish family. Its -Mediterranean style features include monumentality, solidity, use of low -arches and imaginative towers. It also employs a unique treatment of -terracotta in cast panels and columns capitals. One might note the use -of free standing decorative nonfunctional columns on the front. The -separate entrances for grades one through three and grades four through -six are clearly defined. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 63. Georgia Tucker School, 1919 (Bldg. 162)._] - -The Jacobean Revival style was used for the Ouachita Parish High School -building depicted in figure 64. Built in the late 1920’s, this three -story remnant of the high school complex displays monumentality and -elaborate detailing at the South Grand Street entrance to the classroom -building. Quoins were used at masonry corners. The roof parapet wall -contains decorative penetrations and projections as an expression of the -method in which the building relates to the skyline. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 64. The Jacobean Revival Ouachita Parish High - School building, 1920’s (Bldg. 161)._] - - -URBAN COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC BUILDINGS - -It has been previously illustrated that the urban residential, -ecclesiastical and educational buildings were constructed to reflect -current stylistic trends more than their rural counterparts; a similar -observation might be made about commercial urban and rural buildings. -The urban commercial buildings depicted on these two pages represent -some of the stylistic expressions of the Twin Cities from the time of -early settlement, the 1840’s, to the period of the oil boom, the 1930’s. -As such, they might be viewed as a summary of commercial architecture in -the Twin Cities. - -The Isaiah Garrett law office, figure 65, was constructed in the 1840’s. -Its configuration is similar to that of the small residence of the -period, a two room core with rear wing, chimneys on end elevations, and -an attached front gallery. This building is now the Colonial Dames -Museum. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 65. Isaiah Garrett law office, 1840’s (Bldg. - 163)._] - -The two story commercial building shown in figure 66 was built in the -1890’s on North Grand Street. It contains large glass areas for display -and interior light, and the second floor contains arched windows on the -street facade but flat lintel windows overlooking the river. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 66. 1890’s commercial building on North Grand, - Monroe (Bldg. 164)._] - -T. M. Parker built a two story commercial building on DeSiard Street in -1908, figure 67. This building was used as a hotel for a long period. -There is a similarity in the manner in which the roof lines of the -buildings in figures 67 and 68 were constructed, since both parapets -have shaped and raised center sections and projecting cornices. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 67. The T. M. Parker Building on DeSiard Street - (Bldg. 165)._] - -The West Monroe 1909 two story building depicted in figure 68 was built -with similar characteristics as those previously described, a large -glass area on ground floors and a masonry upper facade. But this -building contains other individualistic features. The second floor opens -onto a balcony which overlooks the Ouachita River, and a very elaborate -cast stone lady’s head is incorporated into the pilaster on the left -side of the front elevation. A companion sculpture on the right pilaster -no longer exists. One might wonder if it were a male or female likeness. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 68. A West Monroe commercial building, 1909 - (Bldg. 166)._] - -Civic architecture is represented by the 1925 Ouachita Parish -Courthouse, figure 69. Neoclassicism was used to represent monumentality -through the application of engaged Ionic columns on the major facades. -Broad entry terraces and steps heightened the drama of entry into the -main floor. The roofline contains a balustrade as an expression of -uniting the building with the skyline. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 69. The neoclassical Ouachita Parish Courthouse - 1925 (Bldg. 167)._] - -The Frances Hotel, figure 70, was constructed in 1930 and named for Mrs. -Frances McHenry, wife of a founder of Delta Airlines. Its Art Deco style -has a pronounced verticality and linear quality. This early Monroe -skyscraper has elaborate window and facade treatment on the first three -floors with minimal facade decoration on the hotel room floors above. -The building is crowned with elaboration on the facades of the top -floor. This floor once contained a ballroom which overlooked the city -and the river. Arched windows with elaborate projections above broke the -skyline. And above the roof was an enormous red beacon which was visible -for miles at night. The beacon no longer is lighted. - - [Illustration: _Fig. 70. Frances Hotel, Monroe, a 1930 Art Deco - building (Bldg. 168)._] - -The buildings pictured on these and the four preceding pages are -examples of the manner in which the designers attempted to create -aesthetically pleasing architecture for both the distant and the near-by -viewer. Several have interesting rooflines which integrate the built -environment with the skyline. They also contain elements which may be -viewed from a closer position as a person enters the building; such -elements include steps, entry details, and intricate window trim. - - - - - CONCLUSION.... - - -Ouachita Parish possesses a rich architectural heritage. In time, this -heritage spans from the beginnings of Layton Castle in the early 1800’s -to the high rise Frances Hotel of the 1930’s—and on to the present. In -terms of style, this heritage includes the simple one room houses as -well as representatives of Greek Revival, Queen Anne, Gothic Revival, -Colonial Revival, Classic Revival, California Bungalow, Prairie Style, -Tudor Revival, and Art Deco. - -The life styles and cultures of the inhabitants are reflected and -expressed in this architectural heritage. These cultures included that -of the small farms west of the river, the plantations east of the river, -and the urban culture as seen in the architecture of Monroe and West -Monroe. What a rich assortment exists within a 20 mile radius of the -center of Ouachita Parish. - -But this heritage is in danger. As progress continues and prosperity -grows, the architectural heritage often diminishes. Older buildings are -seen as liabilities and become victims of the wrecking ball. These -buildings, whether constructed of log or brick with Romanesque or Gothic -details, will not be erected again. Therefore, the visual insights into -past cultures which these older buildings represent are lost forever. - -It is hoped that the publication of this collection of Ouachita Parish’s -architectural heritage will make the public more aware of its valuable -treasure as evidenced in older architecture. And in turn, it is hoped -that this awareness will assist in the preservation of vestiges of our -traditional past. - - F. Lestar Martin - - [Illustration: _Bright-Lamkin-Easterling House, 1890._] - - - - - CATALOG OF BUILDINGS - - -The following listing contains information on extant buildings 50 years -old in Ouachita Parish (excluding Monroe and West Monroe, cataloged in -the La. Tech Arch. Dept.). Building number is followed by building type -designation, porch type, siding and date. - - Survey Type Remarks - Number - - 1. One Room Attached porch, asb. siding, c.1930. - 2. Central hall Integral gallery, c.1913. - 3. Central hall Attached gallery, asbestos, c.1917. - 4. Central hall Attached porch, asbestos, c.1920. - 5. Two room No gallery, asbestos, c.1920. - 6. Dogtrot Square logs and notches, c.1880. - 7. Other Gen. store, integral gallery, vert. bd/batten, - c.1910. - 8. Bungalow Attached gallery, milled siding c.1926. - 9. Other Liberty Baptist Church, asbestos, c.1915. - 10. Dogtrot Enclosed, att. gallery, milled, c.1890. - 11. Central hall Attached gallery, asphalt, c.1900. - 12. Two room Attached gallery, milled, c.1910. - 13. Central hall Attached gallery, milled, c.1930. - 14. Other Gable front & wing, attached porch, milled, c.1910. - 15. Other Gable front & wing, attached porch, milled, c.1900. - 16. Bungalow Integral porch, milled, c.1930. - 17. Two room Rare plan, gingerbread cols. & trim, attached - gallery, milled c.1900. - 18. Shotgun Shotgun, integral gallery, milled c.1920. - 19. One room Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1920. - 20. Other Mt. Horeb Church, milled, c.1920. - 21. Central hall Integral gallery, milled, 1925. - 22. Bungalow Integral half porch, milled, 1930. - 23. Other Triple room, integral gallery, milled, c.1920. - 24. Bungalow Integral side porch, milled, c.1931. - 25. Other Bungalow type, attached porch, asbestos, c.1935. - 26. Central hall Attached gallery, sawn siding, c.1900. - 27. Dogtrot Enclosed, part half log, attached gallery, milled, - 1890, Caldwell farm. - 28. Outbldg. Round log w/sq. notches, shingle roof, 1880’s, - Caldwell farm. - 29. Dogtrot Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1900, - Caldwell Farm. Log Outbuildings. - 30. Bungalow Attached porch, asbestos, 1937. - 31. Central hall Attached gallery, asbestos, 1925, Wallace farm. - 32. Shotgun Shotgun, integral gallery, milled, 1920. - 33. Central hall Integral gallery, milled, 1920. - 34. Bungalow No porch, milled, 1930. - 35. Bungalow Integral gallery, milled, c.1920. - 36. Two room Integral gallery, milled, c.1920. - 37. Outbldg. Transverse crib barn, tin siding, c.1930. - 38. Shotgun No porch, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1920. - 39. Bungalow Attached porch, vert. bd./batten siding 1930. - 40. Outbldg. Storage, sawn siding, c.1930. - 41. Other Gen. store, various additions, vert. bd./batten, - c.1920 - 42. Outbldg. Round log, saddle notch corn crib, c.1920 - 43. Shotgun Shotgun, no porch, vert. bd./batten, c.1920. - 44. Outbldg. Tranverse crib barn, vert. siding, 1935, Golson - fam. - 45. Dogtrot Attached gallery, sawn siding, c.1930. - 46. Other Camel-back house, no porch, milled, 1926, Marvin - Spanier. - 47. Outbldg. Single crib storage, round log, saddle - notches, 1930, Spanier fam. - 48. Bungalow Attached gallery, asbestos, 1930. - 49. Outbldg. Single crib storage, half log, semi-lunate notch, - c.1915, Golson fam. - 50. Shotgun Shotgun, integral gallery, asbestos, c.1930. - 51. Outbldg. Storage, vert. sawn, c.1930, George Hamilton. - 52. Bungalow Integral half porch, asbestos, c.1930, Pat Tinsley. - 53. Bungalow Attached porch, milled, 1933, John Mayes. - 54. Other Two story Masonic Lodge—rare, integral gallery, - sawn, c.1885. - 55. Central hall Integral gallery, sawn siding, 1898, Golson fam. - 56. Bungalow Integral porch, vert. bd./batten, 1933, James - Young. - 57. Other Latter Day Saints Church, attached portico, - milled, 1910. - 58. Bungalow Attached gallery, milled, c.1930. - 59. Other Gen. store, attached porch, milled, 1927, Antley - family. - 60. Outbldg. Double crib, sawn, 1930. - 61. Other Antioch Church, portico, steeple, asbestos, 1910. - 62. Bungalow Integral gallery, milled, 1932, Fowler fam. - 63. Other Frantom Chapel, asbestos, 1916. - 64. Outbldg. Storage pen, sawn, c.1930, Burkett fam. - 65. Central hall Attached gallery, milled, c.1920. - 66. Two room Attached porch, milled, 1918. - 67. Two room Attached gallery, sawn, vert. bd./batten, 1905, - Lovelady fam. - 68. Bungalow Attached porch, vert. siding, c.1930. - 69. Other Lapine Methodist Church, milled, c.1915 - 70. Shotgun Shotgun, integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, - c.1920. - 71. Central hall Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, 1897. - 72. Two room Original single pen half log w/semi-lunate notch, - att. gallery 1895, C. C. George. - 73. Outbldg. Tranverse crib barn, square logs, square notch, - sawn siding, c.1900, Griffin fam. - 74. Central hall Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, 1893, - Griffin fam. - 75. Central hall Attached gallery, Masonite, c.1880, James Henry. - 76. Outbldg. Single crib storage, round log, saddle notch, - c.1920. - 77. Two room Attached porch, vert. bd./batten, c.1880, John - Bush. - 78. Single pen Side addition, half round logs, semi-lunate notch, - integral gallery, c.1890. - 79. Two room Attached gallery, milled siding, c.1910. - 80. Bungalow Half porch integral, milled, c.1920. - 81. Saddlebag Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1880. - 82. Saddlebag Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1880. - 83. Bungalow Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten, 1927, Amos - Hollingsworth. - 84. Outbldg. Half log storage pen, semi-lunate notch, c.1910. - 85. Other Triple room integral gallery, asphalt, c.1890. - 86. Shotgun Shotgun, integral gallery, milled, c.1930, Connie - Dowdy. - 87. Central hall Integral gallery, milled, c.1910. - 88. Two room Original single pen w/additions, half log - w/semi-lunate notch, add. vert. bd./batten, - c.1880, Baugh fam. - 89. Central hall Integral gallery, milled, c.1900. - 90. Central hall Integral gallery, asbestos siding, c.1915, Thomas - T. Jones. - 91. Bungalow Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1930. - - EAST OF THE OUACHITA - - 92. Two room Attached porch, vert. bd./batten, c.1920. - 93. Other Two story “Carolina I,” “Grecian Bend” plantation - house, sawn siding, built 1866 by the Guthrie - family. - 94. Two room Attached gallery, milled, c.1927. - 95. Bungalow Attached gallery, milled, c.1920. - 96. Bungalow “California,” integral gallery, milled, c.1930. - 97. Central hall Integral gallery, milled siding, c.1930. - 98. Other Church, portico, belfry, milled siding, c.1930. - 99. Outbldg. Double crib barn, vert. bd./batten, c.1920. - 100. Central hall “Greek Revival” plantation house integral gallery, - milled siding, c.1880. - 101. One room Attached porch, additions, vert. bd./batten - siding, c.1900. - 102. Central hall “O’Kelly House,” moved from N. 6th and Washington, - Monroe; sawn siding, integral gallery, dormers - added, c.1860. - 103. One room Vert. sawn siding, c.1920. - 104. Shotgun Shotgun, attached porch, vert. bd./batten siding, - c.1910. - 105. Two room Attached gallery, vert. bd/batten, c.1920. - 106. Other “Little Bell Missionary Baptist Church,” milled, - c.1920. - 107. Other Triple room, integral porch, horiz. and vert. - siding, c.1910. - 108. Bungalow Attached gallery, milled, c.1920. - 109. Outbldg. Single crib storage, shed additions, c.1937. - 110. Central Hall Attached gallery, milled, c.1920. - 111. Two room Attached gallery, asbestos, c.1930. - 112. Outbldg. Double crib barn, vert. sawn, c.1930. - 113. Bungalow Integral gallery, milled, c.1930. - 114. Two room Integral gallery, milled, c.1920. - 115. One room Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1920. - 116. Two room Integral gallery, milled, c.1920. - 117. Central hall Log room enclosed, integral gallery, sawn siding, - original 1850 by Howard family, now Stubbs - plantation house. - 118. Two room Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1910, - on Stubbs plantation. - 119. Two room Attached gallery, sawn siding, c.1920, on Stubbs - plantation. - 120. Two room Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1910, on - Stubbs plantation. - 121. Bungalow “California Bungalow,” milled, c.1920, on Stubbs - plantation. - 122. Central hall “Greek Revival,” integral gallery, milled siding, - “Cox House.” 1882. - 123. Bungalow Attached gallery, milled, c.1933, Henry Cyers. - 124. Bungalow Integral gallery asbestos, c.1920. - 125. Shotgun Two shotguns, attached and integral porches, - milled, c.1920. - 126. Other Two story, four room over four room, attached - porch, milled, c.1927, various other buildings, - water tanks. - 127. Central hall “Whitehall Plantation” house, Greek Revival, sawn - siding, integral gallery, dormers, fine millwork, - 1858. National Register. - 128. Outbldg. Single crib, square log half dovetail notch, - c.1900. - 129. Two room Integral gallery, asbestos, c.1910, on “OZO,” - McHenry Plantation, McClain and McDonald families. - 130. Central hall 1½ story, various additions to 1838, “Refugio” - plantation house. McClain and McDonald families. - 131. Central hall Integral gallery, asbestos, c.1830-50, Garrett - family. - 132. Shotgun Shotgun, attached porch, asphalt, c.1930. - 133. Central hall Integral gallery, milled and asphalt siding, - c.1880, Faulk family. - 134. Other “Greek Revival,” portico gallery, additions, - milled and sawn siding, built 1838 by Jean - Baptiste Filhoil, grandson of Don Juan Filhoil. - “Logtown” plantation house. Nat. Reg. - 135. Shotgun Attached gallery, milled, c.1930. - 136. Shotgun Integral gallery, milled, c.1920. - 137. Central hall Integral gallery, milled, c.1900. - 138. Central hall “Boscobel,” integral gallery, sawn, Greek Revival, - built c.1820. By Judge Henry Bry. Nat. Reg. - 139. Central hall 1½ story, integral gallery, milled, c.1900. - 140. Central hall Integral gallery, milled, c.1920. - 141. Outbldg. Transverse crib barn, vert. planks, c.1930. - 142. Central hall Integral gallery, milled siding, c.1920. - 143. Two room Like a bungalow plan, half porch attached, milled - c.1930. - - MONROE AND WEST MONROE - - 143a. Central hall “Lower Pargoud overseer’s house,” integral - gallery, sawn, built c.1835. Nat. Reg. - 144. Other “Layton Castle,” renovated as “Chateau” in 1910’s, - original raised Louisiana plantation house - incorporated in house. Begun by Judge Henry Bry, - c.1820’s. Nat. Reg. - 145. Other “Queen Anne” gable front and wing, porches, - milled, c.1890’s. - 146. Other “Queen Anne” gable front and wing, porches, - milled, c.1890’s. - 147. Other Two story, porches, milled siding, built 1905 by - Ernest L. Neville. - 148. Central hall Raised, integral galleries, milled, J. H. - Trousdale, Sr., 1914. - 149. Central hall Two story, portico, milled, Weaks family, c.1900’s. - 150. Central hall Two story, portico, milled, Gov. Luther Hall, - 1906. Nat. Reg. - 151. Central hall Two story, portico, brick, Travis Oliver I, - c.1930’s. - 152. Other Two story Tudor Revival, built 1920 by Elmer - Slagle, Sr. Nat. Reg. - 153. Other Prairie style house designed by William Burley - Griffin, 1926. Nat. Reg. - 154. Bungalow “California bungalow,” shingle siding, c.1930. - 155. Bungalow “California bungalow,” milled, c.1920. - 156. Bungalow “California bungalow,” porches, c.1930. - 157. Bungalow “California bungalow,” integral porches, milled, - c.1920. - 158. Bungalow “California bungalow,” integral gallery, milled, - c.1926. - 159. Church St. Matthew’s Roman Catholic Church, Gothic - Revival, brick, 1899. - 160. Church Tabernacle Baptist Church, brick, c.1935. - 161. School Ouachita Parish High School, Jacobean Revival, - c.1926. Nat. Reg. - 162. School Georgia Tucker Grammar School, Mediterranean, - brick, 1919. - 163. Office Isaiah Garrett Law Office, brick, 1840’s. National - Register - 164. Commercial Two story brick store, 1890’s. - 165. Commercial Two story brick store, built 1908 by T. M. Parker. - 166. Commercial Two story brick store, 1909. - 167. Civic Ouachita Parish Courthouse, Neoclassical, 1925. - Nat. Reg. - 168. Commercial Frances Hotel, multi-story, Art Deco, built 1930 - by Carl McHenry. - 169. Other Queen Anne, Bright-Lamkin-Easterling house, - National Register, 1890. - - - - - Transcriber’s Notes - - -—Silently corrected a few typos. - -—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook - is public-domain in the country of publication. - -—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by - _underscores_. - - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NORTH -LOUISIANA RIVER PARISHES, VOLUME I: OUACHITA PARISH *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |