nas alameda cultural landscape report pt1

7/27/2019 NAS Alameda Cultural Landscape Report Pt1

1/204

Final

CULTURALLANDSCAPEREPORT

FOR

NAVALAIRSTATIONALAMEDA

NAVYCONTRACTN68711-04-D-3632-0012

CulturalResourcesServicesforFormerAlamedaNavalAirStation,AlamedaCounty

Preparedfor:

NavalFacilitiesEngineeringCommandSouthwest

1220PacificHighway,CodeEV52.DS

SanDiego,California 92132

Preparedby:

JRPHistoricalConsultingLLC

2850SpaffordStreet

Davis,California 95618

and

PGAdesign,Inc.44417th Street

Oakland,California 94612

April 2012

Attachment 4

Item 7-B, 1/3/13

Historical Advisory Board


2/204


3/204

i

TABLEOFCONTENTS

1. ExecutiveSummary .................................................................................................. 12. SummaryofPreviousReportsandMethodologyForCurrentReport............... 42.1 PreviousInvestigationsandFindings........................................................... 42.2

ContextualStudiesandGuidance................................................................. 72.3 Methodology ................................................................................................ 7

2.4 ThresholdsofSignificanceandIntegrity ................................................... 113. HistoricContext:DevelopmentofFeaturesandFunctionsoftheLandscapeon

NASAlameda ......................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Pre-WorldWarIIandWorldWarII(1917-1945)................................................. 173.1.1 EstablishmentofNASAlameda(1917-1940) ............................................ 173.1.2 WorldWarII(1941-1945).......................................................................... 50

3.2 ColdWarEra(1946-1989)......................................................................... 703.3 Post-ColdWartoClosure(1989-1997).................................................... 101

4. AnalysisandEvaluation....................................................................................... 1034.1

DescriptionofExistingConditions .......................................................... 1034.1.1 DescriptionofCulturalLandscapeinNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict.... 104

4.1.2 AreasOutsideNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict ........................................ 1634.2 Analysis .................................................................................................... 1974.2.1 SpatialOrganization.................................................................................. 1974.2.2 ViewsandVistas....................................................................................... 2074.2.3 Topography............................................................................................... 2084.2.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 2094.2.5 Circulation................................................................................................. 2184.2.6 Water Features .......................................................................................... 2214.2.7 Structures,Furnishings,andObjects ........................................................ 221

4.3 Evaluation................................................................................................. 2234.3.1 CriteriaofSignificance ............................................................................. 2234.3.2 CaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources ............................................. 2254.3.3 SummaryEvaluationsofCulturalLandscapeonNASAlameda ............. 2264.3.4 DiscussionofCulturalLandscapeonNASAlamedainPreviousReports

.................................................................................................................. 2324.3.5 EvaluationoftheHistoricDesignedLandscapeasContributortotheNAS

AlamedaHistoricDistrict......................................................................... 2344.3.6 BoundaryoftheNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict(includingthehistoric

designedlandscape).................................................................................. 2385. InventoryandEvaluationTable.......................................................................... 2396. DesignReviewGuidelinesfortheHistoricDesignedLandscapeintheNAS

AlamedaHistoricDistrict.................................................................................... 243

6.1 RecommendedTreatmentApproach........................................................ 2436.2 GeneralManagementandDesignGuidelines .......................................... 2456.3 DesignReviewConsiderationsbyFunctionalArea................................. 2506.3.1 AdministrativeCore.................................................................................. 2506.3.2 ShopsArea................................................................................................ 2546.3.3 Residential/MWRArea........................................................................... 255


4/204

ii

6.3.4 OperationsArea ........................................................................................ 2586.4 SpecialConsiderationsforHistoricDesignedLandscape ....................... 259

7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 2628. Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 264APPENDIXA MAPS,DIAGRAMS, ANDAERIALPHOTOGRAPHSAPPENDIXB DPR523FORMSAPPENDIXC PREPARERSQUALIFICATIONSAPPENDIXD INFORMATIONREGARDINGGISDATAAPPENDIXE CONSULTATIONCORRESPONDENCE


5/204

NAVALAIRSTATIONALAMEDACulturalLandscapeReport

1

1. EXECUTIVESUMMARY

NavalAirStationAlameda(NASAlameda)wasconstructedinthelate1930sand duringWorld

WarII,anditplayedanactiveroleinNavyaviationuntilitwasdecommissionedin1997. JRP

HistoricalConsulting,LLC(JRP)andPGADesign,Inc.(PGA)preparedthis CulturalLandscapeReport(CLR)forNASAlamedaunderdirectionoftheNavalFacilitiesEngineeringCommand

(NAVFAC),Southwest. Thisreport, inconjunctionwithaCombinedSpecificBuildingSurvey

and Evaluation Report / Cold War Era Historic Resources Survey and Evaluations Report,

(hereafter,CombinedSpecificBuildingsEvaluation/ColdWarEraEvaluationReport) prepared

under separate cover, is designed to assist the Base Realignment and Closure Program

ManagementOffice (BRAC PMO)Westwith theNavys compliance under Section 106 and

Section 110 of theNational Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) aspart of the undertaking to

transfer formerNAS Alameda out of federal ownership. Specifically, this CLR evaluates

whether there are cultural landscapes on the former station that are eligible for theNational

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources

(CRHR).

ThisCLRidentifiesahistoricdesignedlandscapethatappearstomeetthecriteriaforlistingin

theNRHPandCRHR asacontributingelementof theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict,which

waspreviouslydeterminedeligible for listingin theNRHP.1 Ahistoricdesigned landscape is

one type of landscape within the various categories of cultural landscapes. Historic designed

landscapes are consciously designed in a recognized style or tradition that have significant

historical associations and that illustrate important developments orpractices of landscape

architecture. Aesthetic value of the landscape is an important aspect of historic designedlandscapes.

Themainsectionsofthereportpresentthehistoriccontext forthehistoricdesigned landscape,

inventory of the cultural landscapes existing conditions onNAS Alameda, analysis of the

historic designed landscape that identifies its character-defining features, evaluation of the

historicdesignedlandscapessignificance,anddesignreviewguidelinesforthehistoricdesigned

landscape. TheCLRalsoexaminesothersectionsofthestationtoassesstheirstatusaspotential

culturallandscapes. Thestudy vicinityandstudyareaareillustratedFigureA-1 andFigureA-

2. Forreference,mapswithNavybuildingidentificationnumbersandstreetnamesareprovided

inFigureA-3a, FigureA-3b,andFigureA-3c. ThesefiguresareinAppendixA1.

Thisdocumenthasbeenprepared inresponsetoconsultingpartycommentstheNavyreceived

duringpriorconsultationregardingtheNavysproposedtransfer. ThisCLRwillbeusedbythe

1 Although this reportprovides evaluations for eligibility under the CRHR, the City of Alameda may identify

additionalresourcesmeetinglocalorstatehistoricalresourcescriteria.


6/204


2

Navy, in conjunctionwith the findingsof theCombinedSpecificBuildingsEvaluation /Cold

WarEraEvaluationReport, asabasisforpreparationofaNationalRegisterNominationForm

fortheNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict.2

Like thebuildingsand structures that arecontributingelementsof theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict,thehistoricdesignedlandscapeonNASAlameda issignificantatthestatelevelunder

NRHPCriteria A andC (and under CRHR Criteria 1 and 3) and it retains sufficient historic

integrityto thedistrictsperiodofsignificance fromwhenconstructionof thestationbegan in

1938totheendofWorldWarIIin1945. Thehistoricdesignedlandscapeissignificantforits

associationwithnaval air stationdevelopment in the1930s,developmentofnaval facilities in

theSanFranciscoBayAreaduringWorldWarII,andthestationsroleinsupportingtheNavys

operationsinthePacificTheaterduringWorldWarII.

ThisCLRfurtherconcludesthat,besidesthehistoricdesignedlandscapethatisacontributorto

the NASAlamedaHistoricDistrict, there are no other landscape featureson or areasofNAS

Alamedaoutsidetheboundaryof thehistoricdistrictthatconstituteacultural landscapethat is

eligibleforlistingintheNRHP orCRHR. Thus,nootherculturallandscapehasbeenidentified

onNAS Alameda.

Section 2 of the CLRpresents a summary ofprevious investigations and their conclusions

regarding landscape featuresonNASAlameda, alongwith themethodologyand thresholdsof

significanceandintegrityforthiscurrentstudy. Section3provideschronology oftheevolution

ofthefeaturesandfunctionsofthelandscapeonNASAlamedafromdesign and construction to

changes in the landscape over time. This narrative includes additional historical data andprovides thehistoric contextbywhich the landscape features onNASAlameda are evaluated

underNRHP/CRHRcriteria. Section4providesadescriptionofpresentfeaturesandfunction,

i.e. existing conditions of the landscape onNASAlameda including the areawithin theNAS

AlamedaHistoricDistrictandtheareasoutsidethehistoricdistrict. Thissectionalsoprovides

an analysis of features to identify characteristic features of the landscape; a discussion of the

criteriaofsignificance;anevaluationof thehistoricdesignedlandscapethat isacontributor to

theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict;and anevaluationofother landscapefeaturesandareason

NAS Alameda. Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the report include a summary table of character-

defining features of the historic designed landscape, design review guidelines for the historic

designed landscape, conclusions, and abibliography, respectively. The appendices include

maps, diagrams, and aerialphotographs (Appendix A), California Department of Parks and

Recreation(DPR) 523forms (AppendixB),preparersqualifications (AppendixC),information

2 TheNavyreceivedconcurrencefromtheStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO)regardingconclusionsoftheCombinedSpecificBuildingsEvaluation/ColdWarEraEvaluationReport onJanuary7,2011(SHPOreference:USN090603A).


7/204


3

regarding Geographic Information System (GIS) data (Appendix D), and consultation

correspondence(AppendixE).


8/204


9/204


10/204


5

StephenMikesell(JRPHistoricalConsultingServices),GuidetoPreservingtheCharacteroftheNavalAirStationAlamedaHistoricDistrict,1997

JRPHistoricalConsultingServices, CaliforniaHistoricMilitary Buildings andStructuresInventory,2000

Jones&Stokes,FinalHistoricPropertiesInspectionReport,2007

Jones&Stokes,Pre-FinalNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesNomination fortheNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict,2008

TheNavy determined that theNASAlameda Historic District was eligible for listing in the

NRHPin1992basedontheHistoricArchitecturalResourcesInventoryforNavalAirStation,

Alameda, prepared by architectural historian Sally Woodbridge. The State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this conclusion in September 1992. The

Woodbridgereport concludedthat NASAlamedaHistoricDistrictwas eligibleforlistinginthe

NRHPunderCriteriaAandC,atthestatelevel,withaperiodof1938to1945. TheWoodbridge

study concludedthat thedistrictwas eligibleunderCriterionA for itssignificanceasaWorldWarII-eranavalairstationwithin thecontextualthemeofthedevelopmentofUSNavybasesin

the San Francisco Bay Area inWorldWar II. The district was also found significant under

Criterion C as an important example of naval masterplanning and architecture in the early

Modern style. The Woodbridge report did not, however, evaluate all of thebuildings and

structureslocatedinsidethehistoricdistrictboundary,considerpotentialColdWar-eraeligibility

for thebuildings and structures onNASAlameda, nor formally evaluate landscape elements.

The Navy prepared the Combined Specific Buildings Evaluation / Cold War Evaluation

(September2011)andreceivedSHPOconcurrence,whichcompletedtheevaluationofbuildings

andstructuresonthestationandrevisedthehistoricdistrictboundary.AlthoughtheWoodbridge

report didnotformallyevaluatelandscapeelements,the 1992study dididentify thatthehistoric

district included landscape features such as the entrymall, quadrangle at the former Bachelor

EnlistedQuarters(BEQs)(Buildings2and4),orthogonalstreet plan,andcurvilinearresidential

streetplan.

TheNavyprepared the Guide to Preserving theCharacter of theNavalAir StationAlameda

HistoricDistrictto expandontheWoodbridgestudy,andspecifically toidentifythecharacter-

definingelementsofthehistoricdistrictwithattentiontothefourmainfunctionalareas, andto

helpguide treatmentof thehistoricpropertyduring its transfer outof federalownership. The

guide refinedanalysisregardingthestationsarchitecturalstyle,identifyingitasModerne. Thereport also identified vistas or viewsheds, open spaces, streetscapes, and some landscape

elements thatwere tobe considered and addressed in themanagement of thehistoric district.

Thesefeaturesincludedtheentrymallaxis,BEQquadrangleaxis,curvilinearresidentialstreets,

andpark-like area separatingOfficers Housing from theChief PettyOfficer (CPO)Housing.

These features, or components thereof, are nowpart ofwhat isbeing identified aspart of the

historicdesignedlandscapethatisacontributingelementtotheNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict.


11/204


6

While not focused specifically onNAS Alameda, the Department of Defenses California

HistoricMilitaryBuildingsandStructuresInventory(hereafterStatewideStudy)addressedthe

stationaspartof itsexamination of identifyinghistoricmilitary properties inCalifornia. The

threevolumereportisanimportanttoolthatprovideshistoricalandarchitecturalcontextforthe

evaluationofmilitarybuildings. Mosthelpful in theevaluationofbuildingsandstructuresonNASAlamedaisthecontextualinformationregardingmilitarybasedesignprior toWorldWar

II. Inaddition,theholisticapproachtomilitaryhistoryduringWorldWarIIandtheColdWar

identifies significant themesproviding a consistentbasis forbuilding and structure evaluation

acrossthestate. ThisthematicbaseassistsinclarifyingWoodbridgesevaluationofthestation,

andprovides a framework for evaluating the ColdWar-erabuildings and structures onNAS

Alameda.

Following thedecisiontocloseNASAlamedain1993, theNavy,AdvisoryCouncilonHistoric

Preservation(ACHP),andCaliforniaSHPOconsultedregardingtheundertakingtotransfer the

facilityoutoffederalownership. In1999,thesepartiesweresignatoriestoaMemorandumof

Agreement (MOA) regarding the layaway, caretaker maintenance, leasing, and disposal of

historicproperties on formerNAS Alameda. The MOA noted that the historic district, as

definedbyWoodbridges 1992 report, is eligible for inclusion in theNRHP and is a historic

propertyforSection106compliance. AspartoftheSection106complianceefforts,theNavy

preparedtheFinalHistoricPropertiesInspectionReport (HPIR) in2007. Thisdocumentwas

intendedtofurtherassisttheNavywiththeappropriatemanagementofthehistoric district. The

report concluded that the historic district overall was in good condition and still conveyed a

strongsenseofaWorldWar II-eranavalairstation. Thedocumentnoted thatalthoughsome

buildings and structures suffered from varying degrees of deferred maintenance sincebeingevaluated in 1992, the contributors to the historic district were largely unaltered and the

prominentbuildingsstillrepresentedModernestylearchitecture. Theinspectionfoundthatthe

vastmajorityofcharacter-definingfeaturesidentifiedin1997remainedinplace. Inaddition,the

HPIRidentifiednosubstantialmodernintrusionsinthehistoricdistrict,andthattheopenspaces,

vistas,andviewshedsfromtheoriginal1992inventorywerestillintact. Furthermore,theHPIR

identifiednomajorstructuralissueswiththecontributingbuildingsandstructuresinthehistoric

district. Minoralterationsinvolvingstreetsignsandotherstreetfurniturewerenoted.

TheNavytookadditionalstepstocomplywithstipulationsoftheSection106MOAbyhavinga

NationalRegisternominationprepared. TheresultingunfinishedPre-FinalNationalRegisterof

HistoricPlacesNominationfor theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict reliedon theWoodbridge

evaluationandprovidedthebasicframeworkfortheNationalRegisternominationscopedatthe

time. Interested parties in the process raised concerns regarding the limitations of the

Woodbridge study (and thus thepre-finalNational RegisterNomination). These concerns

included:thenumberofunevaluatedbuildingsinsidethehistoricdistrictboundary;thelackofa

survey and evaluation that considered context of the Cold Warperiod; and the need for a


12/204


7

CulturalLandscapeReport. BecauseofthelimitationsoftheWoodbridgereportandtheoutcome

ofNavyconsultationwithinterestedparties,thepre-finalNationalRegisterNominationwasnot

finalizedandwasnotsubmittedtotheKeeperoftheNationalRegister.

2.2 ContextualStudies andGuidance

For thisCLR, JRP reviewedprevious reports and agreements related to historic resources on

NASAlameda, aswellas relevantcontextualstudiesandguidance manuals. Studies ofmilitary

development atthestateandnationallevelprovided historicalcontext andabasisforcomparison

oftherelativehistoricimportance ofthestation asahistoricproperty. Thesestudies document

commonproperty types and outline the significant events and trends within which these

propertiesshouldbeevaluated. ThisCLR incorporated guidanceandcontextfromthefollowing

sources:

JRPHistorical Consulting Services,The CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildingsand StructuresInventory, 2000. This four volume study includes Volume 1:

Inventory of Historic Buildings and Structures on California MilitaryInstallations,Volume2:TheHistoryandHistoricResourcesoftheMilitaryin

California, 1769-1989, and Volume 3: Historic Context: Themes, Property

TypesandRegistrationRequirements,inadditiontoappendices.

USNavy,Building theNavysBasesinWorldWarII:Historyof theBureauofYardsandDocksandtheCivilEngineerCorps,1940-1946, 1947.

NationalRegisterBulletin18,HowtoEvaluateandNominateDesigned HistoricLandscapes.

PreservationBriefNumber36,ProtectingCulturalLandscapes

NationalParkService,TheSecretaryoftheInteriorsStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricPropertieswithGuidelinesfortheTreatmentofCulturalLandscapes,1996.

UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory(USACERL),GuidelinesforDocumenting andEvaluatingHistoricMilitaryLandscape:An

integratedLandscapeApproach

2.3 Methodology

JRP historians and architectural historiansproduced this CLR in conjunction with landscape

architectsatPGA. JRPandPGAconductedthefollowingstepsforthisCLR:

Fieldwork,recordation,andresearch

Identificationofculturallandscapetype

EvaluationunderNRHP/CRHRcriteria

Identificationofcharacter-definingfeatures


13/204


8

JRPconducted fieldwork,conducted backgroundresearch,prepared the textualportionsof this

report, and evaluated the historic designed landscape as well as other areas of the station to

assess their status as a cultural landscape. PGA conducted fieldwork, produced visual

documentation,andcoordinatedandconsultedwith JRPon theanalysis andevaluation of the

historic designed landscape and other areas of the station. See Appendix C for informationregardingthepreparersqualifications.

JRP conducted fieldworkbetween September 2009 and December 2009 in conjunction with

fieldwork for theCombinedSpecificBuildingsEvaluation /ColdWarEraEvaluationReport.

JRP staff field inspected all areas of the station, and field recorded and tookphotographs of

buildings,structures,andpotentialculturallandscapefeatures.

JRP conducted research regarding thepotential cultural landscape onNAS Alamedabetween

September 2009 and February 2010 in conjunction with the other survey work. Research

included reviewofprevioushistorical resourcesstudiesprepared forNASAlameda. JRPalso

reviewedthe2001 EnvironmentalBaselineSurvey(EBS)andSupplementalEBSdataforNAS

Alameda that the Navyprovided. JRP carried out researchprior to, during, and following

fieldworkperformedbyJRPandPGA. Researchencompassedinformationregardingthehistory

of theUSNavy,militarystation planningandarchitecture,andhistoryofNASAlameda. The

research undertaken helped refine historical themes, development of landscape types and

potential periods of the NAS Alameda cultural landscape. Research also identified

documentation to support the identification of the historic designed landscape that is a

contributingelement to theNAS AlamedaHistoricDistrict. JRPundertook research in naval

recordsandlocalrepositoriesincluding:

NAS Alameda Administrative Records, Building 1NAS Alameda, Alameda,California

NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,SanBruno,California

Civil Engineering Corps / Seabee Museum, Naval Station Ventura, PortHueneme,California

Treasure Island BRAC PMO West Caretaker Site Office, San Francisco,

California

AlamedaFreeLibrary,MainBranch,Alameda,California

OaklandHistoryRoom,Oakland,California.

PGAconducted fieldwork to record landscapefeaturesduringNovemberandDecember2009.

Staff field inspected all areas of the station and made notes andphotographs of landscape

features. PGAdivided fieldwork into the followingsubareasof the station: 1)Administrative

Core,2)Shops Area,3)Residential / Morale,Welfare,andRecreation(MWR) Area northeast,


14/204


9

4)OperationsArea hangars, SeaplaneLagoonandpiers 5)OperationsAreaandResidential/

MWRarea southeast,and6)OperationsArea Airfield.

PGAorganizedandrecorded fieldnotesby landscapeelement, including:spatialorganization;

viewsandvistas; topography; vegetation; circulation; waterfeatures; structures,furnishings,andobjects, making note of hardscape elements, monuments, and land uses. Where appropriate,

PGA identified condition of features as good, fair, orpoor. PGA identified materials and

measuredfeaturessuchassidewalkandpathwidths,treetrunkdiameters,andfenceheights. To

augment fielddata, PGA took digital fieldphotographs of structures, objects, and small scale

featuresaswellasviews/vistas, andindividualtreesandplantgroupings.

PGAidentifiedanddrewtreesontoscaledplans,prepareda listoftreesfoundineachsubarea,

and compileda listoftreespeciesfoundonthestation. Thelandscapearchitects drewvegetated

areas on fieldplans, and used that information toprepare vegetation exhibits. PGA also

identified shrubs and otherplant types and created lists of theseplants for each subarea,

sketching thelocationsofother landscapefeaturessuchas fences,hedges,andrecreationareas

ontofieldplansheets.

PGAs field investigation was a thorough examination of the entire station, but was not

exhaustive as time limitations and logicprecluded detailed recordation of repetitive common

features. Forexample,PGAthoroughlyrecordedtreesandotherplantsthatappearedtobeold,

but didnot record all species in themore recently-establishedcommunitygardensandprivate

yards of current residents in the same detail. Treemeasurements were taken in diameter at

breast height (dbh) and caliper (for circumference),both ofwhich are standardmethods forassessing tree size. The data collected regarding the sizes of trees was an indicator of their

potential age and one indicator of theirpotential as character-defining features (discussed

below).

Both during and following fieldwork and research, JRP and PGA analyzed the existing

conditionsdataandhistoricaldocumentationtoidentifythetypeofcultural landscapeonNAS

Alameda. JRPprepared a historic context for the landscape onNAS Alameda, which is

presented in Section 3. The landscape type was identified as a historic designed landscape,

following guidance discussed in Section 2.4. In consultation with PGA, JRP evaluated the

historicdesignedlandscapeunderNRHPandCRHRcriteriaconcludingthatitisacontributorto

theNAS Alameda Historic District and itsperiod of significance (1938-1945). JRP also

evaluatedthelandscapeoutsidethehistoricdistrictboundariesusing NRHP andCRHRcriteria.

The evaluations followed guidelinesprovidedby theNational Park Service (NPS) and the

military. Guidelinesappearinthefollowingpublications:


15/204


10

National RegisterBulletin18,HowtoEvaluateandNominateDesignedHistoricLandscapes.

PreservationBriefsNumber36,ProtectingCulturalLandscapes

UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory(USACERL),

GuidelinesforDocumenting andEvaluatingHistoricMilitaryLandscape:AnIntegratedLandscapeApproach.

UnitedStates ArmyCorpsofEngineersandJRPHistoricalConsultingServices,

TheCaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildingsandStructuresInventory, Volume3:HistoricContext:Themes,PropertyTypesandRegistrationRequirements.

Combiningfieldworkdatawith historicalresearchdata,JRPandPGAidentified the elementsof

the landscape that are character-defining features of the historic designed landscape. This

informationispresented inSections4and5ofthisreport,aswellas onDPR523forms. As

partof thiseffort, JRPprovidedPGAwithhistoricphotographsandhistoricplant lists tohelp

PGAdrawconclusions regarding extant landscape featuresandwhether those features existedduringtheNASAlamedaHistoricDistrictperiodofsignificance.

Toidentify character-definingtrees,forexample,PGAandJRPreviewedhistoricphotographs,

mapping,landscapeplans,andtreemeasurementdata. Ifhistoricphotographs showedatreein

the same location as itexistscurrently,was a speciesappearedonhistoricplant lists, and the

existingtreewascurrentlyofsufficientsize,PGArecommendedlistingthatplantasacharacter-

definingfeatureofthehistoricdesignedlandscape. Treemeasurementsweretakenintoaccount

regardingindividualtreespotentialtobeacharacter-definingfeatures,buttreesizealonedid not

provide accuratedata of age. The results of the treemeasurementswere used in conjunction

with the other historical documentation and analysis to help assess whether they shouldbe

consideredascharacter-definingfeaturesofthehistoricdesignedlandscape.

Basedupon itsfieldrecordationand inconjunctionwith identificationof thehistoricdesigned

landscapes character-defining features, PGA created lists and diagrams of the landscape

elements of existing conditions onNAS Alameda. This resulted in diagrams,provided in

AppendixA2, forLandUse,Circulation,Vegetationwithlandscapespecies,Character-Defining

Features (bymappingarea),and theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrictwiththehistoricdesigned

landscape character-defining features shown along with the contributing and non-contributing

buildings/structureswithinthehistoricdistrict. Forthemapping,PGAdividedthestationintothreeareas. Thiswasdonetoprovidemappingatareadablescale. Theareadivisions(Area1,

Area 2, and Area 3) are not related to any analytical aspects of the diagrams, such as the

functionalareas.

Graphically illustrating the character-defining features of the historic designed landscape in

diagrams (inAppendixA) hasits limits.Renderingthree-dimensionalandlarge-scale features


16/204


11

such spatial organization, views / vistas, and circulation is challenging on two-dimensional

diagrams. Somecharacter-definingfeaturesarenotindividuallymapped,butareillustratedwith

representative icons. Additionally, some character-defining features of the historic designed

landscapearenot illustratedon thediagrams becauseof theiromnipresentqualitiesorbecause

theyarepartof theintegrationof landscapeandarchitecturepresentonNASAlameda. Forafullunderstandingof thecharacter-definingfeaturesof thehistoricdesignedlandscape,readers

shouldconsult theCharacter-DefiningFeaturesDiagramsandassociatedfeatureslists,aswellas

theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrictmap, provided inAppendixA, intandemwiththerelevant

sectionsofthereport:Section4.2andSection5.

Followingevaluationandidentificationofthehistoricdesignedlandscapethatisacontributorto

theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict,anditscharacter-defining features,PGAandJRPdeveloped

designreviewconsideration withinputfromBRACPMOWest thatarepresentedinSection

6. The recommendations follow the guidanceprovidedby The Secretary of the Interiors

StandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricPropertieswithGuidelinesfortheTreatmentofCultural

Landscapes.

2.4 ThresholdsofSignificanceandIntegrity

Terminology and thresholdsof significance and integrityused in thisCLRare largely derived

fromNPSdefinitionsandstandards. Theterminologyisusedtohelpdefineandunderstandthe

significance of the landscape onNASAlameda. A historic designed landscape, like the one

identifiedonNASAlameda, isatypeofcultural landscape. NPSdefinescultural landscape

andhistoricdesignedlandscapeasfollows:5

Cultural Landscape - a geographic area (includingboth cultural and natural

resourcesandthewildlifeordomesticanimalstherein),associatedwithahistoricevent,activity,orpersonorexhibitingotherculturaloraestheticvalues.Thereare

four general types of cultural landscapes, notmutually exclusive: historic sites,historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic

landscapes.

Historicdesignedlandscape- alandscapethatwasconsciouslydesignedorlaidoutbyalandscapearchitect,mastergardener,architect,engineer,orhorticulturist

according todesignprinciples,oran amateur gardenerworking ina recognizedstyle or tradition. The landscape maybe associated with a significantperson,

trend,oreventinlandscapearchitecture;orillustrateanimportantdevelopmentinthe theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a

5 NationalParkService,The Secretary of theInteriors Standardsfor theTreatment ofHistoricProperties withGuidelinesfor theTreatment ofCulturalLandscapes, 1996. The current edition of theseguidelines is availableonlineathttp://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/landscape-guidelines/organization.htm.
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/fourhttp://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four


17/204


12

significant role in designed landscapes.Examples includeparks, campuses, andestates.

AspresentedinSection 4, inventoryofexistingconditionsandhistoricalresearchidentifiedthe

significantculturallandscapeonNASAlamedaasahistoricdesignedlandscape. NavyBureau

ofYardsandDocks(BuDocks) architectsandplannersconsciouslydesignedthelandscapefor

NASAlameda including itsaxialalignment,bilaterally symmetrical spaces, longsight-lines,

and functional and hierarchical organization followingprinciples influencedbyBeauxArt /

City Beautifulplanning as well as military traditions developed during the early twentieth

centuryinwhatwaslaterreferredtoastotal basedesign.6 Furthermore,thestationsplanting

planwaslaidoutbyalandscapearchitectwhocreatedavegetationdesignthat integratedwell

with thebuilt environment design, following traditionspopularized in the field of landscape

architectureinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies. Thehistoricdesignedlandscape

isimportantlyassociatedwithnavalairstationdevelopmentinthe1930s,developmentofnaval

facilitiesintheSanFranciscoBayAreaduringWorldWarII,andthestationsroleinsupportingtheNavysoperationsinthePacificTheaterduringWorldWarII. Italsorepresentsanexcellent

exampleofvarioustrends inlandscapearchitectureofitsperiod,withinthecontextofmilitary

facilitiesinCalifornia. Theaestheticvalueofthestationhasbeennotedovertimeandcontinues

tobeoneof the facilitys striking qualities, asparticularly seen in the orderly and impressive

open spaces, views, and layoutof theAdministrativeCore. Designedhistoric landscapes can

oftenappropriatelyfitintotheNationalRegisterspropertycategoryofdistrict,whichtheNPS

definesasageographicallydefinableareawhichpossessesasignificantconcentration,linkage

orcontinuityofsites,buildings,structures,and/orobjectsunitedbypasteventsoraesthetically

byplan orphysical development.7 The districtproperty type categorization hasbeen most

suitable tounderstand thehistoric resourcesonNASAlamedabecause the significanceof the

stationisderivedfromthe concentrationofbuildings,structures,andlandscapefeaturesthatdate

totheperiodofsignificance.

NationalRegisterBulletin 18 provides guidance about what types of elements constitute a

historic designed landscape and should therefore,be described in the narrative of existing

conditions. The list of suggested elements to identify are: topography and grading; natural

features; land uses; circulation; spatial relationships and orientations; views and vistas;

vegetation; landscapedividers;drainage and engineering structures; site furnishings;bodiesof

6 JRPHistoricalConsulting,TheHistoryandHistoricResourcesoftheMilitaryinCalifornia,1769-1989, Volume2,CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildingsandStructuresInventory (preparedfortheU.S.ArmyCorpsof Engineers,SacramentoDistrict, Sacramento,CA,2000), 6-1 to 6-4; JRPHistorical Consulting Services, HistoricContext:Themes, PropertyTypes, andRegistrationRequirements,Volume 3,CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildings andStructuresInventory (preparedforU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,March2000),7-2 and 7-3. ThedescriptiontotalbasedesignisnotaphraseusedhistoricallytodescribethemasterplanningprocessonNASAlameda. ThephraseispresentedintheStatewideStudyandisappliedtoNASAlamedainthatdocument.7 UnitedStatesDepartmentoftheInterior.NationalRegisterBulletin18:HowtoEvaluateandNominateDesigned

HistoricLandscapes (U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice:1987),10.


18/204


13

water; lighting; signs;buildings; structures; sculpture and art. TheNational Park Service

Guidelinesfor the Treatment of CulturalLandscapes states that spatial organization is the

elementofthelandscapethatshouldbeaddressedfirstbecausetheinterrelationshipofcharacter-

definingfeatureswithoverallorganizationiscrucialtounderstandingaculturallandscape. The

categories of character-defining features of cultural landscapes that this guidance lists are:topography; vegetation; circulation; water features; structures, furnishings, and objects. This

cultural landscape report includes in all discussions of character-defining features each of the

categories listed in the NPS treatment guidelines and also views and vistas because of

importanceofbothbroadandcontrolledprospectswithinthehistoricdesigned landscape.8

TheUSACERLGuidelinesforDocumentingandEvaluatingHistoricMilitaryLandscapeswas

usedtorefinetheanalysisandevaluationof thehistoricdesignedlandscapeonNASAlameda.

Thisguidancedescribesfactorsthatspecificallycharacterizemilitarylandscapes,includinghow

militarymissioncanbeexpressedasafundamentaldesignprinciple,howsitingandlayoutare

related to military mission as well as the local, natural environment, and the expression of

militaryculturalvaluesandtraditionssuchashierarchy,uniformity,order,andpatriotism.9 The

guidancealsonotesthatthereisoftenahighlevelofsimilarityofbasiccomponentsanddesigns

amongmilitary installationand thatonealmostuniversalelementofmilitarylandscapes is the

presenceof clearly definedborders. OnNASAlameda, themission tosupportnaval aviation

wasexpressedasafundamentaldesignprinciple,andthus,thestationwaslaidoutwiththetop

priorityofefficientcirculationtothelandplaneandseaplanehangars. Further,thebuildingsthat

supportedthoseoperationsweresitednearthehangarstocreateasmooth,efficientworkflow.

Expressions of military cultural values and traditions, particularly hierarchy, order, and

uniformityarefoundthroughout thehistoricdesignedlandscapeonNASAlameda. Astrikingexample is theegg-shapedarea,offset from theorthogonalgridof the station,designed in the

stationplan for officer housing. The offset alignment, and curvilinear shape of the area

reinforcedmilitaryhierarchybydistinguishingthisareafromtherestofthestation. Theplanting

plan,however,calledforevenlyspacedrowsofstreettreesthroughoutthearea,whichexpressed

order and uniformity among officers. This guidance was used throughout the analysis and

evaluationtoaddressmilitary-specificelementsofthehistoricdesignedlandscape.

Thisstudydidnotfindthepresenceofanyoftheothercategoriesofculturallandscape historic

site,historicvernacularlandscape,orethnographiclandscape onNASAlameda. Asacategory

of cultural landscape theNPS defines a historic site as significant for its association with a

historic event, activity orperson. NPS examples of historic sites includebattlefields and

presidentialhomesandproperties.Categorizingaculturallandscapeasahistoricsiteisusually

8 NationalParkService,Guidelinesfor theTreatmentofCulturalLandscapes, Organizationof theGuidelines,http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/landscape-guidelines/organization.htm.9 UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory,GuidelinesforDocumentingandEvaluating

HistoricMilitaryLandscapes:AnIntegratedLandscapeApproach.
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/fourhttp://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four


19/204


14

for a location thatpossesseshistorical, cultural,or archeologicalvalueapart from thevalueof

existingbuildings, structures, or designed landscape features. Thus the definition of historic

site does not effectively depict the extent of the designed qualities of NAS Alamedas

significant cultural landscape, nor that landscapes significant contribution to the Navys

operations onNASAlameda leading up to and duringWorldWar II. Furthermore, existingconditionssurveyandhistoricalresearchdidnotidentifysignificantculturallandscapesonNAS

Alameda thatmeet thedefinitionofhistoricvernacular landscapesorethnographiclandscapes.

Historic vernacular landscapes evolve through the use of thepeople whose activities or

occupancyshaped that landscapeandreflect thecustomsanddaily livesof those individuals.

Ethnographic landscapes are natural and cultural resources that an associatedpeople (often

NativeAmerican)defineasaheritageresource.Neitherhistoricvernacular,norethnographic

landscapes describe or help characterize the landscape and important features extant onNAS

Alameda. Inparticular, neither types of landscape include or are important for consciously

designedorcontrivedlandscapefeaturesasseenonthisfacility.10

Identifyingorlabelingalandscapeasacultural landscapeorahistoricdesignedlandscape

does notby itself define that landscape as a historicproperty or as an element of a historic

propertythatiseligibleforlistingintheNRHP/CRHR. Categorizingalandscapehelpsdefine

itsqualitiesthat thenmustbeevaluatedapplyingNRHP/CRHRcriteriatoassessthehistoric

significanceofthatlandscapewithinitsappropriatehistoriccontextandtoestablishwhetherthat

landscaperetainssufficienthistoricintegritytoconveyitssignificance.

The inventory andevaluationof cultural landscape onNASAlamedapresented in this report,

and specifically thehistoric designed landscape thatcontributes to theNASAlamedaHistoricDistrict, was conducted through application of the significanceNRHP and CRHR criteria.

Eligibilityforlistingineither theNRHPorCRHRrequiresthataculturallandscape haveboth

demonstrable historic significance and integrity. Historic significance is established by

determiningwhetherornottheculturallandscape hasdirectorimportantassociationswithinthe

10 Robert R. Page, Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan,A Guide to CulturalLandscapeReports: Contents,Process,andTechniques (Washington:NationalParkService,1998),12and136;CharlesA.Birnbaum,ProtectingCulturalLandscapes:Planning, Treatment andManagement ofHistoricLandscapes, Preservation Brief 36,(Washington, D.C.:National Park Service, 1994). The definition of historic site as a cultural landscapecategorizationisdifferent thanhowthe termsiteisusedas aproperty typeforpurposesofNRHPnomination.

NPSlistsdesignedlandscapeasanexampleofasiteinthedefinitionsofhistoricpropertycategories. SeeUnitedStates Department of the Interior,NationalRegisterBulletin 16A:How to Complete theNationalRegisterRegistrationForm (Washington,D.C.:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,1991), 15;andUnitedStatesDepartmentoftheInterior,NationalRegisterBulletin15: HowToApplythe NationalRegisterCriteria(Washington,D.C.:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,1991),5. For example,thehistoricdesignedlandscapethatisacontributortotheUSAir Force Academy Cadet Area,National Historic Landmark (NHL) District in Colorado Springs, Colorado iscategorizedasasite in thehistoricpropertyscontributingelements,which includebuildingsandstructures. SeeDaniel J. Hosington and John H. Sprinkle, United States Air Force Academy, Cadet Area,National HistoricLandmarkNomination Form,2003. TheU.S.AirForceAcademy,CadetAreaNHLDistrictwas designatedonApril1,2004.


20/204


21/204


16

3. HISTORICCONTEXT: DEVELOPMENTOFFEATURESANDFUNCTIONSOF

THELANDSCAPEONNASALAMEDA

TheNavyestablishedNAS Alamedaasacomponentofitsnationalplantostrategicallydevelop

navalaviationand topositionair stationsacross thecountry in themid to late1930s. DuringWorldWarII,NASAlamedawaseffectivelyadaptedtosupport navalairpower,whichplayeda

centralandcrucial roleinthePacifictheater. Thestationgrewrapidlytoenableittoserveand

supportimportantwartimeactivities. NASAlameda wasoneofthreemajorairstationsonthe

West Coast to support operations of aircraft carrier groups,patrol squadrons, and utility

squadrons,andit conducted criticalfunctionsforaircraftassemblyandrepair. Underthetheme

ofPre-WarPreparednessintheStatewideStudy,NASAlamedais listedamongthepermanent

bases built during theperiod leading up to World War II. The Statewide Study notes that

militaryfacilities likeNASAlameda sharecharacteristics, such asmostwere constructed in a

shortperiod of time and many werebuilt following a totalbase design with adaptations

requiredduringrapidwartimeconstruction. TheStatewideStudyalsoobservedthatmanylate

1930smilitaryfacilitieswerebuilt,likeNASAlameda,followingconstructionandarchitectural

trends oftheperiod,manyofwhichincluded reinforcedconcretebuildings.12

Followingnavalaviations successesinWorldWarII, theNavyestablishedtheaircraftcarrieras

acentralbasisfornavaloperations,withoperationsandsupportactivitiesforaircraftandcarriers

becomingstandardNavyfunctionsduringthelatterhalfofthetwentiethcentury. NASAlameda

supported carrieroperationsaspartofnavalactionsandparticipationinoverseasconflicts during

theColdWarera,andcontinuedtocarryout itsmainfunctionofaircraftoverhaulandrepair. As

notedintheStatewideStudy,muchofthefocusformilitarydevelopmentduringthe ColdWar,however, was on research and development of innovative aircraft and weapons. While it

conducted vital functions,NAS Alamedas support role waspart of theNavys standard

operations during thisperiod and thus the station did notplay an important direct role in

advancement of military research, testing, development, or evaluation of aircraft or weapons

systems,which constituted thehistoricallysignificant themesofColdWarnavalmissionsand

activities.

This sectionpresents thehistoric context forNASAlameda and the historic development and

evolution of features and functions of the landscape located therein. Narrativedescriptionof

present features and functions of theNAS Alameda landscape, i.e. existing conditions, are

discussed in Section 4.1. Please note, contemporary street names are used in this narrative

contextanditsillustrations,ratherthanthehistoricalnumberandletterstreetnames.

12 JRPHistoricalConsultingServices,HistoricContext:Themes,PropertyTypes,andRegistrationRequirements,Volume3,CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildingsandStructuresInventory,7-1 and 7-2. Asnoted,thedescriptiontotalbasedesignisnotaphraseusedhistoricallytodescribethemasterplanningprocessonNASAlameda. ThephraseispresentedintheStatewideStudyandisappliedtoNASAlamedainthatdocument.


22/204


17

Aerialphotographs from 1943, 1945, 1946, 1958, 1968, 1985, and 1993 areprovided in

AppendixA3 forreferencepurposes.

3.1 Pre-WorldWarIIandWorldWarII (1917-1945)

3.1.1 EstablishmentofNASAlameda(1917-1940)

Experimentsinnavalaviationbeganasearlyas1910whenthe firstbiplane tookoff from the

deck of the cruiserUSSBirmingham (CL-2). During a 1913 naval exercise off the coast of

Cuba, the entire naval aviation contingentparticipated in scouting and spotting mines and

submarines,whichmarksthefirstuseofNavyaircraft.Despitethegrowingusefulnessofnaval

aviation furtherdemonstratedthroughtheuseofseaplanesforanti-submarinepatrolsinWorld

War I, the 1921 demonstration sinkingby aircraft of the formerbattleshipOstfriesland, and

successful employment of aircraft in 1923 fleet exercises funding to expand naval aviation

activitieswas limited during aperiod ofpost-war lowmilitary spending and as the army and

navy debated the merits and control of aviation for militarypurposes. Naval aviation was

bolsteredbytheestablishmentoftheBureauofAeronauticsin1921,whichpromotedintegrating

aircraftwithfleetoperations. Available fundsfornavalaviationweregenerallyspentonaircraft

during thisperiod, creating overcrowding at the few facilities that served aircraft, and little

moneywasspentdirectlyoncreatingnavalstationsdesignedforaircraftoperations. Twoofthe

earliestnavalfacilitiesthathadaircraftfunctionswerein SanDiego,whichwasestablishedin

1911 and shared air facilities with an Army air field, and in Pensacola, Florida which was

establishedin1914andwasanadaptednavalyard. Constructioninthe1930swouldplaceNAS

Alamedaonequalfootingwiththesestations.

13

Increases inDepression-era federal spendingduring theearly1930s and thegrowingconcerns

regarding national defense in response to geo-political changes in Europe and Asiaboosted

fundingfornavalaviation duringthisperiod. TheVinson-TrammellActof1934 helpedexpand

navalaviationactivities,providing for acquisitionofaircraft toaccompanynewships, and the

improvement of naval bases. At the same time, the military expanded their presence in

California. Before this time, a majority of militarybases were located in the midwestern,

southern,andeasternpartsofthecountry. The Navy reorganized intoAtlanticandPacificfleets

13 Julie L. Webster, United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Historical andArchitectural Overview of Military Aircraft Hangars, Prepared for United States Air Force Headquarters, AirCombat Command, 1999 revised 2001, 1-9 to 1-10, 2-13, 3-24 to 3-41,http://www.cecer.army.mil/TechReports/webster98/webster98_idx.htm (accessed September 15, 2009); KirbyHarrison, U.S. Naval Aviation 75 Years of Pride and Tradition, Naval Aviation (May-June 1986): 4,www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1980s/1986/mj86.pdf(accessedJanuary10,2009);ChronologyofSignificantEvents inNavalAviation, 1910-1915 (Washington,DC:Naval AviationHistory Office, 1997)4, 11; Charles J.Gross,AmericanMilitaryAviation:theIndispensableArm,(CollegeStation:TexasA&MUniversityPress,2002)48-50.
http://www.cecer.army.mil/TechReports/webster98/webster98_idx.htmhttp://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1980s/1986/mj86.pdfhttp://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1980s/1986/mj86.pdfhttp://www.cecer.army.mil/TechReports/webster98/webster98_idx.htm


23/204


18

duringthe1920s,spurring constructionofnaval facilitiesinCalifornia. California andtheSan

FranciscoBayArea inparticular offered amild climate and undeveloped land, an excellent

combinationfornavaloperationsandtraining. In1935,NavyrepresentativesmetwithAlameda

city officials to discusspurchasing 1,000 acres of low, tidal land west of the city for an air

station. Thenegotiationsweresuccessful,andinJune1936CongresspassedPublicResolutionNo.19,whichauthorizedPresidentFranklinD.RoosevelttoaccepttheCityofAlamedas offer

for theland. Bytheendof theyear, theBureauofYardsandDockswaspreparingaplanfor

developmentofthenewstation.14

TheNavy had long considered the area at the western end of Alameda for naval operations.

Beginninginthe1870sandcontinuingintotheearly1900s,theCityofAlameda(incorporatedin

1872 and re-incorporatedasaCharterCity in1884)hadexperiencedsignificant infrastructure

growth, attracted a number of industries, and grown inpopulation. By the 1910s, local

businessman John J. Mulvanybeganpromoting Alameda as an attractive site for a military

installation. Hebeganpressing theNavy andCongress toestablish sucha facilityat the low-

lyingareawestof the citycalledAlamedaPoint.15 Mulvanysefforts led to thecreationof a

special congressional fact-finding committee headedby Admiral James Helm in 1917. The

subsequent Helm Report, released that same year, recognized Alamedas advantages: local

industry and transportation infrastructure, shallow waters to create as many acres as needed

through dredging the sandybay, access todeepwater, and its relatively isolated location. His

report recommended that theNavypurchase land at Alameda for development of a supply

station,comparabletothefacilityatHamptonRoads,VirginiathathousedandsupportedNavy

aircraft. The Alamedastation was tobepart of a chain of navalbases along theWestCoast

stretchingfromSanDiegotoSeattle.16

14 Webster,Historical andArchitecturalOverviewofMilitaryAircraftHangars,3-41and3-43; JRPHistoricalConsulting,TheHistoryandHistoricResourcesof theMilitaryinCalifornia,1769-1989, Volume2,CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildingsandStructuresInventory,1-1;Jones&Stokes,Pre-FinalNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesNominationfortheNavalAirStationAlamedaHistoricDistrict(preparedforNavalFacilitiesEngineeringCommand,SouthwestandBaseRealignmentandClosureProgramManagementOfficeWest, January2008),8;andLCDR.B.L.Allbrandt,HistoryoftheNavalAirStationandNavalAviationDepotatAlameda,California(May1996),2,AerospaceMaintenanceDutyOfficersAssociation,http://www.amdo/history.html (accessedSeptember

11,2009);Constructionof2DirigiblesByNavyUrged,OaklandTribune,(November16,1936): 4.15

AlamedaPointisthehistoricnameofthewestAlamedaarea. ThisnameisalsobeingusedforcurrentplanningeffortsonformerNASAlameda. Thishistoricnameis notbeusedfurtherinthisreportsoastoavoidconfusionwiththecurrentplanningefforts.Forhistoricreferencesee:FrederickL.Paxson,TheNavalStationatAlameda,1916-1940:ACaseStudyintheAptitudeofDemocracyforDefense,ThePacificHistoricalReview,Vol.XIII,No.3,September1944:235-250.16 Allbrandt,HistoryoftheNavalAirStation&NavalAviationDepot,2; SueLemon,Alameda,Calif.,NavalAirStation,1938, inUnitedStatesNavyand MarineCorpsBases,Domestic, ed.PaoloE.Coletta,assoc.ed.K.JackBauer(Westport,Conn:GreenwoodPress,1985),9;andPaxson,TheNavalStationatAlameda,1916-1940:A Case Study in the Aptitude of Democracy for Defense, ThePacificHistoricalReview, Vol. XIII,No. 3,September1944:235-250.
http://www.amdo/history.htmlhttp://www.amdo/history.html


24/204


19

Despite local support and continued requests from the Navy, Congress did not approve

constructionofanaval baseatAlamedafornearlytwodecades. Intheinterim,theCity,private

interests,andtheArmydeveloped partsofwhatbecameNASAlameda. WestofWebsterStreet

in Alameda, the city allowed aprivate corporation to create 900 acres of filled land and to

constructanairportalongtheSouthernPacificRailroadMolethatjuttedintotheSanFranciscoBayfrom thewestern tipof the island. This laterbecame thenorthwest cornerof the station.

TheAlamedaMunicipalAirportopenedinMarch1929(Photograph1). Theairportattractedto

itsfacility theCurtis-WrightCorporation. Later,Pan-AmericanAirwaysflewseaplanesfromthe

peninsula, including the famous China Clipper in 1935 that inaugurated commercial trans-

Pacificairservice. Thesiteoftheaircrafts departureiscommemoratedbyCaliforniaHistorical

Landmark#968,locatednearthebaseflagpoleinfrontofBuilding1,althoughtheactualsiteof

the airportbay was to the west near the intersection of Runway 7-25 and the taxiway that

connects it to Runway 13-31. Less than two weeks after the completion of the Alameda

MunicipalAirport,aprivateventurebeganconstructionoftheSanFranciscoBayAerodromeon

leasedacreageintheareaboundbyWebsterStreet to theeast,presentdayAtlanticAvenueto

thesouth,andMainStreettothewest.TheAerodromewasdedicatedinAugust1930.17

Photograph1: AlamedaMunicipalAirport,1936.18

Duringthatsameyear,theArmybeganbuildingitsownairfield,BentonField,on128acresof

whathadbeenpartiallysubmergedlandsbetweentheSanFranciscoBayAerodrometotheeast

andtheAlamedaMunicipalAirporttothewest. TheArmydredgedandinfilled100acresinthe

17 Paxson,TheNavalStationatAlameda,1916-1940:ACaseStudyintheAptitudeofDemocracyforDefense,ThePacificHistoricalReview,Vol.XIII,No.3,September1944:245. TheNavylaterusedtheAirdromepropertyandthisareaeastofMainStreetwasanannextotheNASAlamedastation. Mostoftheformerannex/AirdromepropertyhasbeentransferredoutofNavycontrolandisnotaddressedinthisreport.18 AlamedaAirport- Sunnyvale,Calif.,proposedseaplanebase,December18,1936,California- Alameda-pictures,

maps,justifications,RG5,CEC/SeabeeMuseum,NBVC,PortHueneme.


25/204


20

areathat becamethenortheastcorneroftheNASAlameda (Illustration1). With theassistance

of the Works Progress Administration in 1935, the Army constructed roads, railroad spurs,

utilities,asmallrunway,andwellinthelandnowoccupiedbytheadministrativecore ofNAS

Alameda.19None of the facilities associated with these early aviation activities remain on

station.

Illustration1: Circa1938dataoverlayedon1942USGSMap. Dataaddedtomap: location

ofshoreline(red),AlamedaAirport,BentonField, andSanFranciscoBayAirdrome.20

The Navy acquired theAlamedaMunicipalAirport in June 1936 and obtained the unfinished

BentonFieldfromtheArmyinOctober1936,withauthorizationthefollowingyearfortheNavytospendwhattheArmywouldhavespentfortheirairbase. Allofthemorethan2,000acresof

theacquisitionwassubmergedorwas fill.Naturallandwestof MainStreet,thatwastobecome

part ofNAS Alameda and was originallypart of the Mexican-era Peralta land grant, was

privately owned at this time and subsequently acquired / leased. Congress appropriated $15

millionfortheconstructionofafacilityatAlamedatosupport navalaviationin1937,butPan-

19 Allbrandt,HistoryoftheNavalAirStation&NavalAviationDepot,2;Lemon,Alameda,Calif.,NavalAir

Station, 1938, 9; IT Corporation, Final Comprehensive Guide to the Environmental Baseline Study AlamedaPoint, Alameda California (prepared for Department of theNavy Southwest Division,Naval Facilities andEngineeringCommand,SanDiego,2001),Figure6-20;USNavy,NavalAirStationAlameda,CaliforniaHistory1Nov 40 31 Dec 44, Box 1 of 2,NAS Command History, 27 volumes, 1940 to 1992, USNaval ShoreEstablishments,RecordGroup181,NationalArchivesPacificRegion (SanFrancisco)[hereafterRG181,NARA(SanFrancisco)];andJones&Stokes,Pre-FinalNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesNominationfortheNavalAirStationAlamedaHistoricDistrict,18.20 USGS,OaklandWest,Calif,1:62,500,topographicmap,1942;AceandJudyCampbell,MapofAlamedaAirport,Benton Field, and San Francisco Bay Airdrome, circa 1938, Waterfront Action,www.waterfrontaction.org/history/55_lagoon.htm (accessedJuly2010).
http://www.waterfrontaction.org/history/55_lagoon.htmhttp://www.waterfrontaction.org/history/55_lagoon.htm


26/204


21

AmrequiredtimetomovefromAlamedaMunicipalAirport,andsodidtheArmyfromBenton

Field,delayingcommencementofconstruction forthenewnavalairstation.21

Meanwhile,asmilitarytensionaroundtheworldincreased,CongressrequestedtheSecretaryof

theNavysubmitaplan for improvingthecountrysdefenses. AdmiralArthur JapayHepburnheaded a board convened to review the countrys defense capabilities and make

recommendationsforimprovements. Itswork,setforthintheHepburnReportof1938,directed

Navy expansion. Amongits recommendationswastheestablishmentofthreetypesofnavalair

facilities: 1) major air stations with the ability to assemble andmaintain aircraft, along with

management of regular operations; 2) secondary stationsdesigned only for regularoperations;

and 3) training stations. TheHepburn Boardboosted the status of the new navyproperty in

Alamedabyrecommendingestablishmentof NASAlamedaasoneofthemajorairstationson

the West Coast supportingboth operations and aircraft assembly and repair (A&R). Major

stationswereplannedto accommodatetwotofourcarriergroups,threetosixpatrolsquadrons,

andtwoutilitysquadrons. TheplancalledforNASAlamedatosupporttwocarriergroups(with

possible expansion to four carrier groups) and fivepatrol squadrons, along with functions to

perform aircraft overhaul.22 NAS Alameda was one of six major naval air stations that the

Hepburn Board recommended for construction. The other stations includedNASNorfolk

(Virginia),NASSanDiego(NorthIsland),andNASSeattle(SandPoint), whichwerealreadyin

usefornavalaviationactivities, andwereexpanded inresponse to theHepburnReport. NAS

Alameda,alongwithNASJacksonville(Florida)andNASQuonsetPoint(RhodeIsland), were

completelynewstations recommendedfor constructionunder thisprogram,althoughCongress

hadalreadyapprovedfundingforNASAlameda. ThedesignandconstructionofNASAlameda

occurred around the same time asNAS Jacksonville andNASQuonset Point. The assertiveconclusionoftheHepburnReportwasthattheneedforadditionalaircraftfacilitieswasgreater

than forothermilitarycraftand theresultof thereportwas thataviationwasgivenpriorityin

navaloperationsandplanning.23

21 Allbrandt, History of theNaval Air Station &Naval Aviation Depot, 2-3; Paxson, TheNaval Station atAlameda,1916-1940:ACaseStudy in theAptitude ofDemocracy forDefense,ThePacificHistoricalReview,Vol. XIII,No. 3, September 1944: 245 and 249;NavalAir Station Alameda, U.S.NavalAir StationAlameda,California (BatonRouge,LA:ArmyandNavyPublishingCompanyofLouisiana,1945)np.22 Capt.Albert L. Raithel Jr, USN (ret.), PatrolAviation in thePacific inWWII,NavalAviationNews (July-August 1992): 32, http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1992/ja92.pdf (accessed January 10, 2009);Webster, Historical and ArchitecturalOverview ofMilitary Aircraft Hangars, 4-22 to 4-23, 4-28; and United

States,BuildingtheNavysBasesinWorldWarII:HistoryoftheBureauofYardsandDocksandtheCivilEngineerCorps1940-1946,vol.1(Washington,D.C.:UnitedStatesGovernmentPrintingOffice,1947),232.23 Webster,Historical andArchitecturalOverview ofMilitaryAircraftHangars, 3-41and3-43; JRPHistoricalConsulting,TheHistoryandHistoricResourcesoftheMilitary inCalifornia,1769-1989, Volume2,CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildingsandStructuresInventory,1-1;Jones&Stokes,Pre-FinalNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesNominationfortheNavalAirStationAlamedaHistoricDistrict,8;and LCDR.B.L.Allbrandt,HistoryoftheNaval Air Station andNaval Aviation Depot at Alameda, California (May 1996), 2, available online at:Aerospace Maintenance Duty Officers Association, http://www.amdo/history.html (accessed September 2009);UnitedStates,BuildingtheNavysBasesinWorldWarII:HistoryoftheBureauofYardsandDocksandtheCivilEngineerCorps1940-1946,vol.1,229.
http://http//www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1992/ja92.pdfhttp://www.amdo/history.htmlhttp://www.amdo/history.htmlhttp://http//www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1992/ja92.pdfhttp://http//www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1992/ja92.pdf


27/204


22

3.1.1.1 StationPlanningandDesign

TheNavysBuDocks, DepartmentofPlanningandDesign,designed thenewAlamedastation

withcivilianarchitects,engineers,andplannersunder thedirectionofCaptainThomasTrexel.

In general,plans for the stations design followed hierarchal and organizationalplanningdoctrinesusedformilitarybasesandnavalairfacilitiesoftheperiodthathadevolvedduringthe

early twentieth century. Plans forNASAlameda drafted duringpeacetime envisioned a

1,000-personnel facility thatwouldhouse 200aircraft andserve as homeport for twoaircraft

carriers. Becauseearly militaryaircraftwere shippedinpartsforon-siteassembly,thestations

originalplansfeaturedanA&RDepartment. ThelayoutandconstructionofNASAlamedawas

conductedunderamasterplanningprocessthathasbeenreferredtoasatotalbasedesign.24

Thestationsoriginaldesign receivedanaward for functionalplanningat theSeventhAnnual

ArchitecturalExhibitionoftheAssociationofFederalArchitectsinWashingtonD.C.in1939.25

Within a couple of years, the importance of the stations functional designbecame apparent

when the stationneeded toadaptandexpand itsoperationsand increasepersonnelduringwar

timemobilization. SimilartoeffortsmadebytheArmy,theNavyadoptedthismasterplanning

approachtodesignintheyearsbetweenWorldWarIandWorldWarIIasawaytoimprovethe

efficiencyand function of its facilities, and toprovidegreater coherencebetweennavalbases.

BuDocks and the design team utilized standardized designs for somebuildings that were

developed during theprevious two decadesby the Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) and the

Bureau of Ordnance, which had standards for siting and constructing structures for various

functions. BuDocksemployedthesestandardsandplansformanybuildingsandstructuresasit

developed each station. Following completion of the Hepburn Report, BuDocks and BuAer

further refined standards and requirements for naval air stations with local conditionsnecessitating alterationsforimprovedfunctionalityatgivenlocations.26

24 H.C.Sullivan,BasePlanning, U.S.NavyCivilEngineerCorpBulletin1,no.5(April1947):118-122;USNavy,CommandHistory1of25,NavalAirStationAlameda,CaliforniaHistory1Nov40 31Aug45,Box1of2,NAS Command History, 27 volumes, 1940 to 1992, USNaval Shore Establishments, RG 181,NARA (SanFrancisco); JRPHistorical Consulting, TheHistory andHistoric Resources of theMilitary in California, 1769-1989, Volume 2, CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildings and StructuresInventory, 6-1 6-4; JRP Historical

Consulting Services, Historic Context: Themes, Property Types, and Registration Requirements, Volume 3,CaliforniaHistoricMilitaryBuildingsandStructuresInventory, 7-2 7-3.

NASAlamedafollowed

manyof the standardsand requirementsof theperiod. Yet,NASAlamedahasamore formal

plan anddifferent architecturalcharacter bothofwhichhave been retained thananyof the

other stationsrecommendedforconstructionbytheHepburnReport.

25 USNavy,CommandHistory1of25,NavalAirStationAlameda,CaliforniaHistory1Nov40 31Aug45,Box1of2,NASCommandHistory,27volumes,1940to1992,USNavalShoreEstablishments,RG181,NARA(SanFrancisco).26 CharlesF.OConnell,Jr.,HistoricAmericanEngineeringRecord,QuonsetPointNavalAirStationHAERRI-15, Historic American Engineering Record, Library of Congress, Washington D.C.,http://memory.loc.gov/habshaeraccessed January 26, 2010, 39-45; United States,Building theNavysBases inWorldWarII:HistoryoftheBureauofYardsandDocksandtheCivilEngineerCorps1940-1946,vol.1,3-9,61-70.


28/204


23

BuDocks developed an approach forNAS Alameda thatplaced activities and functions in

relation to each other, with organization of, and circulationbetween, station activities and

functions receivinghighest priority. Following theplanningprinciples of theperiod,planners

locatedpiers,seaplanefunctions,landplaneservices,industrialfacilities,storage,administration,

andpersonnel activities,inanorderlyfashion sothatworkcouldflow smoothly. Asaresultofthisorganization,navalairstationsdesignedandbuilt inthisperiodshare similarorganization.

This can be seen in the comparison of the general layout of NAS Alameda and NAS

Jacksonville,bothdesignedandbuiltstartinginthelate1930s (Illustration2 and Illustration

3). Landingareasforbothlandplanes andseaplanesareattheedgesofthebases. Hangars,both

seaplaneandlandplane, adjointhe landingareas. TheA&Rfacilitiesarewithineasyaccessof

both types of hangars. On the opposite side of A&R from the hangars are the storage and

materials areas. Administrative functions areplaced at the center of the station,between the

operational areasand residential areas. Enlisted quarters are closest to theworkareas so that

enlistedpersonnel couldeasily access their assigned duty. Officers and family quarterswere

placedfurtherfromtheoperationalactivitiesofthestations. Enlistedpersonnelandofficerseach

had their own separate recreational areas. For safety, hazardousmaterials and ordnancewere

furthestfromtheresidences,someofwhichwere onthelandingfields. Thelocationofnatural

features relating to the docks and seaplane facilities determined the finalplacement of this

interlockingsystemofactivities. Important tothemasterplanningwasconsiderationoffuture

expansion,whichledsomeareastobeleftundefined ininitial plans forstation,suchasthearea

eastoftheSeaplaneLagoononNASAlameda.27

27 Webster, Historical and Architectural Overview of Military Aircraft Hangars, 4-26; USNavy, Naval AirStationAlameda,CaliforniaHistory1Nov40 31Dec44,Box1of2,NASCommandHistory,27volumes,1940to1992,RG181,NARA(SanFrancisco);JRPHistorical,TheHistoryandHistoricResourcesoftheMilitaryinCalifornia,1769-1989,6-22,6-23;H.C.Sullivan,BasePlanning,CivilEngineeringCorpsBulletin (April1947):118-122.


29/204


24

Illustration2: GeneralplanofNASAlamedaattheendofWorldWarII. Airfieldisto

theright,offthemap.A&Rbuildingsareshaded.28

Illustration3: Generalplanofanavalairstationmasterplanning.Shownhereisaplan

forNASJacksonvillefrom1939. Designelementsandfunctionalareasaresimilarto

thosefoundonNASAlameda.29

28 NavalAirStationAlameda,CaliforniaMap,NavalAirStationAlameda,California1940-1945photoalbum,

NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration, PacificRegion,(SanFrancisco),np;Thehangarslistedas9and10

wereunderconstructionandpartof thepost-warplanningtopreserveaircraftreturningfromthePacifictheater.


30/204


25

TheNASAlamedabaseplanalsohadacomprehensivefunctionalorganization. Earlyplansfor

NASAlamedashowastationarrangedalongintersectingaxesanddividedintofunctionalareas,

althoughwithoutdetails thatwouldemergeduringthestationsearlyyears. In theearlyplans

from 1939, the north-south axis ran from the Main Gatebisecting the entry mall and the

Administration Building (Building 1) with an east-west axis dividing the administrative /residential areaon thenorth sideof the stationwith the industrial andoperationson the south

side. Thiseast-westaxiswasanopenareathatwastoalignwiththemiddleoftheAirfieldon

thewestendof thestation,with landplanehangars flankingthisaxis. Therewasalsoanother

east-westaxisintheoriginalplanthatbisectedtheBEQquadrangle(Buildings2,3,and4)and

crossed the north-south axis in themiddle of the entrymall in front of Building 1 and then

continuedalongthemedianofwhatisnowWestEssexDrive(Illustration4). TheBEQswith

theirGalley/MessHall(Buildings2,3,and4)wereshownintheircurrentlocation. Bachelor

OfficersQuarters(Building17)weretobetwomirroredbuildingsfacingacentralgreenspace

similar tothatof theenlistedquadrangle. OfficersHousingwastheonlynon-axialportionof

the station,planned as an irregular loop in the northeast corner. The original A&R facility

(Building5)wasplannedathalfitseventualsizeandthelocationofseveralfunctionswerenot

yetassigned,suchasmuchof therecreationfacilitiesandsomeof theresidences. Earlyplans

for stationdonot includesomesupport / storage facilitiesor facilities that requiredsitingand

design input fromspecializeddepartments. Asdictatedbytheir secondary functionand/or for

safety, some facilities were notplaced within the formal hierarchalplanning of the stations

majorfunctionsorwereplacedawayfrommoredenselyoccupiedportionsofthestation. These

includedmagazines,locomotiverepairshop,paint/oilstorage,andenginetestcells.

Functionalanddepartmentalrequirementsledtospecificsitingofsomefacilitiesandchangesinthe stationsdesignandplansduringtheplannedphasedconstructionof the newstation. The

landplanehangarswere repositionedparallel to theAirfieldandalignedwitha secondaryaxis

(Photograph 2), and later the open space along the original east-west axis was filled with

additionalbuildings. Placing the additionalbuildings in that space situated them near the

industrial and storage facilities thereby maintaining functional efficiency. The axis from the

BEQ quadrangle across the entrymall stretching to the Officers Housing area thus received

prominence. Stationplannersalsoincreasedthenumberofofficersthatcouldbehousedinthe

northeast corner of the stationby altering the original single-street loop to an egg-shaped

configurationwithcurvedstreets(seeIllustration4 and Photograph2). Thismodificationto

the1939-planmaintainedthedesignconceptofsettingtheOfficersHousingapartfromtheaxial

plan and orthogonal grid. Almost all of east side of the station, and its temporary type

construction,emergedonlywiththedemandsofwar. Despitethesechanges,theevolutionofthe

stationslayoutduringboththeinitialyearsofconstructionpriortoU.S.entryintoWorldWarII

29 Oswaldo A. De La Rosa, The Planning ofNaval Air Facilities,CivilEngineering CorpsBulletin 6, no. 3(March1952):68. CurrentaerialphotographsshowthatNASJacksonvillehasonlysomeelementsofthislayout. Itisunclearwhatcomponentsofthisdesignwereinitiallyconstructedandwhichwerealteredovertime.


31/204


26

andduringthewarleftintactmuchofthestationsoriginalplanninganditsimportantprinciples

oforganization,functionality,efficiency,andhierarchy,adaptingwelltotheenormousdemands

ofwar. Theinitialplansfora1,000personnelfacilityevolvedduringthewartofunctionwith

18,000Navypersonneland9,000civiliansworkingonthestation.30

Illustration4: 1939StationPlan. Primaryaxeshighlightedwithlargearrows;secondaryaxishighlightedwithsmallarrows.31

30 BureauofYardsandDocks,USNavalAirStationAlamedaAdministrationBuilding,Barracks,MessHallandGalleyGeneralLocationPlanandDetailPlotPlan,YardsandDocks#130990,April1939,not filed,PlansandMapsRoom, Building1onformer AlamedaCityHallWest,NASAlameda,Alameda,California[hereafterPlans

andMapsRoom,Building1onformerNASAlameda]; USNavy,NavalAirStationAlameda,CaliforniaHistory1Nov 40 31Dec 44, Box 1 of 2,NAS CommandHistory, 27 volumes, 1940 to 1992, RG 181,NARA (SanFrancisco);BureauofYardsandDocks,USNavalAirStationAlamedaAdministrationBuilding,Barracks,MessHall andGalley GeneralLocation Plan andDetail PlotPlan,Yards andDocks #130990,April 1939, not filed,Plans andMapsRoom,Building 1 on formerNASAlameda,Alameda, California;Map of AlamedaNavalAirStationShowingConditionsonJune 30, 1942,Architectural Drawings,Maps,Box1,RG12,CEC/SeabeeMuseum,NBVC,PortHueneme.31 BureauofYardsandDocks,USNavalAirStationAlamedaAdministrationBuilding,Barracks,MessHallandGalleyGeneralLocationPlanandDetailPlotPlan,YardsandDocks#130990,April1939,not filed,PlansandMapsRoom,Building1onformerNASAlameda,Alameda,California.


32/204


27

Photograph2: January28,1942.Notelandplanehangars,realignedfrom1939stationplan,orientedtowhatwasoriginallyasecondaryaxis(solideast-westline),ratherthantheoriginalprimaryaxis(dashedline).32

32 NASAlamedaalt.5000ft.horizontaldistance15,000,8in.lenslookingwest,passivedefensephoto,January

28,1942,California- Alameda- pictures,maps,justifications,RG5,CEC/SeabeeMuseum,NBVC,PortHueneme.


33/204


28

3.1.1.2 ConstructionofNASAlameda

TheconstructionoftheairstationbeganinFebruary1938underthesupervisionofCommander

E.C. Seibert of theCivil EngineerCorps. Working from a small shack, Seibert administered

contracts to 25 companies for demolition of extantbuildings and structures on site, dredgingsubmergedland,andconstructionofthenewfacility. Thegroundsofthestationwerescarified

inpreparationforfillingandgrading,andfillwasobtainedthroughdredgingthefuturesitesof

theshipchannel,turningbasin,andSeaplaneLagoon. Beforedredgingtookplace,astonerip-

rap seawall was constructed to contain the fill and help convert submerged andpartially

submergedlands. Asuctiondredgethendrewsiltfromthethreesitesanddepositedthematerial

ontidalflatsandmarsheslocatedwithintheseawall. Morethan15millioncubicfeetoffillwas

ultimately used tobuild the station.33 Photograph3 andPhotograph4, taken in January and

Novemberof1941,respectively,showtheprogressofthefill. Oncecrewscompletedfillingand

grading,undergroundutilityinstallationandbuildingconstructionbegan.

Photograph3: AerialPhotographofNASAlamedaJanuary20,1941.NotetherowsofdredgedmaterialsonwhatisnowtheAirfield. 34

33NavalAirStationAlameda,U.S.NavalAirStationAlameda,California, np;Allbrandt,HistoryoftheNavalAirStation&NavalAviationDepot,3.34 AerialPhotographofNASAlamedaJanuary20,1941,Box1,Record10,PhotographicCollection,UnitedStates,

California,CEC/SeabeeMuseum.


34/204


29

Photograph4: AerialPhotographofNASAlamedaNovember12,1941,showinginfill

andconstructionprogresswithintheyear.35

TheNavyphased construction ofbuildings at the station. (SeeCombined SpecificBuildings

Evaluation/ColdWarEraEvaluationReportforadditionaldiscussionregardingconstructionof

buildings and structures onNAS Alameda). Individualbarracks, mess halls, and operational

buildingswereconstructedinincrements,withplannedexpansions. Forexample,onlysevenof

the tenwingsofBEQBuilding 2 and twoof the threemesshalls inBuilding3werebuilt in

1939. BEQBuilding4andthethirdmesshallwereshownonbaseplans,butconstructionand

contractswerephasedtoallowgrowthinoperations. Siteplansandblueprintsindicatethatthe

General Storehouse (Building 8), Aircraft Storehouse (Building 9), Paint and Oil Storehouse

(Building 13), Engine test cells (Building 14), andBachelorOfficersQuarters (Building 17)

weresimilarlyphased(Photograph5). Additionallocationsforhangarswerealsoindicatedon

the initialplans. Building 1, theAdministrationBuilding,was completed inNovember 1938.

Byearly1940,manyofotherbuildingswereunder construction includingBuildings11and

12,theseaplanehangarsnorthofthelagoon.36

35 AerialPhotographofNASAlamedaNovember12,1941,RG10,CEC/SeabeeMuseum.36 BureauofYardsandDocks,USNavalAirStationAlameda,AdministrationBuilding,Barracks,MessHalland

GalleyGeneralLocationPlanandDetailPlotPlan,YardsandDocks#130990,April1939,notfiled;USNaval

AirStationAlameda,GeneralAircraftPaintandOilStorehousesandPowerPlantBuildingGeneralLocationPlan

andDetailPlotPlan,YardsandDocks#133376,October1939,Drawer4200,BaseDevelopmentMaps,Planand

MapsRoom,Building1 on formerNASAlameda,Alameda,California;USNavy, NavalAir StationAlameda,

CaliforniaHistory1Nov40 31Dec44,Box1of2,NASCommandHistory,27volumes,1940to1992,RG181,

NARA(SanFrancisco).


35/204


30

Photograph5: AerialphotographofNASAlameda1941 showingconstructionofBOQ(Building17).

37

The construction of the Seaplane Lagoon and two of the seaplane hangarsprior tobuilding

landplanehangarsandtheAirfieldindicatestherelativeimportancefortheNavy,atthetime,of

seaplanesorflyingboats. Theseaircraft lackedthespeedandmaneuverabilityof land-based

aircraft,butwere excellentpatrol, rescue, and transport craft. Prior to thewidespread use of

radar,patrolaircraftlocatedtargetsfortheirassignedships. Seaplanesmovedslowly,butcould

stayaloftforlongperiodscoveringlargeareasofoceans. Theirabilitytolandonwatermadeit

possible for them to search for, and rescue, downedaviators and sailors. The largeboat hullallowed them to transportmaterials to locations inaccessible toother aircraft. Eachof the air

stationsestablishedorimprovedundertheHepburnBoardplanincludedseaplanefacilities. The

Seaplane Lagoon onNAS Alameda was formedby dredging rather than utilizing a natural

feature. Seawallsforthelagoonwereformedwithtwosizesofrockandbackfilledwithdredged

materialsintwostages.38

Photograph6

Constructionofthelagoonwasintegraltothedredgingoperationsand

it was largely complete by 1940, when the first of the seaplane ramps were installed

( ).

37 History of Assembly and Repair Dept, Photograph album, 3195B-C, Box 1 of 22, RG 181,NARA (SanFrancisco).38 DavidW.Wragg,BoatsoftheAir:AnIllustratedHistoryofFlyingBoats,SeaplanesandAmphibians (London:RobertHale, 1984),70, 73,102,160;BureauofYardsandDocks, USNavalAirStationAlameda,Bulkheads,Jetties,Seawall,DredgingandFilling,LocationPlanandSections,YardsandDocks#125969,December29,1937,DrawerA-11Pierno.1Brows-Camels,PlansandMapsRoom143,Building1onformerNASAlameda,Alameda,California.


36/204


37/204


32

creationof anumberof on-base trade schools for aircraftmaintenance, including theAviation

Metalsmiths School, the Aviation Machinist Mates School and the Aviation Radiomens

School. ThesetrainingcenterseducatedciviliansaswellasenlistedpersonnelinBuilding132

(sincedemolished),whichwaslocated neartheenlistedpersonnelpool.41

Thefirstoperationalaircraft,asquadronofsevenseaplanes,arrivedonNASAlamedainJanuary

1941alongwiththeseaplanetendershipUSSPelican. Thesewere thefirstof200aircrafttobe

assigned to the station.42

Photograph3

This squadron was able to operate from the completed Seaplane

Lagoon,while dredgerswere forming the land for runways. Dredging to create the runways

continueduntilSeptember1941althoughrunwayconstructionbeganonthefilledlandinApril

(see and Photograph 4).43

3.1.1.3 ArchitecturalDesignonNASAlameda

In addition to the carefulmasterplanning for the station followingprinciples of organization,

functionality, hierarchy, and efficiency, theNavy also designedprominentbuildings on the

stationinamannerthatcorrespondedwiththeeffortstocreateamodernandorganizedfacility.

Thiswasachievedbyadhering thestationsplantoaBeauxArts formalspatial layoutandby

designingmost of itsprominentbuildings in theModerne style, whichblended neo-classical

proportion,symmetry,andorderwithmoderndesignconceptsofthetime.44 Theplanningand

architectureonNASAlamedademonstratetrendsthatBuDocksdesignersdrewuponrelatedto

campusplanning,modernisticdesign,andthecontinuedtraditionalarchitecturalexpressionsof

federalbuildingsduringthisperiod.

TheNASAlamedastation planhadacomprehensiveaestheticdesign basedon theBeauxArt

planning used in City Beautifulplanning. The City Beautiful movement heavily influenced

planningintheUnitedStates inthe firsthalfof thetwentiethcentury,andcanbe seenincity

planning aswell as institutional settings such as college campuses. Themovementborrowed

planningconceptsfromtheFrenchEcoledesBeauxArtsandorganizedelementsthroughtheuse

ofprimaryandsecondary axes, such as thoseemployedonNASAlameda. Variouspartis or

41 Allbrandt,HistoryoftheNavalAirStation& NavalAviationDepotatAlameda,California,3;Building132,

Box59PropertyCards,RG#11.2.3,CEC/SeabeeMuseum,NBVC,PortHueneme; USNavy,NavalAirStationAlameda,CaliforniaHistory1Nov40 31Dec44,Box1of2,NASCommandHistory,27volumes,1940 to

1992,RG181,NARA(SanFrancisco).42 FirstofNavyPlanesArriveOaklandTribune, January4,1941.43 TechnicalReportandProjectHistoryContractNOy4165AlamedaAirStation,NOy4165,Folder9of23,Box26NOyContracts,RG12,CEC/SeabeeMuseum,NBVC,PortHueneme.44 Paul Venable Turner,Campus anAmericanPlanning Tradition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: TheMIT Press,1984)188,191,196,209;JonA.Peterson,TheBirthofCityPlanningintheUnitedStates,1840-1917(Baltimore,Maryland:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,2003),319-320. ThebuildingsonNASAlameda havealsobeendescribedasbeingArtDeco.ThearchitecturalstylesofArtDecoandModernearesometimesusedinterchangeably,butthisobscuresthedifferencesbetweenthemandthedevelopmentofthemodernisticstylesintheUnitedStatesduringthe1920s,1930s,andearly1940s.


38/204


39/204


34

higheridealsofbalanceand orderabovetherealityofthenaturaltopography.47 Incontrast,the

flat land theNavybuilt at Alamedaprovided an ideal slate onwhich to design aplan using

geometricshapeswithbilateralbalanceandsymmetry.

ThefieldoflandscapearchitecturehadacloselyparallelhistorywiththeCityBeautifulplanningmovement following the influential 1893Columbian Exposition. Shortly after the exposition

renewed American interest in classical design and architecture, Charles A. Platt exerted

considerable influence on the expanding field of landscape architecture in the United States,

leading to a shift away from the relatively formless, romantic style landscape gardens that

werethenorminthenineteenthcenturyuntilthe1880swhenarchitecturalformsbecamemore

geometric and landscape designers integrated thosegeometric formswithbuildings. Thiswas

thebeginning of the Country Place Era of landscape architecture over which Platt exerted

considerableinfluence. AfteranextendedtriptoItalywherehestudiedthecharacterandform

oftheItalianVilla,PlattreturnedtotheUnitedStateswithanappreciationfortheintegrationof

indoorandoutdoorspace,andtheintegrationofarchitectureandlandscapearchitecture,eachfit

totheirnaturalsitesanddesignedtosuittheneedsoftheperiod.NormanT.Newtonnotedthat

in both Platts work, and in the Italian Villa, space was organizedbased on a pair of

fundamentals,linesofsightconnectingonespaceor aseriesofspaceswithoneanother,giving

theobserver asenseof inter-relationship,structure,andstrength,and,definingor implyingthe

boundariesofthesevisuallyconnectedspaceswithverticalplanessothateachindividualspace

readasadistinctentity. Inhislandscapedesigns,Plattusedgeometric,usuallyrectilinearforms

for individual spaces in order to achieve structural form. Integratingbuildings and grounds

resultedinstrengthandcontinuityofdesign. Whilebilaterallysymmetricalspacesdidoccurin

bothPlattsdesign,andtheItalianVillasuponwhichhedrewinspiration,thiswasnotcrucialtohisdesigns,ratherthesight-linesweretheessentialpartofthedesign.NotonlywasPlattknown

for theoverallstrengthofhisdesign,butforattentiontothesmallestdetail,whichearnedhim

therespectandadmirationofayounggenerationoflandscapearchitectsthroughthe1920s. So

astute was he at the integration of building and landscape, that in so

nas alameda cultural landscape report pt1

Documents