,1

t . aux» .
HIM. A :1
:11

 

 

 

 

 

 

it...

fifiaééx sifiéé? 3 . A _

 

 

 

 

llllLllllHHllllllllllllllllllHllllllllllllllllllllHIHII

31293 01411 2886

 

LEBRARY
Michigan Estate
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

CIVIC DESIGN AND
A RELIANCE 0N VERNACULAR FORM

presented by

Grant Elliott Bauman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master's degree in Urban and
Regional Planning

 
   

Major professor

Date ‘//{/5'

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

CE ll RENE" BOXto monthl- ehockout «on your record.
TO AVOID FINES mum on or baton dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

NOVJB 22803

-
1;}ng

QQ=
» __ —
j\

MSU Is An Afflnndm Maud Oppomollv |mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIVIC DESIGN AND
A RELIANCE ON VERNACULAR FORM

By

Grant Elliott Bauman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Department of Geography

1995

ABSTRACT

CIVIC DESIGN AND
A RELIANCE ON VERNACULAR FORM

By

Grant Elliott Bauman

This thesis explores how vernacular architectural and land use characteristics
can be used to protect community identity in the exurban regions of polycentric cities
by providing suggestions as to how new development should appear and how it should
relate to existing conditions.

A secondary resource, the Michigan Rural Property Inventory (MRPI), was
utilized to provide information about vernacular architecture and land use on
Centennial Farms located in Peninsula Township, Grand Traverse County, Michigan.
This information was then used to formulate suggested architectural guidelines for
new developments in the agricultural portions of the Township.

The study showed that a survey of vernacular architecture and land use can be
used effectively to create recommendations for contemporary development. The
MRPI was found to be an excellent secondary source of information for surveys of

this kind.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my committee, Drs. Jon Burley, Patrick
McGovern, and Joanne Westphal as well as my father, Mr. Larry Bauman, PCP,
AICP, for the considerable time they spent in editing the various manifestations of
this document. Further thanks goes out to Dr. Westphal, my committee chair, who

encouraged me to undertake the initial research which led to this thesis.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .......................................... v
List of Figures .......................................... vi
Introduction ............................................ 1
Hypothesis and Assumptions ................................. 4
Literature Review ........................................ 6
Methods .............................................. 15
The Study Area ..................................... 15

The Study Population ................................. 17
Methodology ....................................... 18
Results and Discussion ..................................... 26
Results .......................................... 26
Architectural Characteristics ......................... 26

Land Use .................................... 41

Discussion ........................................ 45
Conclusion ............................................ 5 3
Glossary of Terms ........................................ 57
Bibliography ........................................... 60

i\

LIST OF TABLES

l

2

10

11

12

13

Centennial Farms and Associated Properties ................... 18
Centennial Farm Homes ................................ 27
Attached Farm House Structures .......................... 3O
Unattached Farm House Structures ......................... 32
Farmstead Barns .................................... 33
Farmstead Structures .................................. 36
Farmstead Fences .................................... 38
Farm House Characteristics .............................. 39
Barn and Farmstead Structure Characteristics ................... 40
Land Use Inventory of Centennial Farm Parcels ................. 42
Building Setbacks .................................... 44
House and Associated Farmhouse Structure Recommendations ........ 48
Barn and Farmstead Structure Recommendations ................. Sl

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Location Map of Peninsula Township ....................... 16
2 Michigan Rural Property Inventory Card (Side 1) ................ 24
3 Michigan Rural Property Inventory Card (Side 2) ................ 25

vi

INTRODUCTION

At the close of the twentieth century, most Americans live in what can be best
described as polycentric cities. The author defines a polycentric city as a
metropolitan area composed of one or more densely developed incorporated areas,
with the urbanized portions of the unincorporated areas surrounding the center(s) of
dense development, and the exurban developments found at the periphery of the
metropolitan area. Most of the development currently taking place in polycentric
cities is in the exurban fringe.

Due to prevailing growth patterns, most exurbs are developed as "islands of
nonrural housing in a very rural context” (Szczygiel, 1995). Standardized
construction methods, architectural styles, and building materials have led to the
homogenized appearance of contemporary structures (e. g., houses built in
Sacramento, California, look similar to houses built in Alexandria, Virginia, or
Saginaw, Michigan). These factors cause an exurb to be divorced from the region in
which it is developed. The exurbs, in effect, become as interchangeable as the houses
located within their boundaries. Interchangeable exurbs lead, in part, to a loss of
community identity. Some scholars believe that a loss of community identity
contributes to a loss of quality of life in the United States (Jackson, 1985; Krieger,
1991; Kunstler, 1993; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management,

1990; Williams et a1, 1987).

2

A reliance on vernacular form may help to save the identity of the region in
which an exurb is developed. This is achieved by designing exurbs to complement
existing vernacular development (i.e., buildings and land use patterns of a specific
region built before World War II; it was after World War II that the loss of regional
identity began a dramatic acceleration with the introduction of the ubiquitous ranch
home (Jackson, 1985)). Vernacular land use characteristics can be used to help design
large-lot exurban developments (i.e., mini-farms with lots large enough to be
economically farmed) by emulating regional agricultural practices; thus, an important
part of the region’s identity is preserved. Vernacular architectural features and
characteristics may be used to design houses for new large-lot exurban developments
or for proposed hamlets and villages; they also may aid in the design of farmstead
structures.

Proponents of the argument outlined in the preceding paragraphs should
advocate the commission of a survey of a region’s vernacular architectural form and
land use before new exurbs are developed. This information can help to develop
architectural and land use recommendations that will help to retain the region’s
identity. Since development is rarely static, these surveys are often hard to complete.
Fortunately, existing secondary sources may be used to obtain this information.

This document employs and analyzes information that is recorded in an
architectural and land use study of rural Michigan conducted during the 1930’s
(Michigan State Tax Commission, 1935-1942) known as the Michigan Rural Property
Inventory (MRPI). Information from the MRPI, for Peninsula Township, Grand

Traverse County, Michigan, was adapted to formulate contemporary recommendations

3

for the new construction of farmhouses, mini-farms, structures associated with the
farmhouses, barns, and other farmstead structures. The intent here is to provide the
means for achieving a complementary relationship between the old and the new, the

historic and the contemporary.

HYPOTHESIS AND ASSUIVIPI'ION S

The primary function of this analysis is to illustrate that a secondary source,

like the Michigan Rural Property Inventory (MRPI), may be used to further the third

major priority of Civic Design: a reliance on vernacular form.

Ho

H1

H2

Rural Property Inventory data cannot be used to profile the vernacular
(non-urban) architecture of Michigan due to the content, validity, and
reliability of the data set.

Rural Property Inventory data can be utilized to provide at least a gross
approximation of the vernacular (non-urban) architecture of Michigan.
Rural Property Inventory data are a valid and reliable source of
information on the vernacular (non-urban) architecture of Michigan.

These hypotheses are based upon several premises:

1)
2)

3)

4)

information gleaned from the MRPI is accurate;

information taken from the MRPI is complete;

the MRPI will provide only historical, coarse information on vernacular
architectural and land use characteristics; more timely, finer, detail
requires fieldwork or the use of other secondary sources (i.e., other
surveys, photographs, etc.);

the MRPI captures only a single reference point in time; therefore,

normal landscape change will not be recorded in this secondary source.

An unpublished study of the MRPI, written by the author as an undergraduate

at Michigan State University, indicates that the MRPI is a valuable research tool if the

researcher is willing to accept some of its limitations (Bauman, 1990). This was

4

completed by comparing property sketches of several farms on Peninsula Township,
which were generated as part of the MRPI, with aerial photographs and plat records
of the farms taken during the same time period. This study also revealed that
farmstead organization (i.e. , building placement in relation to other buildings) was not
included as a part of the MRPI. Information regarding these items must be obtained

from other sources.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Americans often think of the homogenization of the American landscape as
being a phenomena that occurred after World War 11. However, significant changes
in American society leading to suburban and exurban development occurred prior to
World War II. An appropriate description of these changes can be found in
Winesburg, thg, Sherwood Anderson’s (1919) modern American classic novel, first
published in 1919:

In the past fifty years a vast change has taken place in the lives of our
people. A revolution has in fact taken place. The coming
industrialism, attended by all the roar and rattle of afiairs, the shrill
cries of millions of new voices that have come among us from overseas,
the going and coming of trains, the growth of cities, the building of the
interurban car lines that weave in and out of towns and past
farmhouses, and now in these later days the coming of the automobiles
has worked a tremendous change in the lives and in the habits of
thought of our people of Mid-America. Books, badly imagined and
written though they may be in the hurry of our times, are in every
household, magazines circulate by the millions of copies, newspapers
are everywhere. In our day a farmer standing by the stove in the store
in his village has his mind filled to overflowing with the words of other
men. The newspapers and the magazines have pumped him fidl. Much
of the old brutal ignorance that had in it also a kind of beautifid
childlike innocence is gone forever. The farmer by the stove is brother
to the men of the cities, and if you listen you will find him talking as
glibly and as senselessly as the best city man of us all.

As the preceding quote illustrates, Anderson, early in the century observed

those things which each of us has had the opportunity to recognize and observe in

6

7

contemporary society (i.e., an industrial emphasis, increasingly efficient and speedy
models of transportation, and enhanced methods of communication). Many
contemporary features far exceeded the most facile imaginations at the time of World
War I (i.e. , jet travel, space exploration, television, computers, and FAX machines).
Many of these contemporary features, however, have exerted a profound influence
upon the characteristic land use patterns unique to the United States.

Development in the United States has been markedly different from that of
most other Western nations. For example, there is no sharp demarcation between
urban and rural localities in this country; the line between city and countryside has
been eradicated by suburban development. Contemporary American development is
the result of three distinct factors that began evolving prior to World War II:

1) an anti-urban cultural bias;

2) increasing technology;

3) inexpensive real estate.

The rapid suburbanization of the United States after the War was in large part an
acceleration in the evolution of these three factors (Jackson, 1985).

Before World War 11, most metropolitan areas had one central city around
which all other development was arranged. Towns, villages, hamlets and the
countryside outside of the geographic boundaries of a metropolitan area also were
outside of its economic and social sphere of control. The interstate road system,
improvements to other road systems, ever increasing advances in communications and
technology, and the expansion of suburban development have erased many of the

distinctions between city, town, village, hamlet and countryside. Most of these once

8

distinct geographic entities are now part of one or more indistinct metropolitan areas;
new nodes of commercial, office, and industrial development also have been
introduced into the metropolitan mix. This new pattern of development has resulted
in geographically indistinct metropolitan areas with multiple nodes of concentrated
development; thus, residents of these polycentric cities are no longer tied solely to a
central city for their economic or social welfare.
Polycentric cities contain many advantages: they are very easy to traverse if
one has access to an automobile; the majority of the population can generally find
employment somewhere in a metropolitan area; and social and civic institutions and
events, such as museums, specialized recreation facilities, and sporting events,
provide metropolitan residents with a variety of leisure-time activities. Many of these
advantages cannot transpire without a large number of people available to support
them. Polycentric cities, however, also exacerbate many of the problems
characteristic of the human condition:
1) isolation due to a loss of community access for the young, the elderly,
the poor, and other segments of society without access to an automobile
(Calthorpe, 1988);

2) communities unable to function as a coherent whole because of multiple
units of government that control different segments of our polycentric
cities (Hamlin, 1992);

3) a loss of community identity;

4) rural local governmental units which are financially unable to

adequately respond to the demand for [local] services (Szczygiel,

1995).
There now exists ”a profound mismatch between the old suburban patterns of
settlement that have evolved prior to World War H and the post-industrial culture in
which we now find ourselves" (Calthorpe, 1991).

The problems with current suburban growth listed in the preceding paragraph,
combined with a myriad of others, cause some people to advocate a policy of
managed growth in their own communities. Growth management programs are
traditionally instituted to address a specific growth issue or problem. For the purpose

of this study, traditional growth management programs are divided into three areas of

concern:

1) environmental quality concerns such as wetland, agricultural land, and
wildlife habitat preservation; air, water, and scenic quality; soil
erosion, groundwater contamination, and solid waste disposal
(deHaven-Smith, 1988);

2) municipal fiscal concerns caused by various factors:

a) a loss of property values and the tax-base because of inflation,
tax law changes and an economic shift from a manufacturing-
based to a service-based economy;

b) increased energy, material, and administrative costs which cause
the cost of government to rise at a faster pace than the rate of
inflation;

c) significant cuts in state and federal aid to local governments as

they struggle with their own goals and responsibilities;

10

d) and the national credit crunch contributes to a higher debt
service charge for local governments (Hamlin, 1992);

3) quality of life concerns which stem from various issues (e.g., a loss of
community, a loss of affordable housing, and diminished visual quality
of a community or region).

When disparate growth management programs are employed in conjunction
with each other, they can do much to improve the condition of most American
citizens. Traditional growth management programs used in isolation, or in opposition
to each other, however, may create some unintended consequences of the action, or
exacerbate preexisting inequities.

The unintended consequences caused by the narrow application of specific
growth management programs are beginning to be clarified and documented. For
example, economic studies have revealed that growth controls increase property
values and lessen the amount of affordable housing (Levy, 1991). It is now evident
that growth management programs need to be designed so that they can work
together. When planners have attempted to address the entire development problem,
the focus has always been on integrating the different growth management programs
at the local level to achieve balanced development. This application of growth
management programs is not, however, always the most effective solution for
avoiding unnecessary exurban development or encouraging and facilitating desirable
intensive redevelopment of urban acreage.

There has been no formal move by planners, however, to try to integrate all of

the different growth management concerns into one program. Fortunately, the design

11

community (i.e. , architects, landscape architects, and urban designers), and other
interested parties, have recently formulated several design oriented solutions (i.e.,
transit oriented development, small community design, and neotraditional
developments) aimed at ameliorating the environmental and social problems caused by
the evolution of polycentric cities (Calthorpe, 1988, 1991; Nelessen, 1994; Katz,
1993). Civic Design is a term coined by the author to encompass the programs listed
above.

Civic Design strategies recognize that concentrating new growth into distinct
nodes within a region, along with selected redevelopment and infill projects, is often
an effective growth management policy that may be advocated and enforced by a
growing region. Total reliance, however, on infill and redevelopment projects to
accommodate new growth is unrealistic. An inadequate supply of land, community
opposition, and the problem of displacement would tend to limit the success of the
policy (Calthorpe, 1991).

Civic Design strategies cover a wide variety of concerns. Each program is apt
to have a very different focus; most civic design strategies, however, also possess
some common attributes:

1) MW. Three different modes
of transportation «automobiles, public transportation, and walking--
help to make civic communities, and the polycentric city they serve,
accessible to people who cannot obtain a drivers license, cannot afford
an automobile, or who do not care to drive (Calthorpe, 1988, 1991;

Cervero, 1994);

12
2) a small mmmunig scale (e. g., physically autonomous hamlets and

villages and individual neighborhoods that are a part of a larger
community). All three community types take into consideration four
basic principles: a jobs/housing balance, ecological responsibility,
mobility and linkages, and settlement patterns (Nelessen, 1994; Katz,
1993);

3) a reliance on vernaculg form. In order to do this, the actual site, its
immediate surroundings, and the region in which it is located, must be
thoroughly inventoried. Studies should concentrate on vernacular
buildings and land use patterns. That is to say, buildings and land use
patterns of a specific region built before World War II. It was after
World War II that the loss of regional identity began a dramatic
acceleration. Through careful study, civic designers will be able to
successfully integrate the new community into the fabric of the region
while also producing Civic Developments that have their own distinct
character (Nelessen, 1994; Katz, 1993; Anderson, 1991; Mohney &
Easterling, 1991).

The application of Civic Design methods have always been urban in nature

(i.e., in the form of hamlets, villages, or contiguous neighborhoods). Civicly
Designed settlements, however, are most often sited in the exurban portions of a
polycentric city. As a result of this situation, it is the contention of the author that
the methodology used to create a reliance on vernacular form could have rural, as

well as urban, applications. Vernacular farmhouses, and the structures associated

13
with the farmhouses, could be used to guide the appearance of some of the residential

structures in Civicly Designed communities in addition to the exurban residential
structures placed at the peripheries of these new communities. Vernacular barns, and
structures associated with the barns, however, would only be used to guide the
appearance of structures on the peripheries of civicly designed communities and in
other rural applications. Vernacular land use patterns based on farms may also be
applied to larger parcels of land located on the peripheries of Civicly Designed
communities as well as in other rural applications.

The traditional neighborhoods, villages, and hamlets, upon which Civic
Communities are based, and the countryside that surrounds them, should not be
overly romanticized. The perfect small American towns showcased on television
programs are not an accurate representation of small town life (e. g., the Andy Gnfiith
Show’s Mayberry). "For each Mumfordian sentiment about the organicism of small
town life, there has been a Sinclair Lewis proclaiming that life to be ’tediousness
made tangible in dullness made God’” (Krieger, 1991). The fictional accounts of
Winesburg, Ohio and Lake Woebegone, Minnesota, written by Sherwood Anderson
and Garrison Keilor respectively, are more accurate portraits. They also convey the
provincialism and intolerant attitudes that are often a part of the small town collective
psyche. Sinclair Lewis (1920), in his 1920 novel Mm, provides his readers
with an excellent example of small town provincialism:

"What Ole Jenson the grocer says to Ezra Stowbody the banker is the
new law for London, Prague, and the unprofitable isles of the sea;
whatsoever Ezra does not know and sanction, that thing is heresy,
worthless for knowing and wicked to consider. "

14

It is important to note, however, that contemporary Civic Communities, and the
countryside that surrounds them, are not intended to be as insular as their
predecessors, nor could they be as evidenced by the tremendous advances in travel
and communication which characterize contemporary life. Rather, Civic
Communities are intended to become important parts of the polycentric cities of which
they are a part. The obvious extension of these circumstances is that they also will
become a vital part of the national socioeconomic fabric, as well as integral parts of
the world-wide " global village. " This observation, however, goes far beyond the
essential scope of this analysis.

A major impediment to the implementation of vernacular architectural and land
use characteristics in contemporary building practices is a lack of quality information
about vernacular form. It is difficult, time consuming, and expensive to gather the
information nwded to develop recommendations for development based on vernacular
form. Planners and developers dedicated to this course of action often have to
commit themselves to develop and administer extensive field surveys in order to
garner pertinent information. However, the use of existing secondary resources can
often lower the amount of personnel and field work one has to invest in a survey.
Development professionals in the State of Michigan are fortunate to have such a
resource at their disposal: the Michigan Rural Pr0perty Inventory (MRPI). The
remainder of this thesis is a case study which employs the MRPI in developing
vernacular development recommendations for Peninsula Township, Grand Traverse

County, Michigan.

METHODS
THE STUDY AREA

The geographic area selected for the case study is Peninsula Township, Grand
Traverse County, Michigan. Peninsula Township is located on the peninsula that
bisects Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan. The peninsula is located in the
northwestern portion of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Township serves as
one of the northern political boundaries to metropolitan Traverse City (Figure 1).

Peninsula Township is one of the premiere tart cherry growing areas in the
United States; it also is undergoing great pressure for residential development due to
the growth of polycentric Traverse City. Competition for land is centered on existing
farm operations with a great demand for both vacation homes and primary residences.
These circumstances are causing significant conflicts in land use between agriculture
and residential development. It is this conflict that makes the Township an excellent
laboratory for this study. Understanding the vernacular form may help to preserve
regional identity and protect agricultural land as well as provide for new housing
opportunities if elements of this form can be integrated into new developments --

especially new town developments and/or mini-farm areas.

15

16

 

 

   

Peninsula Township
Grand Traverse County

State of Michigan

 

Figure 1
Location Map of Peninsula Township

 

17
THE STUDY POPULATION

To study vernacular architecture, a study population composed of eleven
Centennial Farms was selected. These farms are recognized as Centennial Farms by
the State of Michigan since they have been in the same family continuously for at
least one hundred years. They were selected because they are marked by a single
family ownership philosophy, were part of the Rural Property Inventory, and they
continue as viable farms today. As a result of the many generations of inheritance
within the same family, Centennial Farms represent the most stable agricultural
properties in an area; they also are more apt to follow sound agricultural practices
(i.e., soil conservation).

A comparison of MRP1 data show that some of the centennial farms are larger
than they were in 1939. In order to address this situation, plat records of the
Township for the years 1930 and 1957 were used to ascertain the borders of the
present day centennial farms. The plat records show that separate parcels are now
portions of eleven centennial farms. As a result, this is a study of twenty-four
separate parcels of property that existed in 1939; Table 1 is a listing of these
properties. The listing is divided into the eleven parcels that exist as centennial farms
in 1993 and also by the twenty-four properties that existed in 1939. The numbers in

the code column of the table are associated with the present day farm operation.

18

Table 1

Centennial Farms and Associated Properties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code Township, Range Owner in 1939 Code Township, Range Owner in 1939
I & Section & Section
la T2814 RIOW 818 Wilson, Margaret 7c T29N RlOW 828 Coolidge, Fred
lb T28N RIOW 818 Wilson, Willard 8a T29N RlOW S34 Holman, Bernard &. Ethelywn
2a T2814 RlOW 808 Gray, E.P. 9a T29N R101" 827 Lardie, Chas. A.
2b T2819 R10“! 308 Gray, B. Paul & Ilen 9b 1‘29N RlOW S27 Kroupa, Joseph
3a T28N RlOW $04 Neason, Belle 9c T29N R10“! 827 Lardie, Oakley
4a T29N R10“! 803 Tompkins, Murry 9d T29N RlOW S27 Lardie, Mike
5a T29N RlOW SlO Gore, Leslie V. 10a T29N RlOW S33 Hoffman, William & Irma
5b T29N RlOW 810 School Lot #3 10b T29N RlOW S33 Cemetery
6a T29N R101” 814 Boursaw, Garret lla T30N RlOW S34 Pratt, Wm. R. 8‘.
6b T29N R10“! 814 Boursaw, James 1.. 11b T30N RlOW S35 Pratt, Mary 1..
7a T2919 R10“! 828 McManus, Harold llc T30N RlOW S35 Pratt, Mary L.
71: T29N RIOW 828 McManus, Verle lld T30N RIOW S35 Pratt, Mary L.

 

 

METHODOLOGY

 

The main resource used for the case study on centennial farms is the Rural
Property Inventory (State of Michigan, 1939), housed at the State of Michigan
Archives in Lansing, Michigan. Before the results of the study are chronicled, it is
important to summarize the scope of the Michigan Rural Property Inventory (MRPI).
This information was obtained by reading the biennial reports of the Michigan State
Tax Commission during the years in which the inventory was conducted (Michigan
State Tax Commission, 1935-1936, 1937-1938, 1939-1940, 1941-1942).

The MRPI, conducted between 1935 and 1941, covered the entire State of
Michigan, excluding Wayne County and all incorporated cities (Wayne County
already had a unified property tax system). There were three phases to the MRPI.
First, the legal descriptions of the rural parcels of property were corrected and maps
of the congressional townships were prepared (this phase did not include any actual

field survey work). Second, the content of each individual parcel of land (i.e., major

19

buildings, accessory structures, fields, orchards, and natural features) was inventoried

in the field. Third, the data from the inventory was then transferred to a two-sided

card (Figures 2 and 3). The following information is found on the front of the MRPI

cards:

1)

2)

3)

4)

general information, such as the year in which the survey was taken
and the school district, section, geographic township and range,
political township and county in which the property is located. (Please
refer to the glossary for definitions to these terms);

the legal description and the total acreage of the property. If a
property is located in more than one section, it will be split up and
described by section;

information about the farmhouse includes a floor plan and a detailed
written description (i.e., use, year built, building materials, heating,
plumbing, number of stories, lights, porches, and condition). A written
description of outbuildings associated with the farmhouses is also given
(i.e., use, year built, dimensions, condition and building materials);
additional information such as the number of miles to the nearest school
and town, the types of utilities (i.e. , electricity, telephone and gas),
water supply, and the type of road the property is adjacent to (i.e.,

gravel or improved).

The proceeding information is recorded on the back of the MRPI cards:

1)

written description of barns (i.e., type, year built, dimensions,

condition, building materials, roof type, and basement) other farmstead

20

structures (i.e., type, year built, dimensions, condition, and building
materials) and farm fences (i.e., kind, post material, and condition);

2) a sketch of the property including detailed information on the types of
crops in the fields, the presence of roads, and the area the buildings
occupy as a group;

3) a listing of the acres employed in several classifications: Class A
Agricultural (i.e., cropland and farmstead, wild hay, and untillable
pasture), Class B Special Agricultural (i.e., onion, celery, mint, or
truck), Class C Swamp (i.e., huckleberry, cranberry, etc.), Class D
(i.e., commercial orchard, vineyards, berries), Class E Non—agricultural
(i.e., forest and timber area, farm woodlot, cut-over, sugar bush, road,
marsh, lake, and waste), and special land type (i.e., designate, golf
course, and recreational).

These cards were intended for use by property assessment officers at the local
governmental level. The contents of these cards were copied into ledger books.
Finally, township maps showing the location of each card were prepared.

An unpublished study of the MRPI, written by the author as an undergraduate
at Michigan State University, indicates that the Inventory is a valuable research tool if
the researcher is willing to accept its limitations (Bauman, 1990). This was
completed by comparing the 1939 MRPI property sketches of several farms in
Peninsula Township with 1938 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA,
1938) aerial photographs and 1930 plat records of the farms taken during the same

time period (W. W. Hixson and Co., 1930). The study was conducted on a section

21
instead of on a property basis; in order to accomplish this, MRPI property sketches

for entire sections were cutout and taped together. The study found that the MRPI
property sketches are very accurate when compared to the USDA aerial photographs
and plat records. In fact, they were found to be superior to aerial photographs and
plat records in two ways:

1) the plat records show little more than the outlines of the properties in a

section, while the MRPI cards graphically represent the entire property;

2) the MRPI provides descriptions of the land uses, roads, and buildings.

Aerial photographs require an interpretation of land use cover while the
plat records do not provide any of this information.
However, the MRPI also were found to have two major limitations:

1) the homes and farmstead structures are not located on the property

sketches. Aerial photographs must be utilized to locate these buildings;

2) MRPI cards are often missing. Plat records, aerial photographs, and

other secondary sources must be used to fill in the voids created by the
missing cards for a section of land.

The remainder of this section is a summary of the methodology utilized to
create the first draft of possible architectural and land use recommendations in
Peninsula Township, Grand Traverse County, Michigan, based on vernacular form:

1) centennial farm vernacular structures were profiled (i.e., farm homes

and farmstead structures) for their form (i.e., construction, number of
stories and roof type) and the materials utilized in their construction

(i.e., wood for the frame, concrete for the foundation, and wood

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

22

shingles for the roof);

the Michigan Rural Property Inventory (MRPI) was utilized by the
author to compile various summaries about vernacular structures (e.g. ,
farm houses, barns, and other farmstead structures) and land use;

the information recorded on the MRPI cards facilitated the creation of
various inventories about the centennial farms: farmhomes, farmstead
barns, and land use;

the inventories facilitated the compilation of various summaries
regarding vernacular structures: farmhouses and barns and farmstead
structures;

contemporary uses for vernacular forms could be discussed at this point
(e.g., barn basements and tool sheds used as garages or wood sheds
and lean-tos used to enlarge a farmhouse). Discontinuation of various
vernacular structures should also be addressed (i.e. , silos that may have
no contemporary use). This step was omitted from the scope of this
study, since these decisions need to be made at the local level;
acceptable architectural forms and materials also were discussed.
Information recorded in the MRPI concerning the year the structure
was built, any information concerning the interior of structures (i.e.,
number of rooms, interior wall materials and flooring materials), and
other miscellaneous building information (i.e., water source) were not
considered in this analysis because they are not believed by the author

to affect community identity. It is at this point that contemporary

23

substitutes for traditional materials are addressed (e. g., farm houses and
structures associated with farm houses, and barns and farmstead
structures associated with barns);

land use decisions were based on vernacular farm size and the size of
individual orchards. The only building placement information located
in the MRPI was the distance of the farmhouse to the road. Aerial
photographs and field work must be conducted in order to ascertain
average building placement on centennial farms. As a result of this, no

recommendations were made on building placement.

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44E 336 Q 3.th
m .......................................... . ............................................ an m
.3
33s: .0-
44F:
............................................................................. ..den.= . . 1“ ¥
......... 72.1.3.1}............ .................. ........ ........ ........J.......... ........B..I.¢J.. §R\\ \\
: o. a a. a. a. a a 2 : lease-a3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1%

5.1..

 

 

‘ ‘ ‘
BOP—.88: “In. ‘\\\\h\ 13“ .3“ ‘9‘

.3 m ate-g _
. s~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an): .93! 9.8: 3 n as
9:33 5:58. I o.\rDM.lI.\.rs0Im k
. g“ a all, \I
ilrlllladm-Imsii E: anon—Ii— : .\ k
:95: u .581
'r...a .IOS. the \\\$\ N\|\.\ K\
J:- 611;. 332.. .o.. sane . excl ht pr WI {Rx
t obs—«alanine: do! A...» a 3.2.1: a
3.5.9‘ I: .300
€233: ea _ _ an» _ N_ 2.33.: pr-.- um i- .. -
E haulage-,Illmflelruatan aural \
u . , Ill-[Jana 3| 1
D O 1
4.. 3.2233. 4
hl‘x
o: 3.2! 41H :3 and. H \ .\
lice- ...“an nee-9.3a « d...-

 

 

 

laasrnuwnfi “Banana... 2. a... ..

a 843 3.3.3: 4::-
«.w M.“ .fif..I. Bu. di§\11\\.© g\\ \N t“ R “NI“\
Eastern! 33;; .- .._. on. 5.538 305. .2: no a»
«Mull-I41 _

o: ’3. all... 3 I25

  

 

 

he
‘5
\

,Illfia .buEanaon . .83.: page 2:3: . . s
. to“ state Rm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2

Michigan Rural Property Inventory Card (Side 1)

 

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Q\ 435.... at inns-:3“. ...-unuauuaslb. 830.. loan... no ......- .:3uu ...o...ol..-.. 31.0.
43...... 3.3.0 .0 . .
7:89.33: Q\ .53... DH .53.. RN. .230...
5.93 300 g... . . 2......
5.4.6:... :1. . 3.x:- . ..o...
8.3.. 9.33. at... 9.1. .33.. :83. . . 3.39
3.2.9.. . noon . . .. .2...
i .....- ucoaq . . .59...
a . “a... a a...
«:0 ..
. E8 ....- .. _ _ :39
a .
. m5..." . o... h. . =33...
§o§ iv a 90.. .20.. . 9:383 . 59......»
doc! . .30
n :1. a .IHIIOU n %<: J1:
. _ . . . ...: ......
. .39.
v 0 fl 3‘:
«a: H 3.9...
. nun-2d... .mumo . . tun! .mmmu Q“ we . . ...-ha. .33..
. pun-o. . m as... Q... . 9.3.33
— ~ ., \vfih‘b _ L
[II I . l
5.... ....u ......- 3¢3 ...... .... at... no ...: . as»... .... 33¢ ...... at»... 9...... .28.. ~43 at... an“.
‘ I ‘III‘ I c u H a
, 5.. .. 5...: ...-=2 ...... «3.303 N ” .uhnunu- .
“£99323 =30.— . ” ~mfltfl-uh. .
n u . ” -..: .
.....alfluzu. In: H u if}... N. we... finite... .
H I. n u S. 3...? ”mug. . m Baikusotnu. .3)... 3?
H . u . .. .. g
. . . insist: . ‘ul
8 8 -0 . . 3.1K}! . ....rsthlh...
H n u | “NV V. .I‘ It.
0 a N . O. H n .\\V\ b — n e. .1 §\. .
........ . . Jlll......!.l....l.II
... 8...... .. o _ n“ . J. I...)
. _ . u I I H
I. . _ II.IJ¢L .
. . -. . - . 3.2...- uxho n. ”has... . _ u ..w .
4 o a n . C
hlhl“i\‘*l .P .. — rm P-mo — m N .
V¢§ ............. . a .an. . .... .................
.................................................................... on... .. ‘
35:9. kfik M59. w ..--Vii»... i r. . f . _ mJ yea
.a .00.... ......3 . saint: u .- ll Jmum ...—I la. fl . h:
o ”- 7"‘a'i‘ n {$1 n ' -
3...; ......- 4!...ng . T éisio... » w
.... y ,
333......
.88 Soc...
a 2:30-
. at... .30-
a . . 3.5....-
3. 4.5.50.
. 2033.60
..E ...u
h . .231...
n dot: i»
.....S- d» Tis _ :3... . m .
...... .8... m wanna.“ m m «Run»...
3 8...... ....s. .4 |G< m ......tiluwfiw m m (grate-ma Q

 

 

Figure 3

Michigan Rural Property Inventory Card (Side 2)

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS
Architectural Characteristics

The discussion of architectural characteristics will be limited to the exploration
of building types, uses, methods of construction and materials. Other features such as
building conditions, infrastructure and the farm’s relationship to the urban center,
while available in the rural property inventory, are not included in this analysis.
Tables 8 and 9, located at the end of this section, are summaries of the following

architectural characteristics.

mm

All of the centennial farm homes were built from 1860 to 1932. However,
only thirty-eight percent (38%) of the main structures were built before 1900 (see
Table 2). Out of the thirteen homes built on the centennial farms before 1939,
ninety-two percent (92%) of the homes were constructed for single family use by the
farm owners. Only one building was built for tenant use.

All homes were of wood frame construction. This means that the floors, roofs
and load bearing walls of a building were made of wood. Any stone used, except for

the foundations, was for aesthetic purposes.

26

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... 33 .333 n 3 88 a 3 9:2. 3 .33.» a... 35.2 88 N8. = as; .5
8638: 8332 a 83 a 2 :2. a 3 «52. 3 as.» 9.. :58 as e 32 : 23m 0:
3.3.3: 8332 5:3 a 3 9a a 3 a... .33 3 303.» a... .a 2.2.. me: = 29.6 a:
3.088: 8333 53:. h 3 e... a 3 use. 3 52...» a... 328 2.2. 8.: a 035m 3
353.8: 8332 a 85 a 2 ea a 3 .5. ...... us.» a... 3 88>. 82 m 295 5
3.3.3: 8332 a 83 o 2 :2. a 3 ~52. .3 oz.» :2 8o: 8.: = 29.5 3
35.38: 83 B .3 v 3 .3. a 3 use. .3 oz.» 9.. .a 2.3. £2 = 0&5 6

... ... ... l 3 =3 e 3 «52. ...3 £32.32 a... ..a 83. 22 328. an

3.32 32 a 83 o w. .5 a 3 «52. .3 .3035 a... .2. 2288 $2 = 295 an
3.58: 32 a 32 a o.~ =8 e 3 «52. .3 as.» a... i 2.3. 8.: = 295 ...

l £332 a 83 n 3 ea c 3 use: 63 as.» 9:8 88>. 82 = 295 an
3.38: «5.32 a 83 3 3 E... e 3 ~52. 3 as.» a... 3 83. E: = 29.3 a

I 83 3 =3 v o._ ..a a 3 9:2. .3 oz.» :2 322.8 82 = 29.5 a
33.8: 33 a 8:. h 2 .3. a 3 a... ...e... as.» a... .2. 2283 S: = 29.5 2

.m- o .
“38.0 88E :13 0 D05 89838 new :73 09C. 3.5.32 can. 53 SD n
833 o -25 steam -88". 23> 323 o
m .88 38m 0
H
835: Eur.— EMS—3.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N 039—.

 

28

There were two basic roof types utilized in the construction of the centennial
farm homes. All of the buildings used a gable roof. However, only sixty-nine
percent (69%) of the thirteen buildings employed gable roofs exclusively. The
remainder of the farm houses applied a combination of gable and shed roofs. Porch
roof types were not recorded in the rural property inventory. The combination of
roof types used on a single structure was a consequence of the continuing evolution of
these buildings; gable roofs, however, appear to characterize the original part of the
farm homes.

Approximately forty-six percent (46%) of the thirteen farm houses were listed
as one and one-half stories. Single and two-story homes made up the remaining
thirty-one percent (31%) and twenty-three percent (23%) of the homes, respectively.
However, it should be pointed out that fifty-four percent (54%) of the thirteen farm
houses had appendages with fewer stories than the main portion of the home. These
factors contributed to complex roof lines for a portion of the centennial farm homes.

The tenant house was the only house which did not have a basement. Out of
the twelve remaining farm houses, fifty-eight percent (58%) had partial basements and
five had full basements. Foundations for centennial farm houses were stone and
concrete in 1939. Approximately thirty-one percent (31%) of the thirteen foundations
were comprised exclusively from concrete and forty-six percent (46%) were
comprised exclusively of stone. An additional fifteen percent (15%) of the buildings
utilized a combination of stone and concrete. Only one house used stone block.

Most of the thirteen centennial farm houses, approximately seventy-seven

percent (77%), utilized wood siding on their exterior walls in 1939. An additional

29

home had a combination of wood siding and asbestos shingles on its exterior walls.
The remaining two homes had finished lumber or a combination of stone and
patterned shingles on their exterior walls.

Centennial farm houses were roofed with a variety of materials in 1939.
Approximately thirty-eight percent (38%) of the thirteen roofs were exclusively of
patterned shingles. These shingles appear to have some type of a pattern embossed
onto, or cut into the face of the material. Wood shingles were employed on thirty-
one percent (31%) of the homes: two exclusively and two in conjunction with roll
shingles. An additional twenty-three percent (23 %) of the houses use roll shingles:
two exclusively and one in conjunction with patterned shingles. A roll appears to be
a three foot wide composition shingle packaged in a roll. A single home was clad in
composition shingles, which are currently made of asphalt impregnated felt that is
coated with colored granules. It is unclear whether this is the same composition of
the shingles used in 1939 on this house.

The majority of the farm homes, sixty-nine percent (69%) of the thirteen, had
porches. Of these nine farm houses, fifty-six percent (46%) had two porches. One
farm house had five porches and another had three. Of the twenty porches, fifty
percent (50%) were covered porches and fifteen percent (15 %) were open porches.
Only ten percent (10%) of the porches were completely enclosed. Screened-in porches
and cut-in porches made up twenty percent (20%) and five percent (5%) of the

porches, respectively (see Table 3 for an inventory of the porches).

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3
Attached Farm House Structures
Porches Sheds Other
Code Type Qty Type Type I Qty

in screen-enclosed l —- -—
lb screen-encloeed l shed —-

cut—in l -- --
2b open 1 — -—

covered 2 —- _.
3: covered 1 lean-to —
4a enclosed 2 .. ..

open 2 .— ..

covered 1 ~-—-— _..
5a - -- lean-to garage
Sb' out under cover 2 lean-to —-
81: covered 2 lean-to -—
9d covered 2 lean-to/wood shed --
10: covered 2 lean-to -—
llc screen-enclosed 2 wood shed bay window

°- — -- turret
1 1d -- —- lean-to -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' School House

 

 

 

31

Approximately sixty-two percent (62%) of the thirteen centennial farm houses
had some type of a structure attached to the main part of the home in 1939 (see Table
3). The majority of these nine structures, approximately sixty-seven percent (67%),
were classified as a lean-to. One structure was listed as a wood shed and one as a
shed. The final structure was listed as a lean-to/wood shed.

Of the thirteen farm houses, seventy-seven percent (77%) had a garage
associated with the house in 1939. However, only one of these homes had an
attached garage (See Tables 2 and 3). In the case of the attached garage, it was
located at the back of the house, where it was less intrusive visually. One of the
garages also had a lean-to attached to it. Sleeping quarters also were associated with
one farmhouse.

Foundation materials were recorded for eighty-nine percent (89%) of the nine
unattached garages (see Table 4). Concrete foundations were used for seventy-five
percent (75%) of these eight garages. A stone foundation was utilized for one garage.
Wood post foundations were employed for one garage, the lean-to and the sleeping
quarters.

Wood (i.e., clapboard) siding was used as the wall surface of forty-four
percent (44%) of the nine unattached garages; wood siding also was utilized on the
sleeping quarters. Finished lumber was employed on twenty-two percent (22%) of
the garages. Wood, rough lumber and a roll were each selected to surface the walls

of one garage.

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4
Unattached Farm House Structures
Building Year Exterior

Code Type Built Dimensiona Foundation Walla
1a Garage 1930 20x18x10 Concrete Roll
21) Garage 1914 30x16x10 Concrete Wd Siding
4a Garage 192- 41x28xl8 Concrete Wd Siding

Slp Qna 1920 l6x08x08 Wd Post Wd Siding
6a Garage 1928 38x12x08 Stone Wd Siding
6b Garage 1900 18xl4x10 -—- Wood
8a Garage 1912 l8xl8x10 Concrete Fin Lbr
9d Garage 1920 l6xl2x08 Wd Post Rgh Lbr
10a Garage 1918 18x12x10 Concrete Fin Lbr
11c Garage 1929 20xl2x10 Concrete Wd Siding

ln2 1930 1 21:09:06 Wd Post —
The entries appearing in italics are additions or lean-tos. They
are attached to the structure listed directly above them.

 

 

 

W
There were twelve farmsteads associated with the centennial farms. Barns will

be analyzed separately for construction types and building materials. Other farmstead

structures will be analyzed together.

Farmstead Barns

Approximately eighty-three percent (83%) of the twelve farmsteads with farm
buildings had a main barn (see Table 5). Out of these ten structures, sixty percent
(60%) had a basement and another sixty percent (60%) had an addition or lean-to
built onto the main structure. Two of the ten barns had both amenities. There were,
however, eleven additions and eight basements. Only two of the additions had

basements.

33

 

.3 989. $.35. V8.4... 83.35. 3. S V3.93 u...» .Cfi 4.8.5.». .8 9.82.33 5.... 9.58.. .... antenna: 8......» SR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I I I I l .355 ...... 32.38 883.. B... N...
I I I So ...... 3 3.... .353 ...... ...... 3 833 3... N...
I I I :3 ...... 3... .353 ...... 3.28 8.33 8... N...
I I I .3 .3. 9.... 3 .38 .353 ...... ...3 32... 856.8 8... EB 0:
:5 33m 83.an v83 52...... 3 2.8 .353 .3. 32m 8505. 8... a... a.
I I I ...... ...... 3.... .353 ...... ...... 3 852.... a... N...
I I I ..83 :3. .38 .353 a... 32m 2.....on a... a... ....
3288 89m 8.63. u.5... :3. .0358 .353 5.. 32m 8533 3.. E... ..
I I I :5 «.... 3 3.... .353 ...... ...... 3 83...... a... N...
I. I. I. 88869 =8. «.22 seesaw ..MM 88.350 8.633. 83 N5
I I I :5 =3. .38 .353 .3. 282.8 3.6.8. 8... E... ....
:5 322.8 .32... ..83 ....m 5.. .9358 .353 5.. 3238 egos... one E... 3
3288 5228 853... 33 S... 3.. 3e. .33 a... 3.5.8 .33.. 3.. 8.5.3...
3.8.8 522.8 8.53.. .83 5... 3.. 3.... .353 a... 3.28 £33 .3. 3.53.
3288 2288 8.33... 8o? ...... .... .38 .353 5... 222.8 83.3... a... E... 58 ....
3288 39... 8.63.. ..83 3m 5.. .38 ~53. 3 39m 2366.. .3. E... ....
I I I 3.28 ...... 3.... 5.3. 3 33. 3.53... 3. N...
3288 39.. 2.3.5... ..83 .302 .0358 .353 5.. 82... 33.6.. 3... E... as
I I I :5 ...... 3... .353 ...... =8 35... 83.9 8... N...
I I I 3.88 ...... 3.... «5...... 3 35.. 88~§ 82 N...
I I I ..83 2.55... ..83 .38 .353 a... 89m 17.5.. 3... E... .o ..
.8... 3.3 325.55 58: 3.5.: 25 3.3 823.. 835... .5... 3.5 88
6080...:— 3:3— heel hem-3x”.— u¢o> g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an: cumin—nah

m 033—.

 

34

Most of the ten barns, seventy percent (70%), had a gable roof. Gambrel
roofs accounted for the remaining thirty percent (30%) of the barn stock. All of the
additions or lean-tos had shed roofs. Of the seven gable roofed barns, seventy-one
percent (71%) had shed roofed lean-tos or additions. One gambrel roofed barn also
had shed roofed lean-tos.

Roll shingles and patterned shingles were each used to roof thirty percent
(30%) of the ten barns. Wood shingles were utilized to roof twenty percent (20%) of
the barns. Metal, and a combination of wood shingles and metal, were each employed
to roof one barn. Wood shingles were used to roof eighteen percent (18%) of the
eleven additions or lean-tos. Roll shingles and patterned shingles roofed fifty-five
(55%) and eighteen percent ( 18%) of the additions or lean-tos, respectively. Only
thirty-three percent (33%) of the six barns with additions or lean-tos applied the same
roofing materials on the barn and the addition(s) or lean-tos(s).

Half of the ten barns utilized rough lumber as a wall surface. Finished lumber
was used on forty percent (40%) of the barns. Wood siding was only used on one of
the barns. Rough lumber was employed on sixty-four (64%) percent of the additions
or lean-tos. Wood siding and finished lumber were each used on eighteen percent
(18%) of the additions or lean-tos. Of the six barns with additions or lean-tos, sixty-
seven percent (67%) applied the same exterior wall material on both the barn and the
additions. Stone and concrete walls each accounted for fifty percent (50%) of the
eight barn basements.

Stone was used for the foundations of sixty percent (60%) of the ten barns; a

stone wall was utilized as the foundation of one barn. Concrete was employed for the

35

foundations of the remaining thirty percent (30%) of the barns. Concrete was also
used for the foundations of forty-six percent (46%) of the eleven barn additions or
lean-tos. Wood posts and stone posts were used for the foundations of twenty-seven
(27%) and nine percent (9%) of the barns additions or lean-tos, respectively. Stone
was used for the foundations of eighteen percent ( 18%) of the barn additions or lean-
tos. Thirty-three percent (33 %) of the six barns with additions or lean-tos used the

same foundation material for the barn and the addition(s) or lean—to(s).

Other Farmstead Structure Types

There were thirty-eight farmstead structures other than barns on the centennial
farms in 1939. Food storage structures such as granaries, silos and corn storage
buildings were represented on thirty-three (33 %), seventeen (17%), and forty-two
percent (42%) of the twelve farmsteads listing farms structures, respectively (see
Table 6). Only one farmstead had a smoke house when the inventory was taken in
1939. Animal structures such as hen houses were present on fifty percent of twelve
farmsteads with farm structures; only one farm had a brooder house.

A bee house and a hog house were each present on a single farmstead.
Storage buildings such as sheds and tool sheds were present on fifty (50%) and
twenty-five percent (25 %) of the twelve farmsteads, respectively. An inventory card
for a single farm also listed buildings labeled store and storage. only one farmstead
had a well house. This also was true for a pump house. Only two of the thirty-eight
structures had lean-tos. There were, however, three lean-tos listed in the inventory;

two of the lean-tos were attached to one structure.

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6
Farmstead Structures
Building Year Exterior
Code Type Built Dimension ___gou=ndatioé Walls
E E
la Gran. 1900 24x24x16 Stone Wd Siding
Shed 1900 16x10x08 Wood Post Rgh Lumber
lb Shed 1900 08x06x06 Concrete Rgh Lumber
2b Silo 1904 22x10x— Concrete Wd Siding
Hen House 1893 35x20x07 Concrete Matched Lbr
Broader 1931 33xl3x06 Concrete Wd. Siding
Well House 1932 12x08x07 Concrete Stone
Hen House 1910 15xl3x10 Concrete Rgh Lumber
Bee House 1915 lele8 Concrete Wd Siding
3a Tool 1890 18x12x10 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Corn 1920 —xl6x08 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
4a Tool 1890 36x20x10 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Store 1900 30xl8x18 Concrete Wd Siding
Corn 1920 20x16x09 Tile Post Rgh Lumber
Hen 1900 14x12x08 Concrete Wd Siding
Smoke 1890 08x06x04 Stone Stone Wall
Storage 1892 36xl8xl4 Stone Pier Fin Lumber
5a Hog House 1930 10x10x06 Wd Post Wd Siding
Shed 1925 20x20x08 Concrete Wd Siding
Silo 1930 30x10x- Concrete Fin Lumber
6b Hen House 1890 l8x10x05 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Corn-Tool 1890 16xl4x12 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Granary 1900 12x12x10 Stone Pier Wd Siding
7b Shed 1920 20x08x09 Stone Post Fin Lumber
8a Granary 1900 l6x12x10 - —
Hen House 1935 14x12x08 Concrete -
9d shed 1907 20x14 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
ln2 1907 20:12:06 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
11:2 1907 20:10:06 Stone Rgh Lumber
Corn 1900 16x04x08 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
shed 1900 06x06x06 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
10a Granary 1880 l6xl4x10 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
11:2 1938 I 4:091:07 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Hen House 1928 14x12x06 Concrete Roll
11c Pump H 1930 10x06x08 Concrete Wd Siding
Corn Crib 1910 24x04x06 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Shed 1910 24x10x06 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Shed 1910 12x07x04 Wd Post Rgh Lumber
Hen House 1920 08x06x06 Wd Post Wd Siding
Hen House 1930 21x10x05 Concrete Wd Siding
Hen House 1925 10x08x08 Concrete Rgh Lumber
Water Tank 1935 6’ dis Concrete Steel
Water Tank 1935 6’ dia Concrete Steel
The entries appearing in italics are additions or lean-tor.

 

 

 

37

Concrete foundations accounted for forty-two percent (42 %) of the thirty-eight
farmstead structures. Although thirty-nine percent (39%) of the structures had a
wood post foundation, only one foundation was comprised of tile posts. Stone
foundations were used on five percent (5%) of the farmstead structures. Stone posts
and piers comprised the foundations of the remaining three (3%) and five percent
(5%) of the structures, respectively. Wood post foundations accounted for sixty-seven
percent (67%) of the three lean-tos. A stone foundation was employed for the
remaining lean-to. Only one of the structures with a lean-to applied the same type of
foundation for the structure and the lean-to.

Rough lumber accounted for the exterior surface of forty-five percent (45%) of
the thirty-eight percent of farm structures. Wood siding and finished lumber were
utilized on thirty-two (32%) and eight percent (8%) of the structures, respectively.
Matched lumber, stone, a stone wall and a roll were each employed on a separate
structure. Rough lumber was used on all three of the farm structure lean-tos. All of
the farm structures with lean-tos used the same siding on both the structure and the

lean-to(s).

Fence Types and Materials

Fences were recorded on five of the properties (see Table 7). Barbed and
woven wire were used on sixty-seven percent (67%) of the six fences. Woven wire
without barbs was utilized on the remaining two fences. A wood stud was employed
for one of the fences while wood posts supported another four fences. Steel posts

supported the final fence.

38

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7
Farmstead Fences

" Code Type Posts Condition
4

2b Woven Wire Wood Fair

Barbed and Woven Wire Wood Poor

4a Barbed and Woven Wire Wood Fair

8a Barbed and Woven Wire Wood Stud Fair

10a Barbed and Woven Wire Wood Fair

1% Woven Wire Steel Good

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction
wood

Roofs

gable
gable/shed

Stories

one

one and one-half
“N0

Rooms
eight
seven
six

five
four
fourteen
nine

Basements

partial
full

Building Materials

stone

concnne
stone/ concrete
stone block

Floors
pine/hardwood
hardwood

pine

100.0%

69.2%
30.8%

46.2%
30.8%
23%

23%
15.4%
15.4%
15.4%
15.4%

7.7%
7.7%

53.8%
38.5%
7.7%

46.2%
30.7%
15.4%

7.7%

53.8%
30.8%
15.4%

39
Table 8

Siding

wood siding

wood siding/asbestos
shingle

finished lumber

stone/patterned
shingle

Roofing Shingles
patterned

roll

wood

wood/roll
composition
roll/patterned

Interior Walls
pine planks
plaster

wallboard
hardwood planks

Porches
two

28“)

one

five
three

Porch Types
covered
screened-in
open
enclosed
cut-in

Farm House Characteristics

76.9%

7.7%
7.7%

7.7%

38.4%
15.4%
15.4%
15.4%
7.7%
7.7%

53.8%
23.1%
15.4%

7.7%

38.4%
30.8%
15.4%
7.7%
7.7%

50.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%

5.0%

Unique Features
bay window‘

turret'

none

Additions

present
none

Addition Types
lean-to

wood shed

shed
lean-to\wood shed

Garages
unattached
attached
none

Foundations
concrete
stone

wood post

Siding

wood siding
finished lumber
rough lumber
wood

roll shingles

7.7%
7.7%
92.3%

61.5%
38.5%

66.7%
11.1%
11.1%
11.1%

69.2%
7.7%
23.1

75.0%
12.5%
12.5%

44.4%
22.2%
11.1%
11.1%
11.1%

‘These features were on the

same farmhouse

4o

Barn and Farmstead Structure Characteristics

Farm/Barn Ratio

present 83.3 %
none 16.7 %
Barn Foundations

stone 60.0%
concrete 30.0%
stone wall 10.0 %
Barn Walls

rough lumber 50.0%
wood siding 10.0 %
finished lumber 40.0%
Barn Roof Types

gable 70.0%
gambrel 30.0%
Barn Roof Shingles

wood 20.0%
roll 30.0%
patterned 30.0%
metal 10.0%
wood/metal 10.0%
Barn Floors

wood 70.0%
rough lumber 10.0%
dirt 10.0%
plank 10.0%
Barn Additions

present 60.0%
none 40.0%
Addition Foundations

stone 18.2%
stone post 9.0 %
concrete 45 .5 %
wood post 27 . 3 %

Table 9
Addition Walls
rough lumber 63 .6 %
wood siding 18.2 %
finished lumber 18.2 %
Addition Roofs
shed 91.0%
not recorded 9.0%
Addition Shingles
wood 18.2%
roll 54.6 %
patterned 18.2%
Addition floors
wood 18.2 %
concrete 27.3 %
dirt 45 .5 %
not recorded 9.0 %
Barn Basements
present 60.0 %
none 40.0 %
Basement Walls
stone 50.0%
concrete 50.0%
Basement Floors
concrete 75 .0%
dirt 25.0%
Farm/ Structure Ratio
granary 33 . 3 %
shed 50.0%
silo 16.7 %
hen house 50.0 %
brooder house 2.6 %
well house 2.6 %

Farm/ Structure Ratio

bee house 2.6 %
tool shed 25 %
corn storage 41 .6 %
storage 2.6 %
smoke house 2.6 %
pump house 2.6 %
hog house 2.6 %
storage 2.6 %

Structure Foundations

stone 5.3 %
stone pier 2.6 %
' stone post 5 . 3 %
tile post 2.6 %
wood post 39.5 %
concrete 42.1 %
not recorded 2.6 %
Structure Walls
rough lumber 44.7 %
wood siding 31.6 %
finished lumber 8.0%
matched lumber 2.6 %
stone 2.6 %
stone wall 2.6 %
roll 2.6 %
not recorded 5 . 3 %
Structure Additions
present 5.3 %
none 94.7 %
Addition Foundations
stone 33.3 %
wood post 66.7 %
Addition Walls
rough lumber 100.0%

4 1
Land Use

The following section is dedicated to a discussion of land use occurring on
present-day centennial farm parcels in 1939. Table 10 provides an inventory of land

use on a parcel by parcel basis.

W

Centennial farm parcels ranged between 5.5 acres and eighty acres in 1939.
Parcels forty to fifty acres in size accounted for thirty-three percent (33 %) of the
twenty-four centennial farm parcels. An additional thirty-eight percent (38 %) of the
parcels ranged between five and one-half acres and nineteen acres in size. Only
thirteen percent (13%) of the centennial farm parcels on Old Mission Peninsula were

over fifty acres in size.

1 m i ' n

The Rural Property Inventory cards also looked at the composition of farms in
1939. The cards listed the average of several agricultural types, including data on
orchards, non-agricultural lands, agricultural lands and ”other uses"; these data are
included in this paper.

Class ”A” agricultural lands were divided into two sub-categories: "Cropland
and Farmsteads" and "Untillable Pasture." A farmstead is the area of a farm that is
occupied by the farm home and other farm structures. Approximately seventy-one
percent (71%) of the twenty-four centennial farm parcels on Old Mission Peninsula

had acreage dedicated to cropland and farmstead in 1939. The acreage ranges from

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' ’ Cemetery

Table 10
Land Use Inventory of Centennial Farm Parcels
Acreage
c Class Class 'E'
0 Class 'A' Agricultural 'D' Nonagricultural O T
1 0
g Cropland and Farmstead Untillable Orchard Road Wooded h ‘
Purine Ares e a
Total Crops' Farmstead' r 1
1a 14 11.7 2.3 —— 16.5 1 8.5 -— 40
lb 1 -- 1.0 - 3 l 3 -- 8
2a 5 5 —- 29.5 -— -- 5 5' 40
2b 22.5 19.3 3.2 3 35.5 3 l6 — 80
3a 12.5 11 1.5 11 5 10.5 -— 6 -- 40.5
4a 16.5 12.75 3.75 --— 23.5 3 . 7 - 50
5a 2 -- 2 —- 34.5 1 7 - 44.5
5b -- -- -- -—- -- - -- 1‘I 1
6a 13 1 1 2 1 l 27 5 l l -- 62.5
6b -- -- -— ~— 4.5 -— 1 - 5.5
7a 9.5 9.5 -- -- 7.5 - .5 -- 17.5
7b 1.5 15 -- ~— 3.5 5 -- ~- 19
7c 25 25 -- -- --- - 20 -- 45
8a 16.5 15.56 94 8 14 1 5 -— -— 40
9a 8 8 -— —- -- - —- -— 8
9b 7 5 7.5 -- -— —- - —- - 7.5
9c —- -- -- -—- 7.5 -— -- -- 7.5
9d 2 .5 1.5 -— 7.5 .5 - -- 10
10a 47.5 45.7 1.8 — 11.5 1 19.5 -- 79.5
1(1) — -— -- -- -— —- —- 1’ 1
11a 21 21 — -— 19 — — -- 40
11b -- ~— -- -- -— -— -—- — 3.46
11c - -- -- -- -— -—- - -- 10.9
11d — -— -— -- -- - --
‘ These acreage estimates are made by the author
' ' Waste land
' ’ School lot

 

43

approximately one to 47.5 acres.

Only forty-two percent (42 %) of the inventory parcels recorded having acreage
in the ”cropland and farmsteads” category and a farmhouse. These farmsteads ranged
in size from approximately one acre to 3.75 acres. However, fifty-four percent
(54 %) of the inventory cards recorded farm or tenant houses in 1939. The average
farmstead was approximately two acres in size.

It should be noted that the farmstead acreages were not listed on the inventory
cards. However, many of the land use sketches on the cards included a scale or the
outside dimensions of the farmstead. These sources of information were used to
approximate the areas occupied by the farmsteads.

Only twenty-one percent (21%) of the twenty-four centennial farm parcels had
untillable pastures in 1939. Pastures ranged from three acres to 29.5 acres. Of the
five pastures, two contained around eleven acres each. Only one pasture was 29.5
acres in size. Orchards were found on sixty-three percent (63%) of the twenty-four
centennial farm parcels in 1939. An average orchard was around fifteen acres in size.
Orchards ranged from three to 35.5 acres. Sixty percent (60%) of the orchards
covered less than fifteen acres.

Wooded areas could be found on fifty percent (50%) of the twenty-four
centennial farm parcels in 1939. Wooded areas ranged from half an acre to twenty
acres. Of the twelve wooded areas, thirty-three percent (33 %) were over ten acres in
size. Other uses such as a school lot and a cemetery were listed on thirteen percent
(13%) of the twenty-four centennial farm parcels. Both of these land uses were an

acre in size. One farm parcel listed a half acre of waste land.

44
Emflousefiebacks

There were a wide range of setbacks listed on the rural property inventory
cards (see Table 11). The setbacks for homes identified as single family ranged from
nine to four hundred feet from the road right-of-way (ROW) fronting the farms.
However, it should be noted that sixty-seven percent (67%) of the twelve single
family homes were setback less than one hundred feet. An additional twenty-five
percent (25%) of homes are setback between one hundred and two hundred feet.

Only one home was setback four hundred feet. The tenant house was setback two

hundred and eighty feet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11
Building Setbacks

M Code Setback Code Setback Code Setback I
l .

la 10.0 5a 9.0 9d 132.0

lb 30.0 511‘ 5.5 10a 72.0

2b 80.0 6a 30.0 11c 193 .0

3a 93.0 6b 15.0 Ild’ 280.5

4a 105.0 8a 400.0

‘ School

‘ Tenant House

 

 

 

Based upon the ease of profiling the Michigan Rural Property Inventory (MRPI) data
recorded in this section, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. H1 is accepted because it
is clear from Tables 2-11 that at least a gross approximation of the vernacular
architecture of an area can be profiled. H2 is accepted because earlier work
confirmed the validity of the MRPI, and data from this thesis, when compared to

other sources, confirms the practical and valuable nature of this research.

45
DISCUSSION

I believe that contemporary development practices are destroying many of the
qualities of exurban areas that first attracted existing residents. This degradation,
however, is not inevitable. Application of the three common Civic Design principals
to proposed exurban developments, in my opinion, can help to preserve positive rural
qualities (i.e., open space, agricultural identity, scenic quality, etc.). The
reintroduction of multimodal transportation, however, is a difficult and expensive
principal to implement; as a result of this factor, it may be an unobtainable goal for
many regions. Fortunately, small community scale and a reliance on vernacular form
are easier principals to implement. These principals can be enacted through local
ordinances (i.e., building recommendations and zoning) and private deed restrictions.

Building recommendations, the focus of this thesis, should be proffered in such
a way that architectural diversity is encouraged. If architectural diversity is not
encouraged, it is my opinion that Civic Communities will only trade one form of
sterile homogeneity for another, albeit regional, form. In order to achieve this
diversity, other architectural forms should not be prohibited; as long as a majority of
structures in a small community adhere to the regional vernacular form, I believe
community identity will be enhanced. Vernacular building materials, or their
acceptable contemporary substitutes, however, should be encouraged in all instances.
These materials are appropriate to the region’s climate, and adds an extra level of
continuity to diverse vernacular forms. Limiting this stricture to exterior materials
should be adequate. Home interiors are not readily accessible to the general public;

because of this factor, I see no reason to regulate interior spaces.

46

I propose that Civicly Designed exurban developments in Peninsula Township,
Grand Traverse County, Michigan, and other regions whose citizenry wish to
preserve commercial agriculture, have dense development patterns in order to
conserve farmland; the application of vernacular residential structure characteristics
will help to provide visual continuity despite the greater development densities.
Large-lot (i.e., lots large enough to be economically farmed) exurban developments,
located on the periphery of proposed Civic Communities, could utilize both
vernacular architectural styles and land use characteristics to make a smooth transition
between the Civic Communities and their rural surroundings.

The profiles of Centennial Farm vernacular architectural and land use
characteristics of Peninsula Township, generated by utilizing the secondary
information gathered from the Michigan Rural Property Inventory (MRPI), were used
to determine a portion of the agricultural sense of place that contributes to the
Township’s unique character. I This action proves that MRPI data can be used to
provide at least a gross approximation of the vernacular (non-urban) architecture of
Michigan. MRPI data are a valid and reliable source of information on the
vernacular (non-urban) architecture of Michigan. However, gaps in the information
provided by the Michigan Rural Property Inventory (MRPI) necessitate further study
(e. g., field inventories and the use of other secondary sources). For example:

1) the homes and farmstead structures are not located on the property

sketches. Therefore, aerial photographs must be used to locate these
buildings on the property;

2) data concerning windows, doors, and architectural detailing was not

47

collected for the MRPI. Other sources (e. g., photographs), or field
work, must be utilized in order to obtain this information;

3) MRPI cards are often missing. Plat records, aerial photographs, and
other secondary sources must be used to fill in the voids created by the
missing cards.

Table 12 provides possible building recommendations for houses and
associated farmhouse structures in the agricultural portions of Peninsula Township if
one were to use Centennial Farms as the models for vernacular architecture; these
recommendations could have an urban, as well as a rural, application. Table 13
provides possible building recommendations for barns and farmstead structures; these
recommendations will have only rural applications. Both tables relate acceptable
architectural forms and materials for contemporary building activities based on the
MRPI. It is important to note that these tables contain only suggestions for
maintaining continuity with past vernacular architecture; they are not meant to be

definitive or to be slavishly applied in the contemporary housing market.

48

Table 12
House and Associated Farmhouse Structure Recommendations

 

Construction

- balloon frame

- wood frame

Originally, balloon framing predominated architecture of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
However, this has been replaced by standard story framing construction. Houses, and their
associated structures, can now utilize standard wood frame construction. Wood frame construction
is characterized by a frame of 2-by-4 inch studs upon which interior and exterior siding is attached.
Nails are most often used to attach building frames together. Nails are also used to attach siding to
the building frame.

 

Number of Stories

- one story

- two stories

- one and one half story

Houses should be comprised of one, one and one half, or two stories. Different portions of a
home may be comprised of different stories (i.e., a porch, room, or a shed attached to the home
may only be one story while the main structure is two stories). A one and one half story building
has two floors. The exterior walls of the second floor, however, are only half as high as the
interior walls; the roof intersects the exterior walls.

 

Siding

- wood siding

- asphalt shingles

- finished lumber

- vinyl and aluminum siding

Architects and home builders may use wood siding (i.e., horizontal wood siding), asphalt shingles,
or finished lumber as home siding. Vinyl and aluminum siding may be used as a substitute for
wood siding. Different sections of a home (e. g., a porch, room, or a shed attached to the home)
may be sided in different materials.

 

 

Roof Types

- gable

- gable and shed

All new homes should be covered by a gable roof. Portions of a home (e. g., a porch, new room,
or a shed attached to the home), however, may be covered by a gable, shed, or a combination of
the two.

Roofing Materials

- wood shingles

- asphalt (composition) shingles

Roofs of homes may be covered by wood or asphalt shingles. The roofs of porches, additions, and
sheds may be clad in a different roofing material than the main structure.

 

 

49

Table 12 (continued)

 

_
Basement Presence
- none
- partial
- firll

Homes should have a full, or at least a partial, basement. Seasonal homes do not need basements.
Many seasonal homes, however, are winterized at a later date; they would be much more
comfortable in the winter if they had a basement.

Basement Materials
- stone

- concrete

- stone block

- concrete block

Basements may be constructed of stone, concrete, or stone block. Concrete block may be
substituted for concrete. Secondary portions of a home may or may not have a basement; if they
do, the secondary basements may be composed of a different material than the main basement.
Concrete should not be formed to look like brick or stone.

 

 

Porch Occurrence
' zero

- one to M0
- up to five

New homes are encouraged, but not required, to have porches. Most homes should have one or
two porches. New single-family and multi-family structures may have up to five porches.
Multiple porches should make it easy to give each unit its own entrance.

Porch Typology

- covered

- screened-in
- open

- enclosed

- cut-in

Porches may consist of many different forms (e. g., covered, screened-in, open, enclosed, or cut-
in). Each home may have more than one type of porch. Suburban-style decks are discouraged. 1f
decks are constructed, they should be completely screened from the road.

 

 

50

Table 12 (continued)

 

P- 1
Attached Structure Presence
- none
- presence

Attached structures are encouraged, but not required, of new homes. Homes designed, however,
to look as though additions and attached structures were added to the main part of the home will
better represent the rambling nature of the Township’s vernacular farmhouse architecture.

Attached Structure Typology

- lean-to

- wood shed

- shed

Attached structures may consist of structures designed to look like a lean-to or some type of a
storage shed. These structures, however, are not required to function as a shed or a lean-to.

 

Garage Type and Occurrence

- unattached

- attached

- none

New homes may include a garage. Garages should be encouraged, but not required, to be
unattached. Attached garages, however, should be required to be at the rear of a home.

Garage Foundation Materials

- concrete

- stone

- wood post

Garage foundations should be comprised of one of three materials: concrete, stone, or wood posts.
A garage foundation does not need to be comprised of the same materials as the basement of the
home to which it is associated. Concrete should not be formed to look like brick or stone.

Garage Siding

- wood siding

- finished lumber

- rough lumber

- vinyl and aluminum siding

Garage siding may be comprised of one of three materials: wood siding (i.e., horizontal wood
siding), finished lumber, or rough lumber. Vinyl and aluminum siding may be substituted for
siding. The siding of a garage also does not need to be comprised of the same materials as the
home to which it is associated.

 

 

 

51

 

 

Table 13

Barn and Farmstead Structure Recommendations
Barns ll
Barn Foundatiom
- stone
' concrete
- stone post
- wood post
- concrete block

Barn foundations are to be comprised of one of two materials: concrete or stone. Concrete block
may be substituted for concrete. Addition foundations may be composed of one of the following
materials: stone, concrete, stone post, and wood post. Concrete should not be formed to look like
brick or stone.

 

Barn Siding

- rough lumber

- finished lumber

- wood siding

- vinyl and aluminum siding

Barn siding may be comprised of one of three materials: wood siding (i.e., horizontal wood
siding), finished lumber, or rough lumber. Vinyl or aluminum siding may be substituted for wood
siding. The same materials may be used to side barn additions. Addition siding, however, does
not need to match barn siding.

 

 

Roof Types

- gable

- gambrel

- shed

Barns should have gable or gambrel roofs. Additions, however, may employ a shed roof.

Roofing Materials

- wood shingle

- asphalt shingle

- metal

Barns, and their associated additions, should be roofed in wood shingles, asphalt shingles, or
metal. Addition roofs may employ a different roofing material than the main barn.

 

 

52

Table 13 (continued)

 

 

E
Presence of Basements

- present

- none

Barns should not be required to have basements. However, barn basements should be encouraged;

they can be used as additional parking for automobiles, boats, or other recreational vehicles.

Basement Materials

- stone

- concrete

- concrete block

Basement walls should be composed of stone or concrete. Concrete block may be substituted for
concrete. Concrete should not be formed to look like brick or stone.

fl Farmstead Structures ' ll

Farmstead Structure Foundations

- stone

- concrete

- stone post

- wood post

- concrete block

Structure foundations, and the foundations of associated additions, may be composed of one of the
following materials: wood post, concrete, stone, or stone post. Concrete block may be substituted
for concrete. Additions, however, should not be required to be the same materials used for the
main portion of the farmstead structure. Concrete should not be formed to look like brick or
stone.

 

 

 

 

 

Farmstead Structure Walls

- rough lumber

- wood siding

- finished lumber

- vinyl and aluminum siding

Structure walls, and the additions associated with the structure, may be composed of rough lumber,
wood siding (i.e., horizontal wood siding), or finished lumber. Vinyl and aluminum siding may be
substituted for wood siding. Additions, however, are not required to be the same materials used
for the main portion of the farmstead structure.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

Most of the residents of the United States currently lead a suburban lifestyle.
Much of this contemporary development is exurban in nature. Most exurbs are
developed as "islands of nonrural housing in a very rural context" (Szczygiel, 1995).
Individuals striving to maintain this lifestyle must be willing to sacrifice the
substantial amount of time required to travel between work, home, shopping and
leisure-time activities. People often work and live in two separate municipalities
within the same polycentric city; shopping, recreational, and other leisure—time
facilities are often located in municipalities unrelated to where they work or live.

Polycentric communities have many advantages (i.e., it is easy to travel to
most destinations and there are enough people to support quality sporting and cultural
institutions). It should now be clear, however, that those same virtues of polycentric
cities, in their current form, also exacerbate many of the problems of the human
condition.

"Design [and other] professionals have been decrying sprawl for decades, on
the grounds that it obliterates farmland, open space and local character, not to
mention the local funds required to pay for [an expansive] infrastructure. ...[T]heir
struggle has had only spotty success, [however,] as sprawl continues to be fed by
government subsidies, growing population and public demand for country lifestyles,

automotive convenience and economic growt " (Henderson, 1995). Many proposed

53

54

solutions to the problems of suburbia have been tested in the past (i.e.,
environmental, municipal fiscal, and quality of life). Normally aimed at specific
problems, these solutions were not comprehensive. They also were most often
incremental in nature. Civic design strategies, however, are comprehensive. They
are designed to look at environmental, municipal fiscal, and quality of life issues
together, rather than as mutually exclusive entities. Civic Design strategies normally
have three distinct foci:

1) the reintroduction of multimodal transportation;

2) a small community or neighborhood scale;

3) a reliance on vernacular form.

The author utilized vernacular structures located within the agricultural
portions of Peninsula Township, Grand Traverse County, Michigan as a case study to
show how vernacular architectural characteristics can be applied to contemporary
building practices. The study resulted in the following methodology:

1) a sample of vernacular structures is analyzed (i.e., farm homes and
farmstead structures) in order to ascertain their form (i.e., construction,
number of stories and roof type) and the materials used in their
construction (i.e., wood for the frame, concrete for the foundation, and
wood shingles for the root). Previous studies, such as the Michigan
Rural Property Inventory (MRPI), can often be utilized to provide
much of the needed information;

2) the information recorded on the MRPI cards facilitated the creation of

various inventories about the centennial farms:

55

a) farm homes;
b) farmstead barns;
c) land use;
3) the inventories allowed facilitated the compilation of various summaries

regarding vernacular structures:

a. farm houses;
b. barns and farmstead structures;

4) contemporary uses for vernacular forms are then discussed:
a) barn basements and tool sheds used as garages;

b) wood sheds and lean-tos used to enlarge a farm house;
5) Acceptable architectural forms and materials are discussed. It is at this

point that contemporary substitutes for traditional materials are

addressed.
a) farm houses and structures associated with farm houses;
b) barns and farmstead structures associated with barns.

Vernacular development characteristics can be used to protect community
identity in the exurban regions of polycentric cities. This can be accomplished by
using vernacular architectural and land use characteristics, and the methodology
summarized in the preceding paragraph, to develop suggestions as to how new
development should relate to existing conditions (i.e., architectural and land use
recommendations).

Based upon the results of the case study, the author accepted both of the

hypotheses that guided the development of this thesis. Secondary resources can be

56

utilized to provide much of the information about vernacular architecture and land use
needed to formulate suggested guidelines for new exurban developments. Michigan‘s
development community is fortunate to have the Michigan Rural Property Inventory
(MRPI) as an excellent secondary source regarding vernacular architectural

characteristics and land use.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS'

Asbestos Shingle--

Composition Shingle--
County--

Finished Lumber--
(Dressed Lumber)
Gable Roof--
Gambrel Roof--
Geographic Range--

Geographic Township--

Hip Roof--

Lean-To—-

"A fire-resistant roofing shingle, composed largely of
asbestos” (Harris, 1975).

See Asbestos Shingle.

Every township in Michigan is located in a county.
County governments assume responsibility for providing
elements of infrastructure that are too expensive for the
townships to handle individually.

"Lumber having one or more of its faces planed smooth "
(Harris, 1975).

"A roof having a gable at one or both ends" (Harris,
1975).

"A roof which has two pitches on each side" (Harris,
1975).

The location of a township or section, east or west, of
the Michigan survey meridian line.

The location of a township or section, north or south, of
the Michigan survey base line.

”A roof which slopes upward from all four sides of a
building, requiring a hip rafter at each comer” (Harris,
1975).

”A small extension to a building with a roof (having but
one slope) whose supports lean against the building"
(Harris, 1975).

*Terms that appear in italics are the best approximations of the author. They should be

taken in that context.

57

58

Matched Lumber» "Lumber having dressed edges and prepared for tongue-
and groove joints“ (Harris, 1975).

Plank-- "A long, wide, square-sawn thick piece of timber; the
specifications vary, but often the minimum width is 8 in
(20 cm) and the minimum thickness is 2—4 in (5-10 cm)
for softwood and l in (2.5 cm) for hardwood" (Harris,
1975).

Political Township-- Normally a township contains 36 sections or 36 square
miles. However, Peninsula Township is composed of
three geographic townships and two geographic ranges
which contains a total of forty-five sections.

Roll-- ”A roofing material manufactured by saturating a dry felt
with asphalt and then coating the saturated felt with a
harder asphalt mixed with a fine mineral, glass-fiber,
asbestos, or organic stabilizer; available in the form of
rolls. All or part of the weather side may be covered

with mineral granules or with powdered talc or mica"

(Harris, 1975).
Rough Lumber-- "Sawn lumber that has not been planed" (Harris, 1975).
Section -- A section is one square mile of land (640 acres).
Shed Roof-- "A roof shape having only one sloping plane” (Harris,
1975).
Pattern Shingle-- ’A shingle with a pattern on its face.

2Shingles that are arranged into a pattern.
Wallboard-- "A rigid sheet composed of wood pulp, gypsum, or other
materials; may be fastened to the frame of a building to

provide an interior surface finish” (Harris, 1975).

*Terms that appear in italics are the best approximations of the author. They should be
taken in that context.

59

Wood Frame-- "Construction in which exterior walls, bearing walls and
partitions, floor and roof constructions, and their
supports are of wood or other combustible material,
when the construction does not qualify as heavy timber
construction or ordinary construction” (Harris, 1975).

Wood Shingle-- A shingle made out of a thinly split wedge of wood and
placed in an overlapping pattern on a roof.

Wood Siding-- "A wood siding commonly used as an exterior covering

(Clapboard Siding) on a building of frame construction; applied horizontally
and overlapped. . .thicker on the lower edge than along

the upper" (Harris, 1975).

*Terms that appear in italics are the best approximations of the author. They should be
taken in that context.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Kurt. "Oldfangled New Towns." Time, 20 May 1991.

Anderson, Sherwood. Winesbutg, Ohio. New York: Signet Classic, Penguin
Group, 1919.

Bauman, Grant. "The Validity of Using the Michigan rural Property Inventory
When Conducting Research and Planning Projects in Rural Michigan. " E.
Lansing, MI: Landscape Architecture Program, Michigan State University,
1990.

Calthorpe, Peter. "Pedestrian Pockets: New Strategies for Suburban Growth."
Whole Eatth Review, Spring 1988.

. "The Post Suburban Metropolis." Whole mh Review, Winter

 

1991.

Cervero, Robert. "Transit Villages: From Idea to Implementation." Am, Fall
1994.

deHaven-Smith, West Jo. r wth M m n Inn v ' n in F1 ri . Fort
Lauderdale FL: FAU and FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban
Problems, 1988.

Hamlin, Roger. "Current Status of Local Government Finance," 111183.

Economics of Planning and Development, E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Course Packet, 1992.

Harris, Cyril M. [ed]. Digtionm of Architecture yd Construction, New York:
McGraw-Hill Inc., 1975.

Henderson, Harold. "Coping With Sprawl." WEE, April 1995.

Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier; The Suburbanization of the United
States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Katz, Peter [ed]. The New Uflganism: Tgwgd an Architecture of Community.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.

61

Krieger, Alex. W
W. Cambridge MA: Harvard Graduate School of Design,
1991.

Kunstler, James Howard. Tho Googtaohy of Nowhote. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1993.

Lewis, Sinclair. Main Strxt. New York: Signet Classic, Penguin Group, 1920.

Levy, John M. W. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1991.

Mohney, David and Keller Easterling. Seaside, Maflng a Town in Amoo'oa. New

York: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. W

in tho Connooo'oot Rivor Valley; A Dosign Maoofl for Congrvatt'on and
Dovoloomont. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Environmental Law

Foundation, 1990.

Michigan State Tax Commission. "Report of the State Tax Commission and The
State Board of Assessors." 19th ed. (1935-1936). Lansing MI: Franklin
DeKline Co., state printers.

Michigan State Tax Commission. "Report of the State Tax Commission and The
State Board of Assessors." 20th ed. (1937—1938). Lansing MI: Franklin

DeKline Co., state printers.

Michigan State Tax Commission. "Report of the State Tax Commission and The
State Board of Assessors." 21st ed. (1939-1940). Lansing MI: Franklin
DeKline Co., state printers.

Michigan State Tax Commission. "Report of the State Tax Commission and The
State Board of Assessors." 22nd ed. (1941-1942). Lansing MI: Franklin
DeKline Co., state printers.

Nelessen, Allen B. Visions For a Now Amorim Drgm. Chicago: American
Planning Association Planners Press, 1994.

Szczygiel, Bonj. "Meeting the Exurban Challenge." sc Ar hi t re,
April 1995.

Williams, Norman, Jr. and Edmund H. Kellog and Peter M, Lavigne. mm
Towngm. Brunswick NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
1987.

62

W. W. Hixon and Co. Plat flak ot Qmo fljgvorg Coonty, Michigg. Rockford
IL: W. W. Hixon and Co., 1930.

 

"llllllll“hill“