ARCHITECTURAL RECORDATION Of DESIDERIO ARMY RESERVE CENTER PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

US Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District October 2011

ARCHITECTURAL RECORDATION DESIDERIO ARMY RESERVE CENTER PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

Location:

The Desiderio Army Reserve Center (USARC) is located 780 feet above mean sea level on 5.1 acres immediately east of the Arroyo Seco, a natural watershed and major tributary of the Los Angeles River, at 655 Westminster Drive in Pasadena, California. The parcel containing four buildings extends beneath the National Register listed Colorado Street Bridge, which runs east/west across the property and contains three of the bridges abutments. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: 34 8'37.56"N 118 9'52.38"W

Present Owner:
Present Occupant:

United States Army

None. Vacant. Before closure under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act, Desiderio USARC served as a reserve and mobilization center for the U.S. Army Reserve (USARC) since it was constructed in 1956. The Desiderio USARC functioned primarily as an administrative, logistical, and education facility with limited maintenance of military vehicles at the Organizational Maintenance Shop (OMS). Four full-time personnel worked at the facility and approximately 363 soldiers were assigned to the facility who perform their duties one weekend per month. The facility served to process incoming reservists pay, health, and service records; identification cards, uniforms and equipment. Named for Medal of Honor recipient Reginald B. Desiderio (1918 1950), Desiderio USARC is a rare example of a little-modified design for US Army Reserve Centers by the New York firm of Reisner & Urbahn Architects. One of only three USARC built in California in the late 1950s and six total in the state, it is the best representative example of its type and period of construction. Significant for its associations with events of post WWII USARC expansion and its design and construction values, the main building reflects a common mid-century modern construction style associated with the body of work of noted architect Max O. Urbahn (1912-1995), using contemporary elements ubiquitous to both educational and military installations throughout the United States from this period.

Present Use:

Significance:

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

PART I. HISTORICAL INFORMATION A. Physical History: 1. 2. Date of erection: 1956 Architect: Gerald A Bense Architect and Associates, Whittier, California, adapting a standardized design for an Organized Reserved Corps Amory for 400 Men developed by Reisner & Urbahn Architects, New York, New York. Original and subsequent owners, occupants, uses: Desiderio functioned as a USARC from initial construction until selected for closure under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act. The site was occupied by the 3rd Battalion, 413th Regiment; 7th Battalion, 104th Regiment; Detachment 1, 9th Battalion, 104th Regiment; 651st MI Company, 140th Military Intelligence Battalion (1989-1995) and Recruiting Retention Office. The Desiderio USARC functioned primarily as an administrative, logistical, and education facility with limited maintenance of military vehicles at the Organizational Maintenance Shop (OMS). Four full-time personnel worked at the facility and approximately 363 soldiers were assigned to the facility who perform their duties one weekend per month. The facility served to process incoming reservists pay, health, and service records; identification cards, uniforms and equipment. Builder, contractor, suppliers: Constructed under contract by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Original plans and construction: Original plans for the armory are dated 1954 for construction and as-built dated October 1957. Plans for the OMS and other structures on the site were not located. Alterations and additions: The main structure has received little modification and no additions. All original windows (except those located at the front entry and the assembly hall ) have been replaced. The second floor firing range was converted to office space.

3.

4.

5.

6.

B. Historical Context:
Army Reserve Policy After WWII After World War II, military and Congressional leaders prepared a military strategy that focused on using the threat of nuclear war to deter conflicts, yet also committed to containing the spread of Communism. This strategy reduced the size of the standing Army and relied on the development of a strong reserve program for rapid mobilization in future conflicts. However, the war in Korea broke out before the reserve troops had been fully and adequately trained. The war similarly interrupted construction of facilities needed to train reserve troops. Congressional debate in the 1940s culminated in the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950, which provided $400 million for facilities construction for all branches of the military, not to exceed $50 million each year for five years. Construction under the Defense Facilities Act was planned to begin full-throttle in 1950, but the war in Korea caused the U.S. military to divert energy and funding away from reserve construction. The plan for training additional reserve forces that had received such vigorous political support immediately after World War II encountered numerous challenges and obstacles, and could not

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

begin in earnest until 1953. Mobilization of World War II veterans enlisted in all branches of the Reserve Forces for the Korean War created a great deal of upheaval and challenged expectations about the strength of the reserve forces. When World War II veterans were told to leave behind their newly settled families and civilian careers to fight with their reserve units in Korea, many objected. Calling up veterans became known as Double Jeopardy. In August of 1950, the Army called 9,500 members of the Officers Reserve Corps and 109,000 members of the Enlisted Reserve Corps to serve in Korea. An additional 9,700 reserve officers were called up in November of 1950. Priority for mobilization was placed on reservists between the ages of 19 and 25; reservists without dependents were called up first, then reservists with only one dependent, then reservists with more than one. The Army determined that it would call up only those reservists actively receiving drill pay; in other words, it would exempt veterans who had neglected to attend training drills. Decisions about mobilization priorities seemed unjust to many reservists. Army Reserve Policy under the Eisenhower Administration The Korean War exposed vulnerabilities in postwar strategic military and foreign policies, and presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower subsequently focused his 1952 campaign agenda around new ways to address these issues. In October of 1953, the Eisenhower administration publicly set forth a military policy that relied more on nuclear forces, both for defense and for proactive measures to contain communism and other threats to U.S. security. Eisenhower believed that the emphasis on nuclear technology would reduce the number of men needed, decrease military expenses, and allow for development of a robust civilian economy. These policies came in response to the final two years of the Truman administration when the defense budget quadrupled. Although he did not discount the role of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower believed that a healthy civilian economy was as important to the nations defense as a large military. The New Look program relied heavily on reserve forces because they were less expensive to maintain than full-time career forces, and because they could tap into the specialized technical skill needed to operate modern and more sophisticated weapon systems without draining the civilian economy of its best minds. The Reserve Forces Act of 1955 codified Eisenhowers New Look policy for the reserves. The law was enacted on 9 August 1955 and written to expire in four years unless extended by Congress. The size of the Ready Reserve (for all branches of the military) increased from 1.5 million to 2.9 million. Individuals with roles and skills that would be critical to civilian society in a conflict were transferred to the Standby Reserve. According to the act, if the president declared a war or national emergency, Ready Reserve forces could be ordered to active duty immediately. Standby Reserves could be ordered to active duty only after Congress declared a war or national emergency, and only after the Selective Service System determined that their civilian role was not critical. To increase the preparedness of the reserve forces, mandatory drill sessions and training hours were increased. Disciplinary action for failing to attend training was added to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Terms of enlistment were changed, and a reserve enlistee with no prior active service would have to enlist for six years, including two years of active duty, before becoming free from draft liability. A new enlistee also had the option to serve 10 years in the Ready Reserve with no active duty requirement at all. All soldiers in active service would be required to enlist in a National Guard or reserve unit after they had

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

fulfilled their active duty, and if they refused to participate in reserve training they would be called to active duty for 45 days. The Reserve Forces Act of 1955 was effective in increasing the size of the reserves, but it was not as inexpensive or effective as planned. As of 24 March 1955, only about five percent of Army reservists actively attended required training, and the Army was unable to enforce disciplinary measures. Even those reservists eligible to receive drill pay were not motivated to attend drills because the pay did not keep pace with the civilian economy. Realizing that the Reserves had not proven to be the economical solution expected, DoD proposed a 10 percent cut in funding for the reserves and the National Guard in March 1958, but the political influence of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) caused the House Armed Services Committee to unanimously oppose the proposal. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee asked the House Appropriations Committee to provide an additional $8.7 million in funding for the guard and the reserves. The Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1958 further attempted to decrease military spending by decreasing duplication of efforts and assigning more specific roles to different branches and units. Each branch of the military became independent, with its own secretary, but all served the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense was given authority to assign duplicated activities to a single agency, with the exception of core combat activities. To distinguish core combat divisions of the Army Reserve, 10 of the 23 existing infantry divisions were assigned to combat missions, and the remaining 13 divisions were assigned to mobilized training mission[s]. In response to the 1958 reorganization, the Army developed a new pentomic structure, which organized select Army divisions into small, highly trained pentomic groups, geared to operate independently in the event of atomic war. Pentomic infantry divisions were reduced from 17,460 men to 13,740 men. Six Army Reserve divisions were reorganized as pentomic divisions. Toward the end of his term, President Eisenhower seemed to grow somewhat disillusioned with the reserves program and preferred to concentrate on nuclear policy alone. The political strength of the R.O.A., however, ensured that Congressional funding for reserve pay and facilities construction remained strong. The Korean War should have foreshadowed that nuclear strength alone would not be sufficient to respond to all types of Cold War threats, but the Eisenhower administration did not address this issue. The ability of the Army Reserves strength levels and training programs to withstand budget cuts would be tested further by conflicts in the decades to come. Army Reserve Facilities Associated with the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950 Although the context of the Korean War and Eisenhower administration policies intersected with the construction of the initial wave of Army Reserve Centers, the multi-year construction program had already been set in motion by the passage of the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950. Broad policies affecting the strength of the reserves did influence how the Army assessed its need for facilities and where those facilities would be located. Eisenhowers New Look program also influenced the type of training that would occur in the Army Reserve Centers, which affected the form and function of the buildings. At every point, DoD and the Bureau of the Budget, both of which worked closely with the Eisenhower administration, influenced the design and construction of the reserve centers. While the Army Reserve had a clear vision for the Modern style standard design for the new Army Reserve Centers, they also had to incorporate input from DoD and the Bureau of the Budget. Likewise, while the Army Reserve had the political support to garner generous Congressional appropriations for reserve center construction, those funds were allocated only with

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

the approval DoD and the Bureau of the Budget. Army Reserve Centers constructed from 1950 to 1958 are the result of many rounds of negotiation, compromise, and cost engineering. The diluted Modern style of the architecture and strict economy of materials seen in the buildings attests to this. Assessment of Need for Facilities As in the immediate post-WWII era, the continuing expansion of the Army Reserve in the 1950s called for construction of additional Army Reserve facilities. New expectations for the size of the Army Reserve forces were even greater than they had been when the House Committee on Armed Services concluded that that existing facilities were inadequate in 1949. The Defense Facilities Act of 1950 provided the Army with the resources to begin to address the need for facilities, but the phased structure of the appropriations bill forced the Army to develop a process to determine where the need for reserve facilities was most pressing. Ground-level responsibility for assessing local need for reserve facilities was assigned to the State Reserve Forces Facilities Boards, which included representatives from each branch of military services as well as the National Guard. The State Boards sent annual surveys to existing reserve facilities asking about their condition and requirements and attempted to inspect each facility in the state. The representatives of each local reserve facility would fill out a standard form for review by the State Board. Local reserve units also could submit a Justification for Construction form to their State Board to demonstrate the need for a new facility. Troop strength was the main factor in demonstrating need for a reserve center and relied on existing number of reserve units and long-range projections by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Troop strength projections took into account past recruiting records, the number of eligible reservists in the local population, and past records of reservists attendance and participation. The Army commander for each of the six geographic areas within the continental U.S. would determine which units demonstrated the greatest need for a new facility. Each of the six Army commanders could request between 20 and 25 facilities per fiscal year. The requests were submitted to the Department of the Army, where they were analyzed by the Chief of the Facilities Branch. The Department of the Army made the final prioritization of units needing facilities.80 The prioritized list of new facilities functioned as the basis for appropriation requests for the upcoming fiscal year. Other factors taken into consideration included the units deployment priority, the availability of building sites meeting Army standards, local construction costs, and the practicability of joint utilization. Once the appropriations bill had been passed, the list of priorities for facilities was handed down to the Chief of the Army Reserve. Out of that list, first priority would be given to localities where the Army already owned a suitable parcel of land. The Army Reserve, with the Corps of Engineers, would solicit for offers for donation or sale of land in the other communities on the priority list. The priority list could be rearranged based on the offers received and the likelihood of finding a suitable site in a timely manner. Initially, this process favored communities with larger populations, but beginning in FY 1956, smaller communities were given greater consideration. In 1958, the Army Reserve revised their formula to add the following considerations to the list already in place: - record of actual strength growth of units in the area, - community attitude toward Reserve units,

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

- industrial composition of the community as related to the skill requirements of the units, - projected growth and composition of the population, [and] - prior service reservists located in the area. For FY 1958, the Army Reserve slated 31 small 100-man centers for construction. As Major General Ralph A. Palladino, Chief, United States Army Reserve and ROTC Affairs, stated in his testimony on 10 July 1958 before the Senate Armed Services Committee, This is another step forward, because these small buildings are located in communities where it is often difficult if not impossible to get adequate leased spaces, and we like these small one-unit armories because it spreads resources around the country and gives the small communities a chance to participate in this. However, DoD policy did not permit construction of reserve centers for fewer than 100 men, so many small town reservists continued to go without facilities. Reserve units lacking facilities would have to use local public spaces like schools or fire stations, or reservists would have to travel to the nearest reserve center. Function of Army Reserve Centers The form and program of spaces needed for the proposed new Army Reserve Centers responded to the functions that the buildings would serve. Traditionally, armories constructed before World War II had provided arms storage space and a drill hall, and maybe a social club room. Their imposing, high-style architectural design communicated security and social stability. With the emphasis on technology under the New Look program, the proposed new Army Reserve Centers needed to provide space for a wider variety of training- and instructional-related activities. Classrooms, laboratories, and maintenance shops were required in addition to the traditional need for arms storage and drill halls. New Army Reserve Centers would need to function as friendly, approachable representations of the Army in local communities. While traditional armories had used high architectural styles, the new Army Reserve Centers would need to recruit reservists from all walks of life, and therefore their architectural design would need to be accessible, simple, modern, and conservative. Some of the best information about the training function of Army Reserve Centers is included in course catalogs and curriculum records from the era. Many courses were taught in a basic classroom setting regardless of their subject matter, but some classes required more specialized lab or shop space. The majority of reservists were assigned to infantry or artillery units. Courses offered to these reservists included Combat Formation, Offensive Tactics, Tank Platoon in Combat, Motor Vehicles, AAA Materiel-Guns, Fundamentals of Electronics, Advanced Gunnery, Guided Missiles, and Troop Movements. These classes required not only classroom space, but also a rifle range and machine shop. Much of the Army Reserve was made up specialized units of technical professionals, and the courses offered at a particular training center supported the function of the unit at that location. For instance, in 1955 reservists accounted for 23.1 percent of the total strength of the Army Chemical Corps. For these units, the Army Reserve offered courses such as Chemical Agents, Flame Throwers, Tactical Employment of Smoke, Area Damage Control, and Atomic Defense. Both labs and classrooms were necessary for instruction and training in support of these operations. For Signal Corps units, classes included FM Radio Receivers and Transmitters, Radar Systems,

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

and Photography. Army Reserve Centers housing Signal Corps also required a photo lab. To fill attendance in courses, though, the reserve center also needed to fulfill its recruiting goals. In the immediate postwar era, the Army Reserve paid little attention to the need for recruiting because veterans were expected to fulfill their obligation to the reserves. Many Army commanders also assumed that UMT would be implemented. By 1950, however, poor attendance and participation records among veterans indicated the need for the recruitment of additional reservists. The Army Reserve Centers were therefore assigned the additional task of recruiting reservists from the local population. As Major General J. B. Cress, Army ROTC, stated before the Brooks subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Forces on 18 November 1952, Without attractive facilities and equipment, the recruiting of enlisted personnel and the retention of their interest is most difficult. On the other hand, Army Reserve units with newly constructed centers reported that the facilities positively influenced recruitment, enrollment in training classes, attendance, and retention of reservists. Development of Standard Architectural Plans To meet their need for numerous functional facilities quickly and efficiently, the Army Reserve commissioned standardized architectural plans. The Army developed the standardized plans in advance of seeking funding for construction. This enabled the Army to present the plans in Congressional hearings as evidence that the proposed Army Reserve Centers would be practical, economical, and attractive. The same standard plan used to construct the buildings funded under the $13.5 million appropriation from FY 1950 was used to promote the Defense Facilities Act of 1950 in Congress. The Corps of Engineers contracted the New York City architectural firm of Reisner and Urbahn to adapt this standard plan from standard armory plans developed by architectural firms Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill and Bail, Horton and Associates for the National Guard using the space criteria developed by the Committee on Facilities and Services Reserve Facilities Survey. Reisner and Urbahn were experienced in governmental construction and had a reputation for designing simple, modern buildings that minimized costs by using modern construction techniques and materials. Little is known about Reisner, but Max O. Urbahn (1912-1995) was a well-known and prolific architect who practiced from 1938 until 1978. Before forming Reisner and Urbahn in 1946, the German-born architect worked with the offices of John Russell Pope and Holabird and Root. Reisner and Urbahns early work with resorts and schools gave them a reputation for master planning, which translated well into their design for Army Reserve Center campuses. Under their 1950 contract with the USACE, Reisner and Urbahn completed a series of seven standard plans of varying sizes: a 10-unit plan, a 2-unit plan, a 3-unit plan, two versions of a 4- unit plan, and two versions of a 5-unit plan. All plans called for concrete-block construction with brick veneer, pre-cast concrete sills and lintels, and a concrete foundation. Each plan separated the classroom spaces and assembly spaces into separate wings, arranged in an L-plan, T-plan, or U-plan. The classroom wing would be either one- or two-story, depending on the capacity of building. The floor plans of the classroom wings were arranged with a double-loaded corridor with classrooms, offices, and storage at either side. A partial basement under the classroom wing contained a rifle range and possibly lockers, showers, and a boiler room. All classroom wings had flat roofs. The assembly wings included an open, double-height space constructed using a prefabricated steel truss, creating a low-pitched roofline. Clerestory windows opened onto the assembly space. Some larger versions included mezzanine space with additional classrooms or offices in the assembly wing. Plans for an Operational Maintenance Shop (OMS) also were included. The OMS was a free-standing

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

building used for storage and repair of vehicles and other large equipment. In design, the OMS was very basic, with rolling overhead doors and a flat roof. Although standard plans were used for most of the 45 Army Reserve Centers constructed using the $13.5 million in Congressional appropriations for FY 1950, the 1950 standard plans were not used for any of the centers funded under the Reserve Facilities Act of 1950 due to delays to budget allocations. In promoting the Reisner and Urbahn designs to Congress, the Army Reserve frequently touted their Modern style and similarity to contemporary school architecture. The choice of a Modern architectural style was both practical and fashionable at the time. Pressing manpower needs for national defense dictated that Army Reserve training centers needed to be quick and economical to construct. At the same time, the appealing and approachable architectural style used in the design of the centers enhanced recruiting efforts. The Army adopted the Modern architectural style as the solution to bringing together these seemingly contradictory needs. By incorporating a few key character-defining architectural elements, the Army could reinterpret a purely utilitarian building as a symbol of American pride in its technological superiority. Though the Modern architectural style has numerous variations, the use of technologically advanced building materials and the clear articulation of building tectonics are essential to the style. Character-defining elements of post-World War II American Modern architecture typically include a steel-frame or reinforced concrete structure, an asymmetrical massing of spaces, an open floor plan, a flat roof, smooth and unadorned exterior wall surfaces, fenestration patterns used to demonstrate that the exterior wall is not load-bearing (such as horizontal ribbons of windows, corner windows, or large plate-glass windows), and cantilevered eaves or balconies. Before World War II, the Army had constructed unadorned buildings using steel and concrete, but these buildings were not necessarily Modern in style. For instance, prefabricated steel buildings such as Butler buildings and Quonset Huts served as airplane hangars, and austconcrete-block auxiliary buildings were common. Yet buildings that represented the official face of the Army in a community continued to use a traditional, monumental architectural style into the 1940s. Even during World War II, when materials were scarce and expedient construction was a top priority, Army housing in Virginia was constructed with red brick in a Colonial Revival style. Until the post-World War II era, the Colonial Revival style was considered to be the quintessentially American national style because it represented freedom, both because of its association with the American Revolution and because it was derived from Greek classical architecture, which was associated with the birth of democracy. After World War II, though, critics protested that the style was too derivative of European architecture and out of touch with an era defined by technology and industry. Modern architecture was accepted as efficient and economical, but it was not universally perceived as appealing and approachable. In order to recruit and retain reservists, the Army needed to convince the American public that Modernism truly represented American values and patriotism. Architects and critics who advocated Modernism frequently argued that society had moved into a rational, technical Machine Age that was best expressed by simple, efficient architecture. The Army grasped onto this argument adopted the official position that Modern architecture and construction materials projected an image of technical superiority over Cold War foes . As a testament to the success of Reisner and Urbahns Modern design, in 1952 the USACE again contracted Reisner and Urbahn to develop revised standardized plans. The Army Reserve hoped that the revised plans

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

would provide more classroom space and provide for easy expansion. The 1952 iteration of the standardized plans included three basic series: 400 Men, Expansible 400 to 600, 800, either with or without basement; 600 Men, Expansible 400 to 600, 1000, either with or without basement; and 1000 Men, Expansible 1000 to 2000, either with or without basement.

These plans also included more corridor space for less awkward circulation, as well as a more pronounced and visible main public entry. A full-depth lobby off of the entry was planned, lit by a full-height, metal, door-transom-sidelight assembly. The roof truss for the open assembly space was modified to create a more flat profile. The largest series of plans used a masonry unit exterior rather than brick veneer. Reisner and Urbahn provided for expansion by designing a new wing that would connect to the original classroom wing using a hyphen with a separate entry. Otherwise, though, the plans were very similar to the 1950 plans. In 1953, the USACE contracted Reisner and Urbahn to revise their standardized plans yet again. This round of revisions aimed to reduce the costs of the 400-600-800 series of expansible plans by providing a portable rifle range rather than integrating a permanent range into the building, thereby eliminating the arms vault and reducing the size of assembly space. Additionally, the 1953-54 revisions provided for a small 200-man, or 1-unit, Army Reserve Center. In the 200-man version, assembly would take place in a multi-use classroom space, and one bay of the center could be used as a vehicle shop if needed. Like the 1000-man expansible center designed in 1952, the 200-man center would use a masonry unit exterior rather than brick veneer. In 1956, the Army Reserve identified a need to revise the space criteria for Army Reserve Centers. In anticipation of these new space criteria, the USACE again contracted Max O. Urbahn for architectural services for revised standard plans. By 1956, though, the firm Reisner and Urbahn had morphed into Urbahn, Brayton, and Burrows. Richard Mark Brayton and John Shoker Burrow both had worked with Reisner and Urbahn. The new firm continued to work on the governmental projectslike Army Reserve Centersthat Reisner and Urbahn had designed, but they also included more elementary schools, recreational buildings, and homes in their practice. The standardized plans of 1956 included a 100-man, or one-half unit, pilot model intended for small communities. The design used an asymmetrical T-plan. The front wing included a double- loaded corridor with classrooms and storage, while the rear wing housed the assembly hall. The main entrance opened onto the front wing, but the assembly hall was also accessible through a separate entrance in the hyphen connecting the front wing to the assembly wing.94 The first version new space criteria went into effect 15 November 1957. Prescribed square footages were: a. 1-unit (Authorized strength between 55-100) 13,000 sq ft; b. 1-unit (over 100) 15,960 sq ft;

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

c. 2-unit (200 man capacity/unit) 18,960 sq ft; d. 3-unit (200 man capacity/unit) 24,310 sq ft; e. 4-unit (200 man capacity/unit) 28,445 sq ft; f. 5-unit (200 man capacity/unit) 36,795 sq ft. However, because these criteria were based on space-per-man and Army strength assignments were based on units rather than men, revisions and clarifications to the space criteria continued through 1958. Debate about changes to the space criteria incited debate about the cost, function, and appearance of reserve centers. As a result, Urbahn, Brayton, and Burrows developed a number of drafts of standardized plans in response to comments from the Army Reserve. The design process was complicated by the fact that DoD and the Bureau of the Budget reviewed and approved the revised standardized plans before they had concluded their debate about the revised space criteria. When DoD finally approved the revised space criteria in 1958, the latest version of the standardized plans were considerably in excess of the space criteria. Although draft drawings were not archived, records of correspondence reveal issues that the Army Reserve sought to rectify in the 1956 plan revision. Recommendations given to the architect were lengthy and very specific. Direction regarding the architectural style of the exterior elevations was unequivocal. In response to one draft of the standardized plans, Army Reserve Major Kushner wrote, As previously stated, architecture should be conservative contemporary design, suitable for location in or adjacent to residential areas. The concept of a modern high school or advanced elementary school building is in keeping with the idea to be developed. To further achieve the desired exterior appearance, the Army required that parking be relocated to the rear of the building, where it would not be visible from the street, and that a shrubbery planning plan be included in the site plan. In later correspondence, the Army added, Architectural appearance is too localized. While a degree of localization may be desirable, this should be minimized. A more conservative contemporary appearance would be acceptable. The Army even sent their own architectural sketches to the Corps of Engineers to pass on to the architects. Additional recommendations referred to the size interior spaces and the proximity of spaces to one another within the building program. Comments regarding the floor plan recommended, among other things, locating the mechanical equipment room more centrally, locating all storage rooms on the first floor, locating the Unit Advisors space adjacent to the main entrance, with the kitchen to the right of the Unit Advisor and the day room to the right of the kitchen, and locating the library adjacent to the Company Commanders space. Similarly, because only 22-calibur rifles would be used, the Army recommended that the length of the rifle range could be reduced from 834 to 500. When the space criteria were finalized in 1958 even more changes were required in the standardized plans. The two most dramatic changes were the inclusion of accordion partitions rather than permanent partition walls between classrooms in order to increase flexibility and allow the elimination of assembly spaces in the

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

smaller centers, and the elimination of all basements to reduce costs and to make it easier to locate suitable construction sites. Much more detailed records regarding interior features also accompany the 1956 plans. Army Reserve correspondence recommended that flooring be ceramic tile in the toilet and shower rooms, asphalt tile in the day room and corridors, and vinyl-asbestos tile in the kitchen and lobby; that interior walls be painted exposed masonry walls in most spaces; and that ceilings be painted plaster ceilings in most spaces but acoustic tiles in the day room. When releasing the revised plans, the Army Reserve also clarified how they were to be used by the local chapters, and how different regions could deviate from the standardized plans. In a statement before the House Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations on 15 April 1957, General Shuler, Chief, Construction Division Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, explained: The States are not required to adhere to these designs. However, the United States Government contributions to the states for Army NG facilities are based on these approved space criteria and construction standards. Where the States exceed those standard designs, they pay 100 percent of the applicable costs. In practice, the vast majority of as-built plans closely conform to the standard plans. It is reasonable to infer that unit commanders felt that the standardized plans functioned well for their needs and fit into their communities. If not, the shortcomings in the standardized plans, for the most part, appear to have been so minor that they did not justify the added design cost to the state or the Army Reserve. Deviations from Standard Architectural Plans If the regional head of the Army Reserve did not feel that the standard plans were appropriate for a specific project, the Corps of Engineers could be directed to either develop an alternative in- house plan or commission a custom design. These alternative designs would then become part of the stock of plans available to the Regional Readiness Command (RRC). The same budgetary constraints that applied to standard plans also applied to custom plans, so deviations from the standard plans were not practical in most situations. For example, in the 96th RRC, located in the mountain states, William J. Monroe, Jr. of Snedaker, Budd, & Monroe, Architects of Salt Lake City was commissioned to design an Army Reserve Center circa 1957. Monroes plan was applied to the Ogden, Utah, and Provo, Utah, Army Reserve Centers in 1957 and the Moore, Utah center in 1958. The plan and style of the design of these facilities are very similar to the standard design; however, these centers have a two-story, T-plan with classrooms and offices across the front and an assembly wing at the rear. A few rare examples of Army Reserve Centers were custom designed. These seem to occur primarily in large urban areas in which another Army Reserve Center had already been constructed using the standardized design, or where construction fell under the purview of another agency because of joint utilization. For example, in 1957 the architectural firm of Smith and Hegner collaborated with the USACE to design the Army Reserve Center on the Denver Federal Center campus in Denver, Colorado. Smith and Hegner was a local firm known for their International style design of private homes, and civic and institutional buildings. The Denver Federal Center was located on land where a World War II-era ordnance plant once stood. Offices for numerous federal agencies were constructed on the property in the postwar era. Because General Service Administration (GSA) offices are located within the Denver Federal Center, it

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

seems likely that GSA oversaw construction using their own policies and procedures rather than the Armys. Many communities were only too eager to have an Army Reserve center built in their town, as evidenced by the many letters requesting reserve centers and the many donations of land from cities and counties. The Army exerted a good deal of effort in designing buildings that would be well received and in marketing their designs. A public relations article in the Army Reservist magazine touted: The specially designed buildings combine class rooms, administrative space and storage space, and are ideally arranged for Army Reserve training. They are a school-type building that have little resemblance to the old type armory, due to their contemporary, functional design. However, although the Army talked about designing attractive buildings that fit into the surrounding communities, they did little to incorporate public input into the planning or design process for Army Reserve Centers. Not surprisingly, the new centers met with public objection in some communities. One especially controversial example was the Robert P. Patterson Army Reserve Center in the Bronx, New York. Construction of the new center required demolition of Brown House, an 1898 building used to house veterans who were students at New York University. In nearby Union, New Jersey, residents of the exclusive Larchmont neighborhood staged a protest at a town meeting to oppose the sale of a parcel of land to the Army for reserve training. In Stamford, Connecticut, a meeting with the mayor drew 400 citizens and 700 telegrams of protest opposed to construction of a reserve center on a residential site. A citizen in Saginaw, Michigan, complained that the site that the City offered to donate to the Army Reserve had been programmed for public housing, but the reserve had refused all the other sites the City had offered. A Los Angeles citizen wrote a letter of complaint to the Army Reserve arguing that local architects should be used rather than standardized plans that had not even proven inexpensive to construct. The highest volume of complaints, though, concerned the lack of landscaping around the new centers, so much so that landscaping was included as a basic requirement rather than an ancillary item in the 1956 revision of the standard plans. The Army alleviated a good deal of community tension by allowing local civic groups to utilize reserve centers. For instance, local rifle clubs or Red Cross chapters could utilize the building when it was not in use by the reserve. Yet neither the public nor the Army Reserve was completely satisfied with the standard design for Army Reserve Centers, and consequently the Army Reserve revised space criteria and commissioned new designs in the years to come.

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

PART II. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION

A. General statement: 1. Architectural character: The armory and OMS contain may character-defining elements of post-World War II American Mid-century Modern architecture; a reinforced concrete structure, an asymmetrical massing of spaces, an open floor plan, a flat roof, smooth and unadorned exterior wall surfaces, fenestration patterns such as large plate-glass windows. It deviates from the style by not having any cantilevered eaves or balconies, nor does it uses fenestration to dematerialize the exterior wall surfaces. Instead, the windows appear to be punched into a solid mass in a traditional manner. 2. Condition of fabric: The overall condition of the historic fabric is in excellent condition, with the exception of the majority of the windows, which were replaced at an unknown date. The facility retains a remarkable degree of integrity in terms of design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.

B. Description of Exterior: 1. Overall dimensions: The main armory is 184- 8 wide by 132 4 deep. 2. Foundation: Concrete slab on grade foundation with concrete footings. 3. Walls: Exterior walls are concrete. Interior walls are concrete or concrete block. 4. Structural system, framing: Concrete tilt-wall construction with steel joists. Assembly hall roof consists of laminated wood girders with wood joists and wood roof decking. 5. Porches, stoops, balconies, porticoes, bulkheads: None. 6. Chimneys: None. 7. Openings: a. Doorways and doors: The majority of the doors are hollow metal with steel jambs. A steel vault security door serves the small arms vault. b. Windows: The main entry consists of large 5x5 original plate glass windows punctured by an door vestibule. Assembly hall windows are three-part industrial steel sash with a middle operable awning window. All other windows in the main armory have been replaced with aluminum windows. 8. Roof: a. Shape, covering: Flat roof with traditional built-up bitumen roofing system with gravel ballast. b. Cornice, eaves: No overhang or eaves.

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

C. Description of Interior: 1. Floor plans: The first floor of the armory consists of three asymmetrical masses. The two-story main mass has an asymmetrical entrance lobby partially open to the second floor lobby on the west wing of the building. The main lobby leads to six-foot wide corridors that run the length of the main two-story structure. An Arms vault and instructors offices are located along the west first floor corridor. Classrooms, dayroom, latrines, lockers and unit storage are along the east first floor corridor. Stairs lead to the second floor lobby that has a balcony to the first floor and overlooks the plate glass entry and vestibule. The west second floor corridor serves a classroom, library, company officers offices and unit storage. The east corridor serves a rifle range, three classrooms and a stairwell at the end. A one-story kitchen, infirmary, storage and womens latrine line a corridor that connects the main mass with the assembly hall. A large, clear span 52 x 72 assembly hall with an overhead rolling door to the exterior is at the rear of the building.

2. Stairways: Two stairways serve the structure. One is located off the main lobby and the other at the end of the east corridor.
3. Flooring: The assembly hall floor is polished concrete. The remainder of the interior floors of the armory are asphalt tile or linoleum. 4. Wall and ceiling finish: The walls are painted concrete block or concrete. The ceiling of the assembly hall is exposed wood girders with wood joists and exposed diagonal roof decking. The remainder of the armory has suspended acoustical ceilings. 5. Openings: a. Doorways and doors: Doors and doorways are hollow metal doors and steel jambs. b. Windows: The majority of the original windows have been replaced with aluminum windows. 6. Decorative features and trim: The structure is utilitarian in nature and is therefore devoid of decorative features other than a bronze plague at the entrance that details the story of the armorys namesake. The railing of the second floor balcony is welded pipe railing with a 2x4 top rail. 7. Hardware: The majority of the doors retain their original 1950s utilitarian hardware. 8. Mechanical equipment: a. Heating, air conditioning, ventilation: The structure has retrofitted forced air system. Suspended gas space heaters heat the assembly hall. Ventilation is by operable windows. b. Lighting: Utilitarian florescent lighting serves the majority of the building. Metal halide fixtures light the assembly room. c. Plumbing: The latrines retain the original plumbing fixtures and wall mounted sinks.

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

D. Site:
Desiderio USARC is a 5.1-acre parcel located at 655 Westminster Drive, Pasadena, California (Figures 1 and 2). The site was formerly the grounds and recreation area of the Vista del Arroyo Hotel and Resort complex built in 1903. The hotel property was acquired by the U.S. War Department in 1943 to serve as hospital facilities for servicemen during World War II. In 1956, the site was divided and the Desiderio USARC was built on the western lot below grade from the hotel buildings. The Desiderio USARC has four permanent buildings: 22,152 square-foot USARC building 3,798 square-foot Organizational Maintenance Shop (OMS) 2,226 square-foot storage building Hazardous material (HAZMAT) shed The USARC building is a two-story concrete and concrete block structure with a stucco exterior. The interior consists of office space, classrooms, kitchen area, and storage. The OMS is a single- story concrete structure with a stucco exterior. The building is used for storage, office space, and classroom space. The storage building is a single-story with a steel frame and metal siding. The concrete block HAZMAT storage building is not currently used. A vehicle washing area is located at the southeast corner of the property. A cell tower location was leased from the Army and constructed on the northeast portion of the site. In addition, the site includes paved parking areas for military equipment and privately owned vehicles. Approximately 80 percent of the site is covered by impervious surfaces; the remaining ground surface is grass-covered lawn areas. From ground level, the site is only visible from the adjacent roads due to elevation changes and surrounding trees. The Desiderio USARC is not visually or architecturally consistent with buildings on surrounding properties and is considered by the community to be unattractive in appearance. The Desiderio USARC is surrounded by significant historic buildings and a protected natural habitat. Significant historic buildings remain from the historic Vista del Arroyo Hotel and Resort complex built in 1903 and include the main hotel and several smaller bungalows. All have been restored and listed on the NRHP. Along the northern portion of the site is the Colorado Street Bridge built in 1913 and also restored and listed on the NRHP. The bridge is one of the most painted and photographed features in Southern California. Immediately south of the Desiderio USARC is a low-density historic single-family neighborhood built largely between 1890 and 1930. Portions of the area are listed on the NRHP with the majority of the remaining buildings being eligible for listing. This quiet neighborhood and the Desiderio USARC are bordered on the west by the Arroyo Seco, a natural watershed and major tributary of the Los Angeles River. This deep canyon is the Citys largest natural open space, stretching 8 miles through the City and 22 miles in total linking the San Gabriel Mountains to downtown Los Angeles.

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

Figure 1. Site Plan of Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California.

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

Figure 2. Aerial View of Desiderio Army Reserve Center.

Figure 3. Area Map Showing Desiderio Army Reserve Center and the Seco Arroyo, Pasadena, California.

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

PART III. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

A. Architectural Drawings: On file at 63rd USARC Department of Public Works Office, Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, California. B. Interviews: None. C. Bibliography:

HHM Inc., Austin Texas 2007 Nationwide Historic Context Study of United States Army Reserve Centers. Prepared under Contract to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville District under Cooperative Agreement W912DY-06-2-0014.

D. Likely Sources Not Yet Investigated: None. PART IV. PROJECT INFORMATION

Photography and written documentation by Joseph Scott Murphey, Historical Architect, US Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Photography performed in September 2011.

DESIDERIO USARC PHOTOGRAPHY 2011

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

INDEX TO PHOTOGRAPHS

DESIDERIO ARMY RESERVE CENTER PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MURPHEY, PHOTOGRAPHER

SEPTEMBER 2011

1. Panoramic View Looking Southeast to South from the Colorado St. Bridge. 2. Panoramic View Looking East to South from under Colorado St Bridge. 3. Front Faade of Main Building Looking Northwest. 4. Oblique View of Main Building Looking North. 5. Front View of Main Building Entrance Looking Northwest. 6. Distant View of Main Building Looking Northwest. 7. Rear of Main Building Looking West. 8. Main Building rear Looking South. 9. Main Building Looking South. 10.Oblique View of West faade Looking Northwest. 11. Lobby Interior Showing Second Floor Balcony. 12.View From First Floor Lobby Looking Down West Corridor. 13. Small Arms Vault Door. 14. Interior of Small Arms Vault. 15. First Floor Lobby Looking Down East Corridor. 16. First Floor Latrine. 17. First Floor Day Room. 18. Kitchen. First Floor. 19. Assembly Hall. 20. Assembly Hall Ceiling. 21. Second Floor Lobby. 22. Second Floor Classrooms with Divider. 23. Former Rifle Range on Second Floor. 24. Classroom #5 on Second Floor. 25. Second Floor Corridor. 26. Stair at End of Second Floor East Corridor. 27. Oblique View of OMS Building Looking Northeast. 28. Oblique View of OMS Building Looking Southeast. 29. HAZMAT Storage Shed. 30. Oblique View of Metal Automotive Shed.

Photograph 1. Panoramic View Looking Southeast to South from the Colorado Street Bridge.

Photograph 2. Panoramic View Looking East to South From Under Colorado Street Bridge.

Photograph 3. Front Facade of Main Building Looking Northwest.

Photograph 4. Oblique View of Main Building Looking North.

Photograph 5. View of Main Building Entrance Looking Northwest.

Photograph 6. Distant View of Main Building Looking Northwest.

Photograph 7. Rear of Main Building Looking West.

Photograph 8. Main Building Rear Looking South.

Photograph 9. Main Building Looking East.

Photograph 10. Oblique View of West Faade Looking Northeast.

Photograph 11. Lobby Interior Showing Second Floor Balcony.

Photograph 12. View From First Floor Lobby Down West Corridor.

Photograph 13. Small Arms Vault Door.

Photograph 14. Interior of Small Arms Vault.

Photograph 15. First Floor Lobby Looking Down East Corridor.

Photograph 16. First Floor Latrine.

Photograph 17. First Floor Day Room.

Photograph 18. Kitchen. First Floor.

Photograph 19. Assembly Hall.

Photograph 20. Assembly Hall Ceiling.

Photograph 21. Second Floor Lobby.

Photograph 22. Second Floor Classrooms with Divider.

Photograph 23. Former Rifle Range on Second Floor.

Photograph 24. Classroom #5 on Second Floor.

Photograph 25. Second Floor Corridor.

Photograph 26. Stair at end of Second Floor East Corridor.

Photograph 27. Oblique View of OMS Building Looking Northeast.

Photograph 28. Oblique View of OMS Building Looking Southeast.

Photograph 29. HAZMAT Storage Shed.

Photograph 30. Oblique View of Metal Automotive Shed.

Desiderio Army Reserve Center, Pasadena, California

DESIDERIO USARC

FOUR SHEETS OF ORIGINAL AS-BUILT DRAWINGS 1956