Concrete Block Houses 3: Post-War Styles, 1945-1970

By Michael Bridgeman

In ABC of Architecture James F. O’Gorman makes an important point about structure: “...it can be revealed or it can be concealed. In nature there are creatures such as turtles who wear their supporting systems, their skeletons, on the outside, and there are others, humans for example, who hide their structure within. Buildings, too, can be exo- or endoskeletal.” [a]

This is the third post about houses with concrete block exoskeletons. They are easy to identify since their structure is visible, while houses with concrete block endoskeletons are, by their nature, harder to distinguish. Looking at houses that reveal their concrete block “shell” raises questions about what makes such a facade appealing and, perhaps, beautiful. The answers have changed over the years. Houses built in the early the 20th century were the subject of my first post and houses from the 1930s were highlighted in the second. This final entry considers concrete block houses built over the 25 years following World War II. They represent three styles: Ranch, Usonian, and Contemporary. Each style has distinguishing characteristics, though they borrowed from each other and hybrids were frequently produced. What those described below have in common is visible structures of concrete block.

Ranch Houses

By the 1940s, concrete block had been used in residential construction through four decades of changing styles and tastes. After World War II that meant lots of Ranch houses, big and small, that met pent-up demand for single family housing in cities and suburbs alike. The Ranch house first appeared in California in the mid-1930s and by “the decades of the 1950s and 1960s it became by far the most popular house style built throughout the country.” [b]

In 1950, two concrete block houses were completed in Madison that neatly demonstrate concrete blocks that conceal and reveal their structure. One is on the west side at 4302 Tokay Blvd. and the other is on the north side at 814 Northport Drive The two-bedroom Ranch houses are nearly identical. A short wall on the west side house now encloses what had been a small open porch; the garage on the north side house was built with its door facing the rear. The chimneys on the two houses are clad in different kinds of masonry. But what truly differentiates these fraternal twins is their concrete block skeletons.

An open house at the west side location prompted an article in the Wisconsin State Journal [c] that acknowledged the sturdiness of concrete block houses, adding that they “are not known as beauty winners when the unfinished block is left exposed as the exterior.” The builder compensated with camouflage: “The exterior block walls are covered with a waterproof cement coat, finished with two coats of cement paint. The horizontal lines of the masonry are emphasized in the final finish.” The result is a solid, unbroken surface that completely conceals the structural blocks. The north side house is less abashed about its concrete block underpinnings. The mortar joints are mostly flush with the face of the blocks, which can still be individually discerned under the concrete paint. As at the west side house, deep mortar joints between every other row of blocks create conspicuous horizontal lines.

At first look, the distinctive facade on a Ranch house at 5102 Tomahawk Trail (1950) looks like it may be stone veneer, a decorative surface over a load-bearing wood frame. On closer examination,the CMUs have the same dimensions as eight-inch full blocks and likely provide the structural support for the perimeter walls. The aggregate mimics granite with flecks of white, red, and black; the narrow ends of corner blocks are whiter to make a quoining effect. The blocks were manufactured with false mortar lines to look like patterned ashlar. According to the current owners, a previous occupant applied red paint to the grooves that subdivide individual blocks. A nearby house at 5013 Risser Rd. (1954) has similar concrete blocks with unpainted grooves. [d]

Unadorned “cinder block” as a visible structural material carried though the 1960s as illustrated by two Ranch houses with simple profiles. The small house at 142 S. Franklin St. (1967) gets a mid-century feel from the grid of mortar lines between the stacked concrete blocks. The house at 501 Dean Ave. in Monona (1960) leans toward the Contemporary style (see more below) thanks to the shallow pitch of the roof. The house is built of concrete blocks and the chimney is clad in brick.

Usonian Houses

The Macauley house [1]

The Usonian style was born before World War II, [e] and its influence was widespread after the war, though it was not nearly as popular as the ubiquitous Ranch. Usonian has come to describe buildings, particularly houses, that show the influence of Frank Lloyd Wright’s design principles including simple materials, responsiveness to the landscape, and connections between inside and outside spaces.

Side-by-side Usonian houses, designed by two architects closely associated with Wright, back onto Hoyt Park and use standard concrete blocks or CMUs (concrete masonry units) as they had come to be known. The more visible residence is the R. Stewart & Jacqueline Macaulay house at 314 Shepard Terrace (1963) designed by John Howe. It presents a narrow, angular facade to the street and rests on a low hill. The house is made of tinted blocks with wood used for the short wall under the second-story windows and the decorative cornices. Exposed blocks are also form some interior walls, emphasizing continuity of materials.

The Plaut house

The next-door Walter & Nicole Plaut house at 302 Shepard Terrace (1963) is nearly obscured by vegetation. This design by William Wesley Peters uses pronounced circular motifs with metal hoops highlighting window and door openings. The base of the half-round porch that faces the street has alternating rows of straight CMUs laid on a curve that makes a decorative basketweave pattern.

 

Contemporary Houses

Contemporary houses typically have low-pitched or flat roofs, wide eaves under exposed beams, and understated front facades with entryways sometimes deeply recessed. Like their Usonian cousins, they owe much to the late work of Wright. McAlester points out two pluses for the Contemporary style: “In addition to being adaptable to steep hillsides, the Contemporary was as appropriate for a two-story house as for a one-story house, unlike the Ranch.” [f]

Architect Herb Fritz Jr., who was also associated with Wright, was responsible for two Madison exemplars of Contemporary style that show cross fertilization with Usonian ideas. The David and Judith Heidelberger house at 118 Vaughn Court (1951) uses plain CMUs to great effect. The low street facade is unpainted block with the entry tucked deep under a wide porch. The rear façade soars, making the most of the sloped site with a shed roof over tilted walls of glass that illuminate two interior levels. The concrete block wraps around the flat-roofed wing and continues to the inside where it also forms many interior walls.

At the same time he was designing the Heidelberger house, Fritz devised a similar residence on a narrower lot for Wilbur and Marjorie Dudley at 2811 Ridge Road (1951). Here the concrete blocks have been tinted a shade of terra cotta with contrasting mortar that delineates each block. The street facade is even more unassuming than the Heidelberger entry. At the rear, solid concrete opens up to a wall of windows.

Apartment building on South Hancock Street

A two-unit apartment building at 113 S. Hancock St. (1955) makes a Contemporary statement on a constrained site in the First Settlement neighborhood. (Note the tiny Mansard roof on the house next door.) Straight lines in concrete and wood are enhanced by the crisp mortar joints between the stacked concrete blocks. This modest building is not shy with its bright coat of orange, a nod to its mid-century birthdate.

Non-structural concrete blocks were also common during this period. Among the most popular were decorative screen blocks or breeze blocks, the subject of a post in 2020. Decorative CMUs were also widely used as veneers over conventional framing. They are now available in a dizzying array of colors, patterns, shapes, and surface treatments and used on stores, hotels, churches, schools, retaining walls, and other structures—though not often on single-family houses. Simple cinder blocks are not often seen on recent single-family homes, though may play a supporting role in structural walls.

Post-Script

These posts on concrete block houses have spotlighted many single-family homes and a few apartments. Addresses are provided to locate them within the metropolitan area and to make it possible to see them in person. If you stop to view a house, it is important to respect the privacy of the residents and remain in the public right of way.

- - -

Notes

[a] James F. O’Gorman. ABC of Architecture. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pa. 1998. p.61-62.

[b] Virginia Savage McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses (revised). Alfred A. Knopf, New York, N.Y. 2015. p.602-603.

[c] “Showing of Concrete House Planned Next Week,” Wisconsin State Journal, Jan. 15, 1950, p. 17. Built by Capitol Construction Company, the house was promoted as “practically maintenance free and fire safe.”

[d] Patterned (or broken) ashlar was not a new idea. See the first post on concrete block houses for a 1915 chart of “Designs We Furnish Our Block Machines” which shows four variations on broken ashlar. Scroll down a bit to see a 1907 house with blocks that mimicked granite in a different way.

[e] The first Usonian House is “Jacobs I,” the Herbert and Katherine Jacobs House in Madison’s Westmorland neighborhood, built in 1936-37. The Jacobses completed a second house designed by Wright in 1948, known as “Jacobs II.”

[f] McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses (revised). p.634.

Special thanks to Andrew Reischl and Jesse Dirkman for a close-up view of their concrete block house and for helpful replies to multiple follow-up questions.

Image Credits

[1] Wisconsin Historical Society Architecture & History Index. AHI #112559. 2011.

[2] Wisconsin Historical Society Architecture & History Index. AHI #148721. 2011.

[3] Wisconsin Historical Society Architecture & History Index. AHI #148721. 2011.

[4] Wisconsin Historical Society Architecture & History Index. AHI #222300. 2013.

Other photographs by Michael Bridgeman.

Madison Trust