Stone Houses of Northern Utah

Utah Historical Quarterly

Vol. 40, 1972, No. 1

Stone Houses of Northern Utah

BY AUSTIN E. FIFE

ADOBE, STONE, LOGS, and even sawed wood and brick are from the earth and of it. Their earth origins are still visible in the finished products, and dwelling houses built thereof bespeak man at one with his environment rather than in arrogant conflict. With steel, concrete, macadam, plastics, fiberboard, and a host of other industrial concoctions, man's marriage with the earth is leached out, and his architectural creations stand out upon the landscape like tumors, despite titillations wrought by form, line, pattern, or simply mass.

The creative work I wish to discuss is of the earth and at one with it: rough-hewn stone, gleaned or cut at or near the site of the building and shaped in the most rudimentary way by master craftsmen, unashamed of the earth whence they came and to which they would return, welcome because of the sobriety and humility of their stewardship. My interest in these buildings was first incited by a student, not from this region, who presented an exciting term paper in a course on folklore I taught at Utah State University in 1958. The paper was on the stone houses of Willard. Since that time, whenever opportunity has presented itself, I have examined stone houses, photographed them, and, lately, measured them to draw elevations and floor plans. The results of these recent investigations I wish to present here. Most of my observations are based on houses in Cache and Box Elder counties, although I have also made excursions into Weber and Davis counties.

The stone was quarried locally, and in each of the communities there is a visible kinship between the stone of the houses; of a few of the older business establishments; of churches, temples, and tabernacles; and of the adjacent fields and mountains. In the building of the temples rather large quarries were established in mountains to the east of Logan and Salt Lake, and no doubt some of the stones used in the construction of these homes were quarried at the same sites.

Reflecting upon the basic features of these stone houses, one discovers two principles which seem to have prevailed, whether consciously applied by the builders or — perhaps more likely — through the spontaneous exercise of their craftsmanship, coupled to the fact that both labor and materials were scarce. In any case one notes first the principle of economy, that pleasing and practical results were achieved by a frugal use of labor and materials. I am convinced that the beauty of ancient Greek architecture — sculptural details excepted — lies in the application of this principle of economy, a Spartan simplicity by which maximum practical and esthetic results are achieved in the simplest and most sober possible way.

The second principle is one of symmetry. The dwellings in question are the product of the rationalistic movement of the closing years of the nineteenth century, a time during which artists strived to produce pleasing effects upon the mind through logical and geometrical order. Note the words "mind," "logical," and "geometrical." In all of these houses there is an evident respect for the principle of symmetry: in the placement of doors and windows on the fagades and gables, in the proportional relationships of length to width and height, and in the sober addition of ornamental features. If rigorous geometrical or visual symmetry was sacrificed then it was done for evident practical reasons or because esthetic and geometric principles of symmetry did not wholly coincide. Typically, for example, on the gable ends of these houses a single window in both lower and upper floors may be offset to the right or to the left of the ridge. Where this occurs it was done because it was expedient to build the flue from foundation to ridge in a vertical plane.

I have sometimes spoken of this manifestation of the construction of dwelling houses in northern Utah as an art of the folk. This may be a half-truth. There is little doubt that the stonemasons of northern Utah at that time were among the most literate and best educated of the craftsmen in the area. It is likely, nevertheless, that they built these houses without benefit of architectural advice and without written plans or specifications. The designs of the houses were carried very largely in the minds of these master craftsmen, and the floor plans and facades that resulted therefrom derived from the willful use of certain design alternatives learned by heart. As an aside, let me say that essentially all of us behave as "folk," as illiterates that is, in many realms despite our sophistication in other areas. These houses were built for the folk by builders whose know-how, though well developed, was built into their minds by seeing, talking, and doing — not by reading or studying blueprints.

The basic floor plan was a rectangle approximately half as wide as it was long, 17' x 34' being perhaps the most typical, although I have measured them from as small as 12' x 24' to as large as 24' x 42'.

The most typical and simplest house of the category I shall call Type 1. It is a one-story rectangle, with door centered in the fagade and one window on each side. A partition is built across the house, usually a bit off-center to the left of the door. Door and windows in the rear of the home are located opposite those of the facade, though in very modest homes windows at the rear are lacking. The gable ends sometimes have no windows at all, though more frequently there is a window offset to the left on one gable and to the right on the other instead of the rear windows mentioned above. In these smallest homes there is frequently a single flue in the center of the gable, extending downward to the foundation in the partition.

Type 2 is a rectangle, not unlike the one described above, except that the dimensions are increased to about 11' x 34' and the vertical height is increased to provide for a dwarfed second story. Doors and windows may coincide with those of Type 1, or they may now include a central front and rear door, with two windows on either side instead of one. The partition is offset similarly, but a stairway fixed to it faces the front door and gives access to attic sleeping quarters, usually partitioned vertically above the two rooms of the lower floor. The windows of the upper floor are square or rectangular, most typically 24" x 24", or 24" x 36".

Type 3 is still a rectangular home, but this time of bona fide twostory height, with rooms on the upper floor which are truly usable, though at the outer edges the forty-five degree angle of the gable may intercede at about shoulder height. Windows of the upper floor frequently reach the same size as the corresponding windows on the floor below. There may be lovely gabled windows protruding from the roof, and sometimes even sufficient height in the vertical walls to provide second floor windows below the eave. In this type, it is interesting to note that the principle of symmetry sometimes operated to such an extent that above the door in the facade — in lieu of a window — a second-floor door is also installed, though it gives access to nothing whatsoever or to a tiny balcony at best. I suppose it could have been opened and used to shake rugs and bedding, though it had no other apparent practical use.

Houses of Type 4 are achieved by the juxtaposition of two rectangles side by side, the rectangle in the rear being slightly narrower and covered by a roof of more moderate slope than that over the main rectangle. This arrangement produces a six-room house, four in the front wing which is two stories high and two in the rear which is always one story. The two front rooms of the lower floor were typically bedroom and parlor, and those in the rear were kitchen and dining area. The two rooms upstairs served as bedrooms.

Houses of Type 5 consist of a rectangular main wing two stories in height, with the kitchen in a rear extension of only one story. The end result is a five-room house with a T-shaped floor plan. The arrangement of doors and windows of the facade is the same as in the houses previously discussed. An interior door directly opposite the main entrance gives access to the kitchen in the rear. This rear portion typically has a window and a door on each side, and sometimes a window at the rear. Frequently there are porches on either side of the kitchen, built either at the time of original construction or added later. Occasionally the rear portion is two stories high also, thus producing a six-room house; one lovely though humble T-shaped house in Smithfield is but one story throughout. Thus houses of Type 5 may have three, five, or six rooms, depending on the number of floors in the main wing and rear annex.

It may be these T-formation houses which have provoked the notion of a "polygamous" house type because they always have three or more exterior doors, one or two in the main facade and one each on either side of the base of the T, and sometimes one in the main facade of the second floor —- perhaps so hysterical or supernumerary wives could jump out! Actually the number of exterior doors in these houses serves a utilitarian purpose, obviating the necessity of interior hallways and also providing private access to barnyard and hygienic facilities somewhere in the rear.

In houses of Type 6 an L-shaped floor plan is used, with two-story height throughout. It was "a natural" for corner lots, and provided ready access to root cellar and barnyard area from the inside of the L.

It is notable that each of the house types described is achieved through the use of simple rectangular modules, juxtaposed, superimposed, or else overlapping each other by exactly one-half. Hence a builder who had mastered the details of a simple two-room rectangular home could, with a bit of ingenuity, extend the pattern to a full-blown six-room house of Types 4, 5, or 6. Neither architect nor drawings would be required.

Let me comment now on a few structural details. Walls are from 16" to 22" thick, with windows usually set near the outer edge. This provides an inside window ledge 12" to 16" wide, about 30" above the floor, on which one could set potted plants, pictures, or other bric-a-brac. In the nicer homes this aperture in the stone for windows was flared: 12" to 16" wider, that is, inside the room than at the outside wall. This provides an even more commodious window ledge, with flared vertical wooden panels on either side, from 16" to 20" wide and ornamented in the more pretentious houses with polychrome.

Stairways typically rise along the interior partition from a landing before the front door. In the more commodious houses both a narrow stair to the upper floor and a hallway to the kitchen extend from the front door. Occasionally the stair rises from the rear towards the front, though it occupies the same space within the structure. In all cases it is remarkable how little interior space is given to non-living space, i.e., to stairs and hallways. It is also notable that closets, cabinets, and other built-ins were absent, though frequently added in subsequent alterations. Interior bath and toilet facilities were not provided initially in any of these houses,

Flues, almost without exception, are located in the ridge of the gable and at the gable-ends of the structure. There are, of course, both practical and esthetic reasons for this, A flue must rise to a sufficient height above the wooden structure of the roof to insure against fire. It must also extend downward all the way to the foundation. Neither windows nor doors are apt to intercede in the vertical plane below it. Windows in the gable ends of these houses are nearly always offset to the right or to the left of the gable.

Exterior ornamentation is sober, if not indeed Spartan: axe-hewn or sawed lintels and sills and a bit of unadorned wood trim. Sometimes sills and lintels are made from large rectangular stones selected or carved for the particular place in which they are used. By the late 1870s the vogue for Greek or Gothic Revival reached Utah, and the builders were able to purchase mill-run wooden trim: lintels, sills, friezes, cornices, finials, columns, and entire portico assembly packages. These give a touch of restrained elegance that our affluent generation, spoiled by an excess of suburban baroque, ought discreetly to excuse.

More research is needed to illuminate the origin of the masonry skills and structural design of these houses, though some fairly obvious corollary facts are available. The art of building in stone had received impetus in Utah through the construction of temples, tabernacles, churches, civic and business buildings, and a few elegant personal dwellings. The Fort Douglas residential circle is especially notable and left its mark, I think, upon some of these modest stone dwellings, especially those of Willard. Typical, by the way, in the evolution of folk arts is the imitation of sophisticated models by the folk. Less often, though upon occasion, aristocratic patterns are based upon folk models, and the flow of influence is reversed. There is, of course, a tradition for stone house construction going back to the eastern seaboard, and thence to western Europe, especially Great Britain. It is a well-documented fact that most stonemasons working in Utah prior to the 1890s were born in western Europe, whence they brought their basic skills, however much they may have depended on American tradition for floor plans. In any case, style and design of these houses — everything about them, in fact, except the stone itself — we owe to our European forebears, one current coming from Europe through the eastern seaboard of America (our colonial heritage) and the other coming directly as lore of western European folk converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and migrating to Utah in the mid-1800s.

The stone houses discussed here constitute, in my estimation, a unique, authentic,and candid expression of the moods of the era of logical positivism in the American West. The minimal housing needs of pioneers who earned their living by their own labors are satisfied therein with efficiency and a Spartan kind of elegance appropriate to the then prevailing economy of scarcity. Their every line bespeaks the will to survive with dignity and the rationale of a well-ordered household in a well-ordered society.

There are about one hundred of these houses, built before 1890, still standing in Utah north of Salt Lake City. This does not include civic, church, or business structures, nor a score of elegant residences designed by architects and built for affluent families. As many as seventy may still be occupied; the others are rapidly going to ruin and are bulldozed away whenever the site is needed for other purposes. There may once have been as many as four hundred such homes, about thirty-five of which were in Willard alone. What a beautiful sight it must have been!

It has not been my intent to give historical data on the construction of each house, biographies of the builders, or other details. I had hoped, rather, by descriptive and comparative techniques alone to help the reader see these houses with sensitivity and insight.

I have chosen fifteen houses to be memorialized in this article, illustrating the six basic house-types, plus a few significant variations. It is my hope that through this publication the Utah State Historical Society, the Utah Heritage Foundation, and other like-minded groups may incite preservation programs which will give a long life to visible manifestations of memorable pioneer creativity such as this. If I fail then this article, at least, may serve as the memorial.

For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.