THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NORTH LOUISIANA RIVER PARISHES


                                VOLUME I
                            OUACHITA PARISH

    [Illustration: Map showing location of Ouachita Parish]

                       Dedicated To The Memory Of
                          WILLIAM KING STUBBS
                              (1910-1986)
                 Who practiced Architecture in Ouachita
                        Parish for over 50 years




                          ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...


                       LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY
                     SCHOOL OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE

                                STUDENTS

  Peter Aamodt
  Lance Ballard
  Andrea Beaver
  George Bendeck
  Paul Bratton
  Jeff Brown
  Steve Butler
  Tom Clark
  Darryl Cockerham
  Steve Dixon
  Jim Funderburk
  Charles Gaushell
  Scott Gay
  Amy Grafton
  John Greer
  Harmon Haley
  Juan Hidalgo
  Billy Mack Hogue
  Donna Hammons
  Rico Harris
  Teresa Harris
  Johnny Hembree
  Teresa Henderson
  Keith Matthews
  Brian McGuire
  Philip Morse
  Roberto Mossi
  Cheong Muikit
  Laura Netto
  Jn Obasi
  David Peterson
  Wayne Renaud
  Terry Roye
  Ken Smith
  Lloyd Smith
  Shawn Sprinkel
  Alexis Torres
  Brian Veal
  Ellen Wilson

                                FACULTY

                  F. Lestar Martin, Professor, Editor
           Peter Schneider, Head, Department of Architecture
     Dr. Joseph Strother, Director, School of Art and Architecture

            Partial funding for publication was provided by:

               Central Bank of Monroe—West Monroe—Ruston
           Convention and Visitors Bureau of Ouachita Parish
                Downtown Development Authority of Monroe

This book was also has been financed (in part) with Federal funds from
the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, administrated
through the Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation, Office of
Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. The
contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies
of the Department of the Interior.

This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification
and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap in its federally
assisted programs.


                       LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY
                                 Ruston
                                  1988




                            INTRODUCTION...


A most useful tool for understanding the culture of a region is the
study of its architecture. Buildings in which people live, work, learn,
and worship reflect their tastes, economics status, and aspirations. And
it is through research of extant architecture of an area that knowledge
of past culture is ascertained.

The Louisiana Tech University Department of Architecture has received
grants from the State Division of Historic Preservation and the Division
of the Arts to conduct field surveys of various parishes in North
Louisiana. The purpose of the surveys has been to ascertain the types,
location and quality of buildings 50 years or more in age. The
architecture students toured the highways and back roads and
photographed houses, outbuildings, churches, schools and commercial
buildings. They interviewed occupants and area historians in search of
information concerning original builder/owners. Each building was then
documented, and the compilation of documentation was cataloged by the
Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation in Baton Rouge.

Each student was required to prepare eight pen or pencil sketches of
buildings of individual choice. The original drawings, of which there
are now over 1300, were placed in the William King Stubbs Architectural
Archives, the permanent collection of North Louisiana architectural
drawings at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston.

The Ouachita Parish publication is the initial volume of a series
entitled “The Architecture of the North Louisiana River Parishes.” The
Ouachita River divides the parish into two distinct regions, the western
portion being hilly country with the eastern portion being flat river
delta terrain.

Thus, a unique opportunity exists to study in one parish various
lifestyles and cultures as reflected in historic architecture. Not only
is there the rural architecture of the western hills which contrast with
the rural architecture of the delta lands, but these elements may be
examined in relation to the urban architecture of Monroe and West
Monroe—The Twin Cities on the Ouachita.

Following is the history of the settlement of the parish and
descriptions of the areas west of the Ouachita, east of the Ouachita,
and the urban fabric of the Twin Cities. A catalog of extant buildings
according to plan type and characteristic details concludes the booklet.

So, join us now for a tour of the architecture of Ouachita Parish.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 1. Rear view of Cadeville Masonic Lodge, west
    of the Ouachita._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 2. A rural bungalow, east of the Ouachita._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 3. In the old city cemetery, Monroe._]




         THE SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUACHITA PARISH....


    [Illustration: _Map of Monroe and West Monroe, 1895_.]


18th AND 19TH CENTURY SETTLEMENT

The area now identified as Ouachita Parish had been occupied by
aborigines since pre-historic times. Early European explorers included
DeSoto (1542), La Salle (1682), and Bienville (1703). But it remained
for Don Juan Filhoil with a commission from the Spanish governor to
establish the first permanent settlement on the banks of the Ouachita.
When Filhoil arrived in 1783, he named the site for the outpost Prairie
des Canots for the Indian and trapper canoes gathered there. The
military post was later named Ft. Miro in honor of the Spanish governor
of Louisiana.

A colonization scheme formulated by the Spanish government enticed the
Marquis de Maison Rouge to establish a settlement further north near the
conflux of the Ouachita River and Bayou Bartholomew, the site of the
present town of Sterlington. But this settlement lost its position as a
rival for the seat of parish government after Filhoil laid out a plot in
1811 for a town on his plantation adjacent to Ft. Miro.

An exciting event occurred at the townsite in May, 1819, one which was
to have a two-fold effect on the 400 inhabitants of Ft. Miro. The event
was the docking of the _James Monroe_, the first steamboat to ply the
Ouachita to this northerly point.

The ensuing excitement effected a village name change to “Monroe.” And
for nearly a century the Ouachita River and steam powered boats combined
to form a great highway of commerce and transportation for the region.

Overland transportation systems developed throughout the territory
during the 1800’s. The earlier Indian trails often became bridle paths.
In 1839 a road was cut through from Monroe to Vicksburg, but it was
passable only in dry weather. Stage coach service was initiated in 1849.
During this era a road was established westward through the hills beyond
the river; another went northward toward Arkansas. These westerly roads
later became wagon roads bringing caravans of wagons from Jackson and
Claiborne Parishes to river trade centers such as the former town of
Trenton, two miles north of the present town of West Monroe. But it
would be the advent of the Vicksburg to Shreveport railroad in the
1880’s which would provide the communication link between the east and
west portions of the Ouachita Parish. In 1853 the state legislature
granted the first charter for the construction of the Vicksburg, Texas,
and the Pacific Railroad through North Louisiana. The first passenger
service from Vicksburg to Monroe was in 1860. The tracks were destroyed
by Union forces in the Civil War but were reconstructed and replaced in
service by 1870. In 1882 the railroad bridge spanning the Ouachita was
opened. It contained wood planking for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation. Rail passenger service from Monroe to Shreveport commenced
on July 10, 1884.

Ironically, the installation of the railroad service initiated the
demise of two regional institutions, the town of Trenton on the west
side of the river and the steamboat industry. Trenton, which had been
platted into town lots in 1851, declined with the location of the
railroad two miles south. Cottonport, a tiny community at the bridgehead
on the west side of the Ouachita, changed its name to West Monroe and
eventually developed into an important business and industrial
community.

Steamboat traffic on the Ouachita, which had begun in 1819, yielded to
the speed and flexibility of railroad service. The glamorous
steamboating era of nearly a century of luxurious but sometimes tragic
travel came to an end in the 1910’s.


20TH CENTURY DEVELOPMENT

Thus, the parish of Ouachita, which had been created in 1807 and which
was subsequently divided into nine parishes, entered the 20th century as
a rural agricultural region containing small urban entities. Surrounding
Monroe were large plantations with cotton production as the major source
of wealth. But with the discovery of gas by Louis Locke in 1916 in
Morehouse Parish, the area became known as the Monroe Gas Field, one of
the largest gas fields in the world at the time. With this wealth came
progress—paved streets, “skyscrapers” and a salt water natatorium in the
city of Monroe. And the parish prospered as well. Industries using
available natural gas and paper mills using yellow pine from the nearby
hilly region located in the area.

Transportation routes have continued to unite the parish to the region
and to the world. U.S. Highway 80 was constructed in the 1930’s as a
major east-west artery. Delta Air Lines began in Monroe as a small
cotton dusting operation. And Interstate 20, completed in the 1960’s,
now serves as an important coast-to-coast transportation route.

Ouachita Parish has been called the “mother parish” of northeast
Louisiana. It has contributed much to the welfare of the region, and it
continues to offer the leadership of a pacemaker parish as the
twenty-first century approaches.

    [Illustration: _Map of Ouachita Parish, 1980’s_.]




                        WEST OF THE OUACHITA....


    [Illustration: Map]


CONTRASTS ACROSS THE RIVER

The rolling piney hill landscape of Ouachita Parish west of the river
contrasts with the delta overflow land east of the river. This contrast
was reflected in settlement patterns with different land allocations and
building techniques. The delta lands had been acquired by pioneers in
the late 18th century and a plantation economy evolved. The less
productive western hilly area was settled in the 19th century as small
farm holdings. The eastern lands were subject to river overflows; houses
were elevated and were generally of wood frame construction. Pioneer
houses west of the river were often constructed of logs on wood or stone
piers in close proximity to the ground.

Thus, contrasting cultures existed on opposite banks of the river. In
this section the architecture of the western bank will be explored
through an explanation of its extant architecture as evidenced in
housing, out-buildings, churches and commercial buildings.


THE LOG HOUSE, 19TH CENTURY

The early North Louisiana pioneers were more concerned with the erection
of a shelter for protection from the elements and wildlife than they
were with architectural styles. Folk houses were constructed of either
horizontal logs or wood frame.

The typical log folk house plans of the mid 19th century in the hilly
country were the single pen (room) wide and the dogtrot. The dogtrot
plan consisted of the two single pens (rooms) separated by a floored and
roofed but open walled space. (The designation “pen” is used only in
reference to the rooms built of log construction).

Folk house plans constructed of wood frame during the 19th century were
the one room, two room, saddlebag, dogtrot, central hall and later the
gable front and wing. These house types will be examined subsequently.

Pictured on this page are examples of log construction. In figure 4 the
logs were split; the inner room wall surface would be even. In figure 5
may be seen several elements of folk log house construction in the
drawing of a house being dismantled. This dogtrot with open passage
between pens had an attached porch, square logs with square notches, an
end exterior chimney (base visible), three inch round pole roof rafters
and gallery door openings with the head occurring at the seventh log. In
figure 6 a close-up detail shows the square hewn logs and square notches
on this dogtrot.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 4. Log notch detail (Bldg. 76)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 5. An 1880’s square notch log dogtrot (Bldg.
    6)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 6. Square notch detail (Bldg. 6)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig 7. An 1898 central-hall house with integral
    gallery (Bldg. 55)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 8. Late 1890’s gable-front-and-wing house
    (Bldg. 15)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 9. Late 1880’s two room house with vertical
    board and batten siding (Bldg. 77)._]


THE WOOD FRAME HOUSE, 19TH CENTURY

During the late 19th century and early 20th century wood frame
construction was used to build high style and vernacular houses in the
Greek Revival and Queen Anne styles. Figure 7 depicts a late vernacular
Greek Revival house with a symmetrical plan, and figure 8 shows a Queen
Anne house with asymmetrical plan.

The central hall plan in figure 7 has a steep roof with an integral
gallery. Windows are six lights over six lights. A wing was attached to
the rear. The original chimney is still visible.

The gable front and wing plan house in figure 8 was popular in the
period from 1890 to 1920. The key feature was the forward wing which
occupied a portion of the full gallery and the resultant half porch.
Often the front wall of the wing was angled, or cut away, but the full
roof gable remained. Or, an additional polygonal bay was added. Note the
Queen Anne scroll and trim on the porch. This replaced the simple 6″ ×
6″ square post of older house forms. This house plan sometimes featured
a central hall.

Though in a deteriorated state, the two room house in figure 9 has
features worth noting. The siding is vertical board and batten, a
technique of construction which appeared with the erection of lumber and
railroad worker housing in the 1880’s. The front covered area does not
extend the full width of the core; therefore, it is termed a “porch” in
contrast to the “gallery” of the previous two examples. Also, it is
“attached” and not “integral” with the main core roof structure.


THE WOOD FRAME HOUSE, 20TH CENTURY

The 20th century houses shown on this page exhibit a quest for
individuality and contemporary expression. Figure 10 depicts a typical
central hall plan. The roof is hip and not the usual gable. This detail
required a shorter gallery which was not flush with the extreme end
walls. The front door is flanked by full width windows. Shutters were
added to the front gallery windows.

The bungalow plan appeared in North Louisiana in the mid 1910’s. This
two room wide and two or more room deep house type (figure 11)
proliferated in rural and urban areas. In its simplest form there was a
forward facing gable with a porch. Here is depicted a half porch. Double
windows were used.

The 1930’s house illustrated in figure 12 is typical of the one room
wide, several room deep shotgun plan found throughout much of Louisiana.
This plan type became the typical house type for workers in New Orleans
after the Civil War. It was seldom found in the hill parishes away from
the waterways. In the shotgun depicted in figure 12 plywood siding has
been installed over the original horizontal siding on the porch.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 10. A 1910’s central hall house with attached
    gallery (Bldg. 3)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 11. The typical bungalow, two rooms wide with
    gable front (Bldg. 52)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 12. Circa 1930 shotgun, one room wide with
    gable front (Bldg. 50)._]


THE FARM OUTBUILDING

    [Illustration: _Fig. 13. A transverse crib barn with wood shingles
    (Bldg. 73)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 14. Animal shelter with round logs, saddle
    notches (Bldg. 47)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 15. Storage building with wood floor and an
    addition with dirt floor (Bldg. 40)._]

The small farms in the hill country were to a large extent
self-supporting. Certain elements, such as food staples and clothing,
were purchased at area or regional stores. But the rural farmer needed
additional facilities to provide for his other needs. Facilities were
built on the farm separate from the dwelling itself.

Farm outbuildings may be placed in two categories, dwelling-related
outbuildings and farm-related outbuildings. Dwelling-related buildings
were used on a daily basis and included the well house, smoke house,
storage room, chicken house, privy, and sometimes the storm shelter.
Farm related buildings, those necessary for agriculture and caring for
livestock, included barns (single crib, double crib, transverse crib),
storage buildings and often the potato house, blacksmith shop and syrup
mill. “Crib” is a term used as a designation for room in farm
outbuildings.

The drawings on this page depict the nature of the construction of farm
outbuildings. They are basic structures erected by the farmer and his
neighbors from available materials. Usually they are in the rear of the
dwelling. Style and quality and finish of materials were not of great
importance. These buildings were altered as needed.

The largest outbuilding was the barn which was used for the protection
of horses and cattle and the storage of wagons and farm equipment. The
transverse crib barn in figure 13 included, in addition to the log crib,
an open wagon shed, a sealed storage area and a loft for hay storage.
Note the wood shingle roof and combination of rough sawn horizontal
siding, logs, and vertical plank siding.

The small building in figure 14 is similar in design to a smoke house
but was probably used for animal shelter. The round logs have saddle
notches and no chinking between logs. Ventilation was thus provided. The
side addition gave storage area.

The clean, simple storage building in figure 15 was constructed of flush
sawn siding with a raised floor. The opening was for ventilation and
light. The side addition has a dirt floor.


THE RURAL PLACES OF ASSEMBLY AND COMMUNITY

    [Illustration: _Fig. 16. 1920’s rural church with single tower
    (Bldg. 20)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 17. The 1885 Cadeville Masonic Lodge. (Bldg.
    54. Rear view in fig. 1)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 18. The Red Rock General Store, circa 1910,
    with gallery and flagpole (Bldg. 7)._]

The physical area required for the small farm caused the dwellings to be
dispersed among the hills. One result was the existence of the lonely
farmstead and the extended neighborhoods. Community feelings developed
and interactions occurred at places of meeting. These meetings were both
formal and casual. The formal occasions would occur at the church,
school, or in rare cases the Masonic Lodge. Informal gatherings occurred
at the rural general store.

The predominant religions in the hilly country west of the Ouachita were
Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. Church services would be held on
Sunday. Some denominations would also have weekly prayer services.
Additional community happenings were the annual graveyard clearing with
“dinner on the ground” and a revival. At these events family and friends
would discuss newsworthy events. Figure 16 is an example of the small
rural church which was built in the region.

The Masonic Lodge was once an important community establishment. The
Cadeville Lodge, figure 17, is one of the few lodge buildings remaining
in North Louisiana. The first floor could be used for public services or
community meetings. But the second floor was reserved for the private
functions of the lodge members.

The general store not only provided for the physical needs of the rural
inhabitants, but also it contributed to their emotional well-being as
well. The store owner would stock his business by traveling to
distribution centers, often on the Ouachita River, purchasing goods and
selling them to area residents. The regular weekly journey from the farm
to the store would be a time for sharing news and discussing public
events. Thus, supplied both physically and emotionally, the family
member, or members, would return to the rural dwelling.

The general store shown in figure 18 had a porch for neighborly use,
wide openings and a high ceiling for ventilation, and it even featured a
flag pole in the front yard.




                        EAST OF THE OUACHITA...


    [Illustration: Map]


THE RIVER PLANTATION HOUSES, 19TH CENTURY

The alluvial lands on the east side of the Ouachita fostered a
settlement pattern which contrasted greatly with that of the hilly
country west of the river. Large holdings had been claimed during the
latter part of the 18th century and early 19th century. The Ouachita
River then was the only source of regional transportation. Therefore, it
was necessary from a communication transportation aspect that the land
holdings possess headrights on the river.

The resulting land holdings tended to have narrow frontage but deep
extent. Annual spring overflows deposited silt near the river edge, and
this high bank was the obvious location for the main buildings of the
holding. Thus, the land also determined the hierarchy of architectural
development on the holding.

This hierarchy of spaces on the plantation followed a definite pattern.
First, the river landing provided an entry to the owner’s house. Behind
the house would be the workers’ quarters, and beyond these were the
buildings necessary for the operation of the plantation.

Pictured on this page are details of two plantation houses typical of
those which once lined the east bank of the Ouachita. The 1838 Filhoil
raised cottage of figure 19 has a Greek Revival portico with fan light
in the front gable, Doric columns and a balustrade. The house was
elevated for protection from the river overflow.

The Whitehall Plantation house, figure 20, was built in 1858. Greek
Revival style details include the squared transom and sidelights at the
front door, low roof pitch, and pedimented window trim detail on the
front gallery, figure 21. The gallery siding was flush but beaded. The
windows extended to the floor allowing easy passage from interior rooms
to the gallery. Operable, slatted shutters allowed sun control,
ventilation, privacy.

Whitehall is a 1½ story house with dormers, attic rooms, and an integral
gallery. These were typical features for the Greek Revival cottages of
both North and South Louisiana. The central hall plan is another
characteristic of this type, which is generally associated with American
settlement.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 19. The 1830 Jean Baptiste Filhoil Greek
    Revival plantation house (Bldg. 134)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 20. Whitehall Greek Revival plantation house,
    1858 (Bldg. 127)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 21. Detail of Whitehall gallery window,
    pilaster (Bldg. 127)._]


“TURN OF THE CENTURY” ONE ROOM, TWO ROOMS AND SHOTGUN HOUSES

    [Illustration: _Fig. 22. Circa 1910 two room house with integral
    gallery (Bldg. 120)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 23. Front view of a circa 1920 one room house
    (Bldg. 115)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 24. Side view of 1920 one room house (Bldg.
    115)._]

The alluvial lands east of the Ouachita contained two categories of
dwellings, those of the plantation owner as previously described and the
houses of the tenants and small land owners. The dwellings depicted on
these and subsequent pages are typical of the latter category. The basic
folk house plan types used were the one room, two room, shotgun and
later the bungalow. Houses were usually constructed of wood frame with
vertical board and batten siding or horizontal milled siding.

A feature which the basic one room and two room plan dwellings had in
common was the integral front gallery. The gallery roof framing was part
of the roof structure of the core of the dwelling. One might notice in
figure 22 that although two gallery columns are absent, the roof is
still standing.

The one room type is illustrated in figures 23 and 24. The front view of
the circa 1920 house shows a side addition to the original core room.
The side view, figure 24, shows that this was originally two rooms deep
since the space usually occupied by the rear gallery was enclosed. The
roof had wood shingles on wood lath. The shingles were later replaced
with sheets of tin.

The two room plan houses in figures 25 and 26 were expanded as the space
requirements of the occupants increased. The first example has a rear
appendage. Vertical board and batten siding was used on the addition,
but an inconsistency in window sash selection occurred. In figure 26 the
appendage was built as a shed addition on the side. This large two room
house is two rooms in depth. This additional depth allows the roof to be
higher, a definite advantage for the reduction of summer heat.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 25. Two room house with board and batten siding
    (Bldg. 118)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 26. Circa 1910 two room house on the O.Z.O.
    Plantation (Bldg. 129)._]

The shotgun type house plan, figure 27, was used abundantly on the river
plantations. The typical plan was one room wide and two or more rooms
deep. There were front and rear gables. Variety occurred at the front
gallery as evidenced in the pair of shotguns illustrated. The gallery
might be the full width of the core allowing space for chairs and thus
creating an extra “room” for relief from the summer heat of the interior
rooms. This gallery also provided a place for social interaction between
the occupants and passersby. In contrast with this situation, the porch
on the right was of the width necessary only to protect the door from
the elements and to provide shelter for those entering. As shown,
shotgun houses were often in close proximity to each other. This feature
may have had its background in the fact that the shotgun plan had been
used in urban situations in New Orleans where property was extremely
valuable. However, when the plan was transported to a rural situation,
the close proximity characteristic remained.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 27. A pair of 1920’s shotgun houses (Bldg.
    125)._]


THE 20TH CENTURY FARM BUNGALOW HOUSE

As the 20th century advanced so did the plans and techniques of
constructing the folk house. The bungalow plan was introduced into North
Louisiana circa 1915. This plan type was two rooms wide and two or more
rooms deep with front and rear gables. The bungalow plan would continue
to be a popular house type in the region until the advent of the ranch
type plan after World War II.

The dwelling pictured in figure 28 was typical of the bungalow of the
1920’s. As previously mentioned in reference to the shotgun house, the
type of bungalow front gallery varied. The contrast may be observed in
figures 28 and 29—the nearly full width gallery with hipped roof and the
half porch with gable roof. An almost universal feature of the bungalow
house was the use of exposed rafter ends.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 28. A 1933 bungalow plan with hipped gallery
    (Bldg. 123)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 29. Gable screened porch on a Circa 1920
    bungalow plan house. (Bldg. 95)._]

It might appear that the occupant of the two room house in figure 30
desired to update his dwelling to have contemporary characteristics
similar to those of the bungalow. The remaining half porch was similar
to those of many of the bungalow houses. The currently popular double
window was used in lieu of the usual single opening. And the rear
extension created the multiple room depth characteristic of the
bungalow.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 30. A 1930 house with bungalow features (Bldg.
    143)._]


OUTBUILDINGS

As was the case with the small farms west of the river, so the
plantations and farms east of the river required outbuildings. Several
examples of these outbuildings are represented.

On this page are shown transverse crib barns; the major openings occur
on the end elevations. In figure 31 the typical transverse crib barn
plan is evident with the center aisle being flanked by several cribs as
shelter for stock. Above the opening is a loft for hay storage. This
drawing is also descriptive of the landscape of the delta
plantation—broad level expanses of open land in cultivation. Twentieth
century communication systems are evident with the dirt road and
telephone poles.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 31. Transverse crib barn in a delta landscape
    (Bldg. 140)._]

In figures 32 and 33 variations of the transverse barn are illustrated.
A barn with side shed additions, vertical plank siding and loft storage
would have sheltered a wagon in the center aisle (figure 32). A unique
solution to the high water problem is evident in the barn shown in
figure 33. The structure is raised and provides vehicle and stock
shelter in dry seasons, but any valuable equipment could be removed as
spring overflows inundated the land.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 32. Vertical planks on transverse crib barn
    (Bldg. 93)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 33. A barn raised for high water protection
    (Bldg. 112)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 34. Circa 1900 log storage building (Bldg.
    128)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 35. Half dovetail notches on 1900 log building
    (Bldg. 128)._]


A LOG OUTBUILDING

Log construction of outbuildings directly on the ground was not a common
model of construction in the delta land. The obvious reason was that
frequent overflows would tend to produce rapid decay of the wood members
in contact with the soil. But a rare exception to this practice was
found in the building illustrated in figures 34 and 35. The relatively
tall log storage building has continuous timbers as cantilever supports
for side shed roofs. Whether these sheds ever had vertical post supports
was not obvious on site inspection.

The corner wall detail, figure 35, indicates that the large hewn timbers
were assembled using half-dovetail notches. The horizontal logs were so
closely cut that a minimum air space between logs remained. Chinking
material was not used to fill these spaces.


COMMUNITY BUILDINGS ON THE PLANTATION

    [Illustration: _Fig. 36. Commissary store on Garrett Plantation
    (Bldg. 131)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 37. 1920’s church on the plantation (Bldg.
    98)._]

A commercial establishment which was necessary in the delta was the
commissary. It served the same function as the general store previously
described for the hill lands west of the river. The commissary depicted
in figure 36 has double doors flanked by large display windows. High
windows on the side walls provide light and cross ventilation. This,
too, would be a place for exchange of conversation as well as purchase
of goods.

The community church would serve the plantation workers and their
families. The buildings were generally composed of one large assembly
room and classrooms as appendages to the main building. A porch
protected the double entry doors. A mark of individuality might have
been created in the treatment of the belfry. The church illustrated in
figure 37 has a single small belfry, but often twin towers were
constructed. In addition to this function as a summons to worship, the
bell was often used as a community signal of momentous events such as a
birth or death on the plantation.




                        MONROE AND WEST MONROE,
                   THE TWIN CITIES ON THE OUACHITA...


    [Illustration: Map]


THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE TWIN CITIES

Field research of the buildings of Ouachita Parish has revealed that
there are three distinct characteristic types of architecture. In the
western hilly region of the parish is the small farm type, and in the
eastern river delta region the rural plantation type prevailed. Both of
these have been previously described. The third category of architecture
is the urban type, found within the environs of Monroe and West Monroe.

Whereas the rural architecture, with the exception of the plantation
owner’s house, tended to be utilitarian and unconcerned with stylistic
trends, the urban architecture very often was reflective of the
currently popular national architectural styles. The styles most evident
in extant residences in Monroe and West Monroe include Greek Revival,
Queen Anne, Colonial Revival and California Bungalow.

Styles found in ecclesiastical, civic and commercial buildings include
Victorian Gothic and the Classic Revivals of the twentieth century.

Following is a sampling of the various folk and styled architecture
found within the city limits of Monroe and West Monroe.


19TH CENTURY HOUSES ON THE RIVER

The Greek Revival house pictured in figure 38 was built circa 1835 as
the residence of the overseer for Lower Pargoud Plantation. A companion
residence was constructed on the Upper Pargoud Plantation and exists at
the end of Island Drive in Monroe.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 38. The Lower Pargoud Plantation overseer’s
    house (Bldg. 143)._]

Layton Castle, figure 39, was begun before 1820 as the residence of
Judge Henry Bry. John James Audubon was a guest in the home during his
visits to the wilderness of North Louisiana. In 1910 the house was
renovated to resemble a European chateau.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 39. Layton Castle, begun before 1820,
    remodelled 1910 (Bldg. 144)._]

The 1882 Cox house depicted in figure 40 was approached through an oak
alley facing the road, which later became South Grand Street. In the
rear was a flower garden leading to the river.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 40. The 1882 Cox House on South Grand, Monroe
    (Bldg. 122)._]

These examples of 19th century houses were originally constructed in
rural farming areas which have subsequently been incorporated into the
city of Monroe.


“TURN OF THE CENTURY” QUEEN ANNE HOUSES

The popular circa 1890 through 1910 house style, Queen Anne, had
numerous identifying features. A steeply pitched roof of irregular shape
often had a dominant front facing gable. Patterned shingles, cutaway bay
windows and various other elements were used to avoid a smooth-walled
appearance. The facade was asymmetrical, and often it had a partial or
full width porch along a side wall as well as on the front.

Queen Anne dwellings were also noted for their decorative detailing.
Delicately turned porch columns and decorative spandrels with knob-like
beads were common. Spindle work was used on railings, at porch ceilings,
and under the roof overhangs at cutaway bays.

The house in figure 41 was constructed with forward gables, a partial
porch on the front and a cutaway bay. Decorative elements include the
ornamented gables and a spindlework frieze between the porch posts at
the ceiling.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 41. Queen Anne detailing on a circa 1890 house.
    (Bldg. 145)._]

Miss Julia Wossman’s house, figure 42, was moved from downtown to St.
John Drive in the 1950’s. Note the forward gables, turned porch columns,
the wrap-around porch, and spindlework at the cutaway front and side bay
windows. The porch also has spindlework, brackets and knob-like beads in
the frieze. Gables contain fish scale patterned shingles.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 42. Miss Julia Wossman’s house, circa 1890
    (Bldg. 146)._]

The houses described represent only a sampling of the full range of
extant Queen Anne houses in the urban area of the Twin Cities.


20TH CENTURY COLONIAL REVIVAL HOUSES

    [Illustration: _Fig. 43. The 1905 E. L. Neville Colonial Revival two
    story house (Bldg. 147)._]

Houses built after 1900 with the characteristics described as follows
have been designated as being Colonial Revival style. A basic
characteristic feature of this style was the accentuated front door with
a porch supported by slender columns. Doors often had overhead fan or
transom lights with sidelights, and windows contained double hung sash
with multi-pane glazing in one or both sashes. As the 20th century
advanced, windows were grouped in pairs of even units of three.

The Ernest L. Neville house on Hudson Lane, Monroe, figure 43, was
erected as a two story house with a dominant front gable with a
multi-paned Palladian window, complete with keystone. The half-porch is
full height with a railed balcony and Doric columns.

The circa 1914 James Harvey Trousdale house, figure 44, on Hudson Lane
is Colonial Revival in detailing, but the dominant, nearly square,
configuration resembles that of a 19th century Louisiana raised cottage.
Note the full story height raised basement area with the broad entrance
steps.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 44. The J. H. Trousdale House circa 1914 (Bldg.
    148)._]

The George Weaks House on Riverside Drive, Monroe, figure 45, was built
during the first decade of the 20th century. The full two-story
semicircular porch with columns and pilasters has a balustrade and broad
dormer at the roofline. The front door is accentuated with square
transom and sidelights. Note the elaborate expanse of entry steps at the
porch floor. Windows are glazed with multiple upper sash panes and a
single lower sash pane.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 45. Classical porch on circa 1900’s Weaks
    house._]

Closer examination of the Weaks House in the porch detail, figure 46,
reveals elaborate Colonial Revival detailing. The columns have Ionic
capitals and fluting. The curved entablature with dentils is enhanced
further with the application of moulded wood brackets under the roof
eaves.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 46. Ionic column capitals on Weaks house (Bldg.
    149)._]

The Neville, Trousdale, and Weaks Houses were built near the river in
the area expanding to the north of Monroe. They, along with the Governor
Hall house which follows, are examples of the early Colonial Revival
period in Monroe.

The Governor Luther Hall Colonial Revival home pictured in figures 47
and 48 was erected on Jackson Street in the older section of Monroe
circa 1906. It contains the characteristics of the style previously
described—accentuated front door with full pedimented portico supported
by slender columns, fan light and sidelights and multi-panes over single
pane sashes. The Hall house also contains elaborate detailing in
addition to these usual characteristics of the Colonial Revival style.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 47. Gov. Luther Hall’s circa 1906 home (Bldg.
    150)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 48. Elaborate porch detail on Hall home (Bldg.
    150)._]

The detail drawing of the Governor Hall house, figure 48, is
illustrative of elaborate, nearly excessive, detailing. The window not
only possesses pilaster trim with an entablature and pediment, but also
a design featuring interlocking segmental and square panes in the upper
sash. The entry door is slightly recessed which allows space for three
segmented arches with keystones on Doric columns. And, in addition, the
balcony above is supported by four curved fan-like wooden brackets. Note
the large scale column bases.

The Travis Oliver house at the north end of Riverside Drive in figure 49
is indicative of the continued popularity of the Colonial Revival style
in the cities. Built circa 1930, this two story house, similar to those
previously described, has a full porch with slender columns, a small
balcony and accentuated front door with an elliptical transom and
sidelights. But certain mutations make this Colonial Revival house
distinct from those previously described. The lower front windows are
wood casement with a semicircular wood fan above. Second story windows
are large eight over eight pane double-hung sash. Most importantly, the
house is of brick veneer construction. Those previously described have
horizontal wood siding. The 1930’s decade witnessed the apparent
popularity and desirability of the use of brick in preference to wood as
an exterior cladding material.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 49. Circa 1930 Oliver house on Riverside,
    Monroe (Bldg. 151)._]

Although Colonial Revival has been a dominant style for house
construction in the Monroe and West Monroe area during the 20th Century,
other styles are represented and will be described following.


VARIOUS 20TH CENTURY HOUSE STYLES

During the first three decades of the 20th century, while the Colonial
Revival houses were being built in both one and two story versions,
other styles were being represented in the Twin Cities. The Tudor
Revival, Prairie Style and the California Bungalow received widespread
acceptance in the 1920’s and 1930’s. One selection each of the Tudor
Revival and Prairie Style are illustrated herein; also depicted is an
example of a hybrid Queen Anne-California Bungalow House.

The Tudor Revival style, popular in the United States from 1890 to 1940,
received only nominal acceptance in North Louisiana. Characteristics
included a simple box plan with extensions, facade dominated by two or
more prominent cross gables and windows in multiple groupings with
multipane glazing. Also used were massive chimneys with chimney pots.

The Masur Museum on South Grand Street in Monroe was constructed 1929 by
Elmer Slagle, Sr. Depicted in figure 50 are the characteristics of the
Tudor Revival described above. This stone veneer house has a mezzanine
porch in the rear overlooking a formal garden and the Ouachita River.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 50. The 1929 Slagle house, now Masur Museum
    (Bldg. 152)._]

A Monroe landmark is the 1926 G. B. Cooley house also on South Grand
Street. See figure 51. Designed by the architect Walter Burley Griffin,
an associate of Frank Lloyd Wright, the plan was laid out to resemble
the decks of a steamboat. Mr. Cooley, the owner, was a steamboat captain
who plied the Ouachita for many years. The Prairie Style house has 100
windows which may be opened to take advantage of summer breezes.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 51. Cooley house designed in the Prairie Style
    (Bldg. 153)._]

An interesting Trenton Street house in West Monroe, figure 52,
represents a mingling of stylistic detailing. The gable has wood
shingles similar to those used in the Queen Anne styles, and the small
patterned window panes of that period are reused in a new form. But the
exposed rafter ends and expansive overhangs are characteristics of the
California Bungalow style.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 52. On Trenton Street, West Monroe, a gable
    detail. (Bldg. 154)._]

Thus, Monroe and West Monroe contain a variety of residential stylistic
expressions as evidenced in the extant houses.


THE 20TH CENTURY CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW HOUSE

    [Illustration: _Fig. 53. A California Bungalow in north Monroe
    (Bldg. 155)._]

    [Illustration: _Fig. 54. An expressive West Monroe California
    Bungalow (Bldg. 156)._]

An innovation in housing design and stylistic detailing occurred in
North Louisiana during the second decade of the 20th century. The houses
of two California architects, Charles and Henry Greene, led to the
establishment of a style known as “Craftsman.” Several influences—the
English Arts and Crafts movement, interest in oriental wood architecture
and training in the manual arts—may have encouraged the Greene brothers
to design intricately detailed buildings. Their work and other
California residences received publicity in the various national
magazines. Thus, the one-story Craftsman house soon became the most
popular and fashionable smaller house in the country. In Louisiana these
houses have been labeled “California Bungalows.”

The characteristic features occurred normally on the facades, that
portion of the house most visible to the public. The low-pitched gabled
roof had wide, unenclosed eaves and overhangs and roof rafters were
exposed and decorative false beams or braces occurred under the gables.
Porches were full or partial width across the front.

The porch or gallery columns had distinctive detailing. Typically, short
square upper columns were placed over more massive masonry piers or a
solid porch balustrade (skirt). The columns, piers, or balustrades often
began at ground level and extended with no interruption to a level above
the porch floor.

The California Bungalow style houses constitute the most numerous group
of extant styled houses in the Twin Cities. As such, they represent a
definite attempt to establish a styled expression of individuality for
the houses of the general populace. The examples illustrated on these
pages are representative of this style.

In figure 53 a California Bungalow in north Monroe was built with the
front gable expressed in the broad three-windowed dormer. Note the
extensive dormer roof overhang. The full width front gallery is provided
with screens between the straight full height wood columns; the gallery
roof overhang contains exposed rafter ends.

Another expression of the California Bungalow appeared in the circa 1930
West Monroe house shown in figure 54. This two story house has a front
gable and multiple groupings of windows. But the greatest expression
occurs in the one-story gallery. It has a smaller low pitched gable roof
with four full height square brick piers and a half height brick pier
near the door. The balustrade continues to the side porte cochere, or
car shelter.

The freedom of design offered by the California Bungalow style allowed a
house form beyond that of the standard simple rectangle, and the West
Monroe circa 1920 house in figure 55 used this freedom. The roof
contains no gables, the front porch is allowed to wrap around the side,
and the rear porch is enclosed providing additional room. The exposed
rafter ends support a rather deep overhang. The porch supports are
constructed of massive wood posts on half height brick piers.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 55. A rambling California Bungalow on Trenton
    St., West Monroe (Bldg. 157)._]

Yet another expression occurs in the West Monroe circa 1926 house in
figure 56. The high roof allows space for attic rooms. Note shed roof
dormer.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 56. Another expression of the popular
    California Bungalow (Bldg. 158)._]

The California Bungalow style continued to be popular in the region
until after World War II when it was supplanted by the “ranch” form
house with a concrete slab floor.


A 20TH CENTURY COMPLEX—IN THE CITY

When the J. E. Peters house and auxiliary buildings were built in the
late 1920’s and 1930’s, the site was on the southern limits of the city
of Monroe, but it subsequently was included within the city boundaries.
Thus, today a unique rural atmosphere exists within an urban context.

The complex depicted in figures 57 through 60 contains a two story
house, garage apartment, storage or quarters building and a pair of
water storage tanks.

The two story house, figure 57, contains four rooms over four rooms and
a stair and bath facilities. The one story gallery on the front and side
provides ample opportunity for relaxation and relief from the heat of
the interior rooms in the summer. Note the absence of a chimney; winter
heating would have been provided by the newly discovered natural gas.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 57. The drawings on these pages are of the same
    site in south Monroe, the Peters house (Bldg. 126)._]

In the rear of the Peters house is a 1930’s garage apartment, figure 58.
This element is a unique feature in the history of urban residential
architecture. The automobile became obtainable by the urban family
during the second decade of the 20th century, and it was sheltered in a
structure separate from the residence. The garage would usually provide
shelter for one to two automobiles.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 58. A garage apartment adjacent to the house.
    (Bldg. 126)._]

Often an apartment would be placed above the garage, as shown. Note the
exterior access stairway. In post World War II residences the automobile
would be sheltered in a garage attached to the main residence;
subsequently this garage would relinquish its walls and doors and be
known as a “carport.” Thus, the garage apartment holds a unique place in
America domestic architecture.

The Peters store house, or quarters, figure 59, also was representative
of the era described. This building has exposed rafter ends, five panel
doors, milled (not brick) siding, and is raised three steps above the
ground.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 59. The storage building in the rear (Bldg.
    126)._]

The water towers shown in figure 60 are elevated to provide gravity
pressure for water needed on the farm complex, whether for irrigation or
livestock or domestic use. The towers are situated in a grove of pecan
trees.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 60. Water tanks on the farm site (Bldg. 126)._]

As urbanization increased, the opportunity for complexes such as this to
survive decreased. Holdings were subdivided into residential lots, and
the rural feeling and inherent privacy which it provided yielded to an
environment of urban compactness. This is the price of progress as a
city expands.


URBAN ECCLESIASTICAL

A distinct contrast exists between the rural ecclesiastical building and
that of the urban area. The urban congregations tended to require more
stylized edifices for worship. This may be apparent in the examples
illustrated herein.

The 1899 St. Matthews Roman Catholic Church is an excellent example of
the Gothic Revival style. Characteristics of this style include the
tower with belfry and spire, the single or grouped pointed-arch windows,
the stepped buttresses and deeply recessed openings and wooden doors.
These characteristics are evident in the church in figure 61.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 61. The 1899 Gothic Revival St. Matthews Church
    (Bldg. 159)._]

The Tabernacle Baptist Church on Beard Street, Monroe, was a later
version of a style conscious church building. The opening is recessed
and has a round arch over the door. A vertical accent was obtained by
use of the small tower, figure 62. Brick as an exterior wall finishing
material was commonly used in the towns; this contrasted to the almost
universal use of wood siding on churches in the rural areas of the
parish.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 62. Tabernacle Baptist Church on Beard Street,
    Monroe (Bldg. 160)._]


EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS

There are a number of extant 50 year old educational buildings in the
Twin Cities which are excellent examples of the various prevailing
architectural styles. The Mediterranean style is evident in such
elementary schools as Georgia Tucker, Lida Benton, and Barksdale Faulk.
Jacobean Revival may be seen in the old Ouachita Parish High School
building on South Grand; Art Deco is represented in Neville High School
on Forsythe Avenue, Monroe. It is very fortunate that these buildings
remain and are either still being utilized as educational facilities or
are being converted for contemporary adaptive reuse, the latter being
the case in the South Grand building mentioned.

Georgia Tucker School, figure 63, was built in 1919 and named for Mrs.
Georgia Tucker Stubbs, a member of a pioneer Ouachita Parish family. Its
Mediterranean style features include monumentality, solidity, use of low
arches and imaginative towers. It also employs a unique treatment of
terracotta in cast panels and columns capitals. One might note the use
of free standing decorative nonfunctional columns on the front. The
separate entrances for grades one through three and grades four through
six are clearly defined.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 63. Georgia Tucker School, 1919 (Bldg. 162)._]

The Jacobean Revival style was used for the Ouachita Parish High School
building depicted in figure 64. Built in the late 1920’s, this three
story remnant of the high school complex displays monumentality and
elaborate detailing at the South Grand Street entrance to the classroom
building. Quoins were used at masonry corners. The roof parapet wall
contains decorative penetrations and projections as an expression of the
method in which the building relates to the skyline.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 64. The Jacobean Revival Ouachita Parish High
    School building, 1920’s (Bldg. 161)._]


URBAN COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC BUILDINGS

It has been previously illustrated that the urban residential,
ecclesiastical and educational buildings were constructed to reflect
current stylistic trends more than their rural counterparts; a similar
observation might be made about commercial urban and rural buildings.
The urban commercial buildings depicted on these two pages represent
some of the stylistic expressions of the Twin Cities from the time of
early settlement, the 1840’s, to the period of the oil boom, the 1930’s.
As such, they might be viewed as a summary of commercial architecture in
the Twin Cities.

The Isaiah Garrett law office, figure 65, was constructed in the 1840’s.
Its configuration is similar to that of the small residence of the
period, a two room core with rear wing, chimneys on end elevations, and
an attached front gallery. This building is now the Colonial Dames
Museum.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 65. Isaiah Garrett law office, 1840’s (Bldg.
    163)._]

The two story commercial building shown in figure 66 was built in the
1890’s on North Grand Street. It contains large glass areas for display
and interior light, and the second floor contains arched windows on the
street facade but flat lintel windows overlooking the river.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 66. 1890’s commercial building on North Grand,
    Monroe (Bldg. 164)._]

T. M. Parker built a two story commercial building on DeSiard Street in
1908, figure 67. This building was used as a hotel for a long period.
There is a similarity in the manner in which the roof lines of the
buildings in figures 67 and 68 were constructed, since both parapets
have shaped and raised center sections and projecting cornices.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 67. The T. M. Parker Building on DeSiard Street
    (Bldg. 165)._]

The West Monroe 1909 two story building depicted in figure 68 was built
with similar characteristics as those previously described, a large
glass area on ground floors and a masonry upper facade. But this
building contains other individualistic features. The second floor opens
onto a balcony which overlooks the Ouachita River, and a very elaborate
cast stone lady’s head is incorporated into the pilaster on the left
side of the front elevation. A companion sculpture on the right pilaster
no longer exists. One might wonder if it were a male or female likeness.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 68. A West Monroe commercial building, 1909
    (Bldg. 166)._]

Civic architecture is represented by the 1925 Ouachita Parish
Courthouse, figure 69. Neoclassicism was used to represent monumentality
through the application of engaged Ionic columns on the major facades.
Broad entry terraces and steps heightened the drama of entry into the
main floor. The roofline contains a balustrade as an expression of
uniting the building with the skyline.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 69. The neoclassical Ouachita Parish Courthouse
    1925 (Bldg. 167)._]

The Frances Hotel, figure 70, was constructed in 1930 and named for Mrs.
Frances McHenry, wife of a founder of Delta Airlines. Its Art Deco style
has a pronounced verticality and linear quality. This early Monroe
skyscraper has elaborate window and facade treatment on the first three
floors with minimal facade decoration on the hotel room floors above.
The building is crowned with elaboration on the facades of the top
floor. This floor once contained a ballroom which overlooked the city
and the river. Arched windows with elaborate projections above broke the
skyline. And above the roof was an enormous red beacon which was visible
for miles at night. The beacon no longer is lighted.

    [Illustration: _Fig. 70. Frances Hotel, Monroe, a 1930 Art Deco
    building (Bldg. 168)._]

The buildings pictured on these and the four preceding pages are
examples of the manner in which the designers attempted to create
aesthetically pleasing architecture for both the distant and the near-by
viewer. Several have interesting rooflines which integrate the built
environment with the skyline. They also contain elements which may be
viewed from a closer position as a person enters the building; such
elements include steps, entry details, and intricate window trim.




                             CONCLUSION....


Ouachita Parish possesses a rich architectural heritage. In time, this
heritage spans from the beginnings of Layton Castle in the early 1800’s
to the high rise Frances Hotel of the 1930’s—and on to the present. In
terms of style, this heritage includes the simple one room houses as
well as representatives of Greek Revival, Queen Anne, Gothic Revival,
Colonial Revival, Classic Revival, California Bungalow, Prairie Style,
Tudor Revival, and Art Deco.

The life styles and cultures of the inhabitants are reflected and
expressed in this architectural heritage. These cultures included that
of the small farms west of the river, the plantations east of the river,
and the urban culture as seen in the architecture of Monroe and West
Monroe. What a rich assortment exists within a 20 mile radius of the
center of Ouachita Parish.

But this heritage is in danger. As progress continues and prosperity
grows, the architectural heritage often diminishes. Older buildings are
seen as liabilities and become victims of the wrecking ball. These
buildings, whether constructed of log or brick with Romanesque or Gothic
details, will not be erected again. Therefore, the visual insights into
past cultures which these older buildings represent are lost forever.

It is hoped that the publication of this collection of Ouachita Parish’s
architectural heritage will make the public more aware of its valuable
treasure as evidenced in older architecture. And in turn, it is hoped
that this awareness will assist in the preservation of vestiges of our
traditional past.

                                                        F. Lestar Martin

    [Illustration: _Bright-Lamkin-Easterling House, 1890._]




                          CATALOG OF BUILDINGS


The following listing contains information on extant buildings 50 years
old in Ouachita Parish (excluding Monroe and West Monroe, cataloged in
the La. Tech Arch. Dept.). Building number is followed by building type
designation, porch type, siding and date.

 Survey     Type                             Remarks
 Number

 1.     One Room       Attached porch, asb. siding, c.1930.
 2.     Central hall   Integral gallery, c.1913.
 3.     Central hall   Attached gallery, asbestos, c.1917.
 4.     Central hall   Attached porch, asbestos, c.1920.
 5.     Two room       No gallery, asbestos, c.1920.
 6.     Dogtrot        Square logs and notches, c.1880.
 7.     Other          Gen. store, integral gallery, vert. bd/batten,
                       c.1910.
 8.     Bungalow       Attached gallery, milled siding c.1926.
 9.     Other          Liberty Baptist Church, asbestos, c.1915.
 10.    Dogtrot        Enclosed, att. gallery, milled, c.1890.
 11.    Central hall   Attached gallery, asphalt, c.1900.
 12.    Two room       Attached gallery, milled, c.1910.
 13.    Central hall   Attached gallery, milled, c.1930.
 14.    Other          Gable front & wing, attached porch, milled, c.1910.
 15.    Other          Gable front & wing, attached porch, milled, c.1900.
 16.    Bungalow       Integral porch, milled, c.1930.
 17.    Two room       Rare plan, gingerbread cols. & trim, attached
                       gallery, milled c.1900.
 18.    Shotgun        Shotgun, integral gallery, milled c.1920.
 19.    One room       Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1920.
 20.    Other          Mt. Horeb Church, milled, c.1920.
 21.    Central hall   Integral gallery, milled, 1925.
 22.    Bungalow       Integral half porch, milled, 1930.
 23.    Other          Triple room, integral gallery, milled, c.1920.
 24.    Bungalow       Integral side porch, milled, c.1931.
 25.    Other          Bungalow type, attached porch, asbestos, c.1935.
 26.    Central hall   Attached gallery, sawn siding, c.1900.
 27.    Dogtrot        Enclosed, part half log, attached gallery, milled,
                       1890, Caldwell farm.
 28.    Outbldg.       Round log w/sq. notches, shingle roof, 1880’s,
                       Caldwell farm.
 29.    Dogtrot        Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1900,
                       Caldwell Farm. Log Outbuildings.
 30.    Bungalow       Attached porch, asbestos, 1937.
 31.    Central hall   Attached gallery, asbestos, 1925, Wallace farm.
 32.    Shotgun        Shotgun, integral gallery, milled, 1920.
 33.    Central hall   Integral gallery, milled, 1920.
 34.    Bungalow       No porch, milled, 1930.
 35.    Bungalow       Integral gallery, milled, c.1920.
 36.    Two room       Integral gallery, milled, c.1920.
 37.    Outbldg.       Transverse crib barn, tin siding, c.1930.
 38.    Shotgun        No porch, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1920.
 39.    Bungalow       Attached porch, vert. bd./batten siding 1930.
 40.    Outbldg.       Storage, sawn siding, c.1930.
 41.    Other          Gen. store, various additions, vert. bd./batten,
                       c.1920
 42.    Outbldg.       Round log, saddle notch corn crib, c.1920
 43.    Shotgun        Shotgun, no porch, vert. bd./batten, c.1920.
 44.    Outbldg.       Tranverse crib barn, vert. siding, 1935, Golson
                       fam.
 45.    Dogtrot        Attached gallery, sawn siding, c.1930.
 46.    Other          Camel-back house, no porch, milled, 1926, Marvin
                       Spanier.
 47.    Outbldg.       Single crib storage, round log, saddle
                       notches, 1930, Spanier fam.
 48.    Bungalow       Attached gallery, asbestos, 1930.
 49.    Outbldg.       Single crib storage, half log, semi-lunate notch,
                       c.1915, Golson fam.
 50.    Shotgun        Shotgun, integral gallery, asbestos, c.1930.
 51.    Outbldg.       Storage, vert. sawn, c.1930, George Hamilton.
 52.    Bungalow       Integral half porch, asbestos, c.1930, Pat Tinsley.
 53.    Bungalow       Attached porch, milled, 1933, John Mayes.
 54.    Other          Two story Masonic Lodge—rare, integral gallery,
                       sawn, c.1885.
 55.    Central hall   Integral gallery, sawn siding, 1898, Golson fam.
 56.    Bungalow       Integral porch, vert. bd./batten, 1933, James
                       Young.
 57.    Other          Latter Day Saints Church, attached portico,
                       milled, 1910.
 58.    Bungalow       Attached gallery, milled, c.1930.
 59.    Other          Gen. store, attached porch, milled, 1927, Antley
                       family.
 60.    Outbldg.       Double crib, sawn, 1930.
 61.    Other          Antioch Church, portico, steeple, asbestos, 1910.
 62.    Bungalow       Integral gallery, milled, 1932, Fowler fam.
 63.    Other          Frantom Chapel, asbestos, 1916.
 64.    Outbldg.       Storage pen, sawn, c.1930, Burkett fam.
 65.    Central hall   Attached gallery, milled, c.1920.
 66.    Two room       Attached porch, milled, 1918.
 67.    Two room       Attached gallery, sawn, vert. bd./batten, 1905,
                       Lovelady fam.
 68.    Bungalow       Attached porch, vert. siding, c.1930.
 69.    Other          Lapine Methodist Church, milled, c.1915
 70.    Shotgun        Shotgun, integral gallery, vert. bd./batten,
                       c.1920.
 71.    Central hall   Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, 1897.
 72.    Two room       Original single pen half log w/semi-lunate notch,
                       att. gallery 1895, C. C. George.
 73.    Outbldg.       Tranverse crib barn, square logs, square notch,
                       sawn siding, c.1900, Griffin fam.
 74.    Central hall   Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, 1893,
                       Griffin fam.
 75.    Central hall   Attached gallery, Masonite, c.1880, James Henry.
 76.    Outbldg.       Single crib storage, round log, saddle notch,
                       c.1920.
 77.    Two room       Attached porch, vert. bd./batten, c.1880, John
                       Bush.
 78.    Single pen     Side addition, half round logs, semi-lunate notch,
                       integral gallery, c.1890.
 79.    Two room       Attached gallery, milled siding, c.1910.
 80.    Bungalow       Half porch integral, milled, c.1920.
 81.    Saddlebag      Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1880.
 82.    Saddlebag      Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1880.
 83.    Bungalow       Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten, 1927, Amos
                       Hollingsworth.
 84.    Outbldg.       Half log storage pen, semi-lunate notch, c.1910.
 85.    Other          Triple room integral gallery, asphalt, c.1890.
 86.    Shotgun        Shotgun, integral gallery, milled, c.1930, Connie
                       Dowdy.
 87.    Central hall   Integral gallery, milled, c.1910.
 88.    Two room       Original single pen w/additions, half log
                       w/semi-lunate notch, add. vert. bd./batten,
                       c.1880, Baugh fam.
 89.    Central hall   Integral gallery, milled, c.1900.
 90.    Central hall   Integral gallery, asbestos siding, c.1915, Thomas
                       T. Jones.
 91.    Bungalow       Attached gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1930.

                           EAST OF THE OUACHITA

 92.    Two room       Attached porch, vert. bd./batten, c.1920.
 93.    Other          Two story “Carolina I,” “Grecian Bend” plantation
                       house, sawn siding, built 1866 by the Guthrie
                       family.
 94.    Two room       Attached gallery, milled, c.1927.
 95.    Bungalow       Attached gallery, milled, c.1920.
 96.    Bungalow       “California,” integral gallery, milled, c.1930.
 97.    Central hall   Integral gallery, milled siding, c.1930.
 98.    Other          Church, portico, belfry, milled siding, c.1930.
 99.    Outbldg.       Double crib barn, vert. bd./batten, c.1920.
 100.   Central hall   “Greek Revival” plantation house integral gallery,
                       milled siding, c.1880.
 101.   One room       Attached porch, additions, vert. bd./batten
                       siding, c.1900.
 102.   Central hall   “O’Kelly House,” moved from N. 6th and Washington,
                       Monroe; sawn siding, integral gallery, dormers
                       added, c.1860.
 103.   One room       Vert. sawn siding, c.1920.
 104.   Shotgun        Shotgun, attached porch, vert. bd./batten siding,
                       c.1910.
 105.   Two room       Attached gallery, vert. bd/batten, c.1920.
 106.   Other          “Little Bell Missionary Baptist Church,” milled,
                       c.1920.
 107.   Other          Triple room, integral porch, horiz. and vert.
                       siding, c.1910.
 108.   Bungalow       Attached gallery, milled, c.1920.
 109.   Outbldg.       Single crib storage, shed additions, c.1937.
 110.   Central Hall   Attached gallery, milled, c.1920.
 111.   Two room       Attached gallery, asbestos, c.1930.
 112.   Outbldg.       Double crib barn, vert. sawn, c.1930.
 113.   Bungalow       Integral gallery, milled, c.1930.
 114.   Two room       Integral gallery, milled, c.1920.
 115.   One room       Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1920.
 116.   Two room       Integral gallery, milled, c.1920.
 117.   Central hall   Log room enclosed, integral gallery, sawn siding,
                       original 1850 by Howard family, now Stubbs
                       plantation house.
 118.   Two room       Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten siding, c.1910,
                       on Stubbs plantation.
 119.   Two room       Attached gallery, sawn siding, c.1920, on Stubbs
                       plantation.
 120.   Two room       Integral gallery, vert. bd./batten, c.1910, on
                       Stubbs plantation.
 121.   Bungalow       “California Bungalow,” milled, c.1920, on Stubbs
                       plantation.
 122.   Central hall   “Greek Revival,” integral gallery, milled siding,
                       “Cox House.” 1882.
 123.   Bungalow       Attached gallery, milled, c.1933, Henry Cyers.
 124.   Bungalow       Integral gallery asbestos, c.1920.
 125.   Shotgun        Two shotguns, attached and integral porches,
                       milled, c.1920.
 126.   Other          Two story, four room over four room, attached
                       porch, milled, c.1927, various other buildings,
                       water tanks.
 127.   Central hall   “Whitehall Plantation” house, Greek Revival, sawn
                       siding, integral gallery, dormers, fine millwork,
                       1858. National Register.
 128.   Outbldg.       Single crib, square log half dovetail notch,
                       c.1900.
 129.   Two room       Integral gallery, asbestos, c.1910, on “OZO,”
                       McHenry Plantation, McClain and McDonald families.
 130.   Central hall   1½ story, various additions to 1838, “Refugio”
                       plantation house. McClain and McDonald families.
 131.   Central hall   Integral gallery, asbestos, c.1830-50, Garrett
                       family.
 132.   Shotgun        Shotgun, attached porch, asphalt, c.1930.
 133.   Central hall   Integral gallery, milled and asphalt siding,
                       c.1880, Faulk family.
 134.   Other          “Greek Revival,” portico gallery, additions,
                       milled and sawn siding, built 1838 by Jean
                       Baptiste Filhoil, grandson of Don Juan Filhoil.
                       “Logtown” plantation house. Nat. Reg.
 135.   Shotgun        Attached gallery, milled, c.1930.
 136.   Shotgun        Integral gallery, milled, c.1920.
 137.   Central hall   Integral gallery, milled, c.1900.
 138.   Central hall   “Boscobel,” integral gallery, sawn, Greek Revival,
                       built c.1820. By Judge Henry Bry. Nat. Reg.
 139.   Central hall   1½ story, integral gallery, milled, c.1900.
 140.   Central hall   Integral gallery, milled, c.1920.
 141.   Outbldg.       Transverse crib barn, vert. planks, c.1930.
 142.   Central hall   Integral gallery, milled siding, c.1920.
 143.   Two room       Like a bungalow plan, half porch attached, milled
                       c.1930.

                          MONROE AND WEST MONROE

 143a.  Central hall   “Lower Pargoud overseer’s house,” integral
                       gallery, sawn, built c.1835. Nat. Reg.
 144.   Other          “Layton Castle,” renovated as “Chateau” in 1910’s,
                       original raised Louisiana plantation house
                       incorporated in house. Begun by Judge Henry Bry,
                       c.1820’s. Nat. Reg.
 145.   Other          “Queen Anne” gable front and wing, porches,
                       milled, c.1890’s.
 146.   Other          “Queen Anne” gable front and wing, porches,
                       milled, c.1890’s.
 147.   Other          Two story, porches, milled siding, built 1905 by
                       Ernest L. Neville.
 148.   Central hall   Raised, integral galleries, milled, J. H.
                       Trousdale, Sr., 1914.
 149.   Central hall   Two story, portico, milled, Weaks family, c.1900’s.
 150.   Central hall   Two story, portico, milled, Gov. Luther Hall,
                       1906. Nat. Reg.
 151.   Central hall   Two story, portico, brick, Travis Oliver I,
                       c.1930’s.
 152.   Other          Two story Tudor Revival, built 1920 by Elmer
                       Slagle, Sr. Nat. Reg.
 153.   Other          Prairie style house designed by William Burley
                       Griffin, 1926. Nat. Reg.
 154.   Bungalow       “California bungalow,” shingle siding, c.1930.
 155.   Bungalow       “California bungalow,” milled, c.1920.
 156.   Bungalow       “California bungalow,” porches, c.1930.
 157.   Bungalow       “California bungalow,” integral porches, milled,
                       c.1920.
 158.   Bungalow       “California bungalow,” integral gallery, milled,
                       c.1926.
 159.   Church         St. Matthew’s Roman Catholic Church, Gothic
                       Revival, brick, 1899.
 160.   Church         Tabernacle Baptist Church, brick, c.1935.
 161.   School         Ouachita Parish High School, Jacobean Revival,
                       c.1926. Nat. Reg.
 162.   School         Georgia Tucker Grammar School, Mediterranean,
                       brick, 1919.
 163.   Office         Isaiah Garrett Law Office, brick, 1840’s. National
                       Register
 164.   Commercial     Two story brick store, 1890’s.
 165.   Commercial     Two story brick store, built 1908 by T. M. Parker.
 166.   Commercial     Two story brick store, 1909.
 167.   Civic          Ouachita Parish Courthouse, Neoclassical, 1925.
                       Nat. Reg.
 168.   Commercial     Frances Hotel, multi-story, Art Deco, built 1930
                       by Carl McHenry.
 169.   Other          Queen Anne, Bright-Lamkin-Easterling house,
                       National Register, 1890.




                          Transcriber’s Notes


—Silently corrected a few typos.

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
  is public-domain in the country of publication.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
  _underscores_.