Salem Civic Center Historic District Salem, Oregon

Text courtesy of the National Register of Historic Places, a program of the National Parks Service. Minor transcription errors or changes in formatting may have occurred; please see the Nomination Form PDF for official text. Some information may have become outdated since the property was nominated for the Register.

Summary Paragraph

The Salem Civic Center Historic District, entirely completed in 1972, is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level under Criterion A as the district represents the ideals of Salem's community planning and development in the late 1960s/early 1970s.¹ The property is also eligible for listing under Criterion C as an important local example of the Brutalist civic campus. The period of significance is 1971 to 1972, which spans the dates of completion and dedication. The property has five contributing resources –Central Fire Station #1, Mirror Pond and Pringle Creek, City Hall Parking Garage, City Hall (including City Council Chambers), and Plaza Fountain – and two non-contributing resources – Public Library and Library Parking Garage. Following World War II, Salem was rapidly growing, and the 1897 City Hall Building was no longer sufficient to house city services and meet the evolving needs of Salem government and increased expectations of civic engagement and participation in decision making. For over two decades, the community completed multiple studies to determine the best approach for a new civic center, and Salemites ultimately showed their strong support for the construction of a new complex that would unite all city services while also providing accessible public spaces. The Salem Civic Center was considered modern, functional, accessible, and for everyone's enjoyment and use. The Salem Civic Center Historic District is the best local representation from the period of significance of what Salemites wanted in their government and community, and how they wanted it to look, as they ventured into the future as a "safer, healthier, and more livable... modern urban community."²

Narrative Statement of Significance

Brutalism

Deriving its name from the French phrase for "raw or unfinished concrete" – béton brut – Brutalist architecture is loved by some and hated by many.³ The iconic Le Corbusier is credited with the first Brutalist building (Unite d'Habitation, Marseille, France, 1947-1952) which placed emphasis on the structure instead of decoration, to "build transparently, cleanly, and truthfully."⁴ In 1957, Alison and Peter Smithson published a short but powerful essay on Brutalism, the movement and style they were in large part responsible for defining and creating.⁵ In this often-cited piece they argue that past objectives for change can be "become useless... so new objectives are established."⁶ Brutalism considers the "problem of human associations and the relationship that building and community has to them."26 The Smithson's argue that Brutalism, as a new architectural style, is a response to society. If one is to sit and be critical about the use of raw concrete or the blocky shape of the building, then the intention of Brutalism is lost. For "its essence is ethical" not merely a style or aesthetic.⁷

The Smithson's expanded their notion of Brutalism to go beyond individual buildings, placing an emphasis on "town building" and planning. Peter Smithson described this as "the way the buildings themselves fit together and interact with each other which creates the actual places in which you move, and have a feeling of identity or lack of identity."⁸ To design and construct in Brutalism was to accept "what is going on" and reject "chi-chi," which is when one "cannot be bothered to think out what the situation is, and how to work it out properly, and drops back into a formula of doing it which is a sort of lie."⁹ The Smithson's also placed an emphasis on "urban re-identification" and architecture trying to provide a "feeling that you are somebody living somewhere."¹⁰ This was carried out by categorizing spaces for different functions and land-uses. While this concept was not necessarily innovative or revolutionary, they carried it out by focusing on "connectedness." Peter Smithson said "we regard ourselves as functional, and therefore there is not only space in the town, but that space must signify what is going on, its function, and one of the things that we have to face in the twentieth century is that the space in towns has to indicate that it is a net of communication... there is more feeling of connectedness rather than the feeling of being in villages which is self-contained."¹¹ This was reflected in their designs by incorporating different sized buildings with different functions into a cluster that would be "comprehensible to its inhabitants."¹²

Brutalism also focused on raw, "real" materials – "wood, and concrete, glass, and steel, all the materials which you can really get hold of" – instead of the materials of the 1940s, which Alison Smithson described as "some sort of processed material such as Kraft Cheese."¹³ Brutalist materials were "bold and confrontational... heavy, rugged forms forged of inexpensive industrial materials that disguised nothing at all."¹⁴ But even though the name is derived from a material, Brutalism cannot be defined only by the materials, and instead should be grounded in "honesty: an uncompromising desire to tell it like it is, architecturally speaking."¹⁵ Even the father of [New] Brutalism, Peter Smithson, admitted "I am obsessionally [sic] against the brick... [but] if common sense tells you that you have to got to make some poetic thing with brick, you make it with brick."¹⁶

Brutalism, with its "heavy, monumental, stark concrete forms and raw surfaces," was – as Ada Louise Huxtable put it – a "passing style."¹⁷ While the first Brutalist building was built in the last 1940s, the style fell rapidly out of popularity by the mid-1970s. Concrete was becoming more expensive and critics became more outspoken against the "experimental forms...[and their disconnect] from the historical symbolism of architectural form."¹⁸

However, this time period aligns with the same era America was seeing rapid construction of publicly funded infrastructure, especially public housing units and civic spaces. As such, there are swaths of many urban areas that feature Brutalist structures and designs. The popularity of the style also aligns with a time when civic spaces, especially city halls, were being built with new ideals and goals surrounding public engagement in government decisions.¹⁹

Civic Spaces in the Late 1960s and Early 1970s

Civic spaces and city hall buildings offer a space for a citizen's to "participate directly in making public policy."²⁰ The "human conceived, designed, and constructed" nature of these spaces is evidence of the "political meaning" and purpose of the time period.²¹ The "social meaning" of architecture says something about "those who inspired, built, arranged, and use it... nonverbal commentary about people, politics, culture, and civilization."²²

Cultural shifts regarding public participation in government in the 1960s and 1970s are evidenced in the architecture and design of civic spaces from this era. Federal funding to carry out the goals of the Great Society and fight the War on Poverty helped city governments physically grow at the same time "a new ethos of citizen participation in government emerged, stressing citizen boards, the prompt consideration of taxpayer complaints, minority employment in the bureaucracy, and an active citizen voice at public hearings and in city-council meetings."²³ Federal laws from the time, specifically the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, required programs be carried out with "maximum feasible participation" from local communities.²⁴

It was also during this era that cities were building more "comprehensive civic centers" that included multiple public buildings with landscaping features (plaza, park, etc.) to create unity. This time period likewise saw the separation of city council chambers from larger city hall buildings. This disconnected the City Council from the day-to-day functions of government and created a sense of importance. Yet, the separation also managed to increase access and public accountability as sweeping staircases were replaced with ground level buildings accessed by ramps.²⁵ The grand, elite notion of government was physically taken down a notch. City, county, and state governments in the 1960s and 1970s relied heavily on the notion of community participation in policy development, and the architectural style adopted – often Brutalism – helped to accomplish this.

The Brutalist style lent itself well to public spaces and civic centers because of the process behind it – "starting with a conclusion and then working back towards a beginning."²⁶ The essence of the building – or what architect Louis Kahn called the "form" – should be at the center and then the "design" can create unique circumstances.²⁷ At their core, city halls contemporary to the Salem Civic Center were "designed for public access to civil servants and services."²⁸ There was an expectation that city hall provide a space where the public can interact with democracy and be heard. Outdoor plaza spaces that connect "into the building through ramps and steps that [imply] accessible officials" are a key feature of Brutalist civic spaces, including the Salem Civic Center.²⁹ Further, the concrete materials "suggested a fortified barricade and the weight of authority."³⁰ Public spaces "become significant symbols that remind everyone whose attention they command that they share a common heritage and a common future..."³¹ This is the essential form of a civic space and city hall, and from there individual architects added individual design elements for the site and the community.

Buried in rolls and rolls of microfilm about the construction of the Salem Civic Center is a two-page flyer for a new city hall in Paducah, McCracken County, Kentucky. Designed by noted architect Edward Stone and finished in 1965, Paducah's City Hall is not really Brutalist and is only one building on one city block, though it does have a large interior plaza and took twelve years to get approved by local voters, which is very similar to Salem's Civic Center.³² However, the most striking similarity and why this building was likely brought to the attention of Salem's City Manager and Civic Center Project Manager is that it was described over and over as "inviting."

During the building dedication, William S. Foster, editor of American City Magazine, described the new city hall as "beautiful, delicately design, and inviting."³³ Foster went on to say that old city hall buildings were "temple like... with long flights of steps which demean people and separate them from their government."³⁴ In a shift away from earlier eras when government was elitist and participation was minimal, the architecture and planning behind civic centers and city halls of the late 1960s and early 1970s, was about connecting people with government. The City of Salem, though not without struggle, would adopt these Brutalist design elements and community planning ideals for their new Civic Center.

Salem, Oregon

Note: Given the number of National Register of Historic Places listed properties, including historic districts, in Salem, Marion County, the following historic context on Salem has been kept relatively brief and focused to best illustrate the areas and period of significance.

The City of Salem is located in the traditional homelands of the Santiam band of the Kalapuya. Salem's commercial downtown – located immediately north of the Salem Civic Center – was known as Chimikiti. Often written as Chemeketa today, this translates to "gathering place."³⁵ Historic documentation and the archaeological record indicate that the current location of Salem was a winter village for the Santiam bands since time immemorial.56 The location of the Salem Civic Center Historic District was largely Oregon Oak prairie with intermittent springs.

The non-Native history of Salem does not extend nearly as far back as Tribal use of the region, and instead begins in the 1830s when a group of Methodist missionaries led by Jason Lee settled ten miles north of present-day Salem. In July 1840, Lee and his missionaries started the construction of a lumber and flour mill at High Street and Mill Creek near present-day downtown Salem.³⁶ This location was selected as Mill Creek offered more ideal water flows for power generation than the Willamette River. Lee's mill dissolved in 1844, and Salem was surveyed in 1846.

Salem was designated the Marion County seat in 1849 and that same year the first post office opened.³⁷ In 1851, Salem was named the capital for the Oregon Territory after the original territorial government had convened in Oregon City in 1849. Oregon received statehood on February 14, 1859 and while it has seen multiple capitol buildings, Salem has been the capital city since. ³⁸

With the discovery of gold in California and southern Oregon in the 1850s, Salem become more prosperous and well established with hotels, newspapers, and stage lines in the downtown. Growth continued during the 1870s and 1880s evidenced by a bustling commercial downtown built of brick instead of wood. In the early 1900s, transportation infrastructure continued to grow in Salem, with a robust streetcar system, paved roads, and the first automobiles. The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Willamette River also helped to sustain local businesses.³⁹

Population growth in Salem took a dip during the Great Depression, but the Works Progress Administration completed a number of public infrastructure projects in the city, including highway underpasses and new buildings around the Capitol Mall, including the State of Oregon Library building and landscaping. This work also included construction of a new capitol building in 1938 as the prior one burned in 1935. In 1940, Salem celebrated the centennial of Jason Lee constructing his mill and the population was just under 31,000.

Following World War II, during which the city saw relatively few new infrastructure projects, the city began to geographically expand with post-war housing subdivisions around the city. By 1950 the city had approximately 43,000 residents and the focus of infrastructure was shifting towards the automobile with the construction of downtown parking garages and wider bridges spanning the Willamette River (e.g., the Marion Street Bridge, 1952). Salem also made additional improvements including an upgraded water supply system in 1952, demolishing and rebuilding public school buildings, and welcoming new businesses to the downtown. In 1952, the 1873 Marion County Courthouse was demolished for the construction of a more modern building. Twenty years later, Salem's City Hall would see a similar fate. Salem's population continued to boom into the 1960s.

Interstate 5 between Portland and Eugene was completed and development near this corridor increased, pushing Salem to the east. In 1961, the Salem Urban Renewal Agency was formed and with it came great changes to the community – both beautification efforts and the demolition of historic resources.⁴⁰ It was also during the 1960s, after years of trying, that Salem's government was finally ready to physically move out of the past and into a new complex that would serve Salem for the future.⁴¹

Salem's City Government

Today, Salem has a population of over 175,000 and the largest employers in the city are primarily public entities – state government, Salem-Keizer School District, and Marion County.⁴² While Salem's history, development, and growth has always been aided by county and state government being located within the city, Salem's own city government developed somewhat later and was not established until February 18, 1857 when, in the council room at the Marion County Courthouse, Wiley Kenyon was declared the first mayor and four aldermen were selected. Their first order of business was to establish a committee to "draft rules for the government of the common council."⁴³ Streets and sidewalks were the next thing the council tackled, though efforts to prohibit gaming and stop swine from running freely came shortly after. In 1865, the City Council appropriated funds to purchase land for the fire department and in 1866 four special policemen were hired to address a "crime wave of sorts." In 1870, the City Council was meeting in the Patton Building (on State Street between Commercial and Liberty Streets, demolished in 1965) and it would not be until 1893 that the city would pursue funding for the construction of a dedicated city hall with space for the fire and police departments.

Located at the corner of High and Chemeketa Streets, designed by Walter D. Pugh, and built by Southwick and Hutchins, Salem's first city hall cost $80,000 and was 20,000 square feet (Figure 5). While construction started in 1893, the building was not completed until 1897 due to funding struggles and disagreements over who was responsible for what (including gratings and areaway walls for the basement).⁴⁴ In the 1890s, Salem had a population of around 6,000, but by 1960 the population of Salem was just shy of 50,000 – 44,000 more people in need of city services than the 1897 City Hall was designed to accommodate.

In addition to struggling with building capacity, Salem's government structure itself underwent an overhaul in the late 1940s in an effort to become more efficient. In 1939, Salem's government was called a "three-ring circus" as it had one mayor and 14 city councilmembers. Each served for no pay and was responsible for the management of city departments.⁴⁵ In May 1946, Salem voters agreed to restructure city government to have one mayor, seven councilmembers, and a city manager responsible for the day-to-day operations of city departments – a councilmanager form of government.[^67] This was implemented in January 1947 and J.L. Franzen, Salem's first city manager, said that the objective of this type of government was to "work out ways to serve better [with] utmost efficiency in administration."⁴⁶ However, this new type of government continued to serve in out of date and inadequate buildings.

By the 1960s, Salem city services were scattered in six different locations around the community. The City Engineer had offices in West Salem, the City Planning Director was located in the County Courthouse building, and the Parks Department was two miles south of City Hall.⁴⁷ The City Hall building was also deemed too difficult to heat and cool with inadequate restrooms and limited parking.

Designed during a time of horse drawn fire engines, the building was not easily adapted to accommodate changes in fire technology, mainly automotive fire engines, and the existing space lacked appropriate living quarters for the firefighters – the area for hay storage had been converted into a kitchen. The Salem Police Department was located on the first floor of City Hall, but the conditions were dreary and basement like, making it difficult to retain officers (Figure 6).

Further, the system of transferring prisoners from the basement jail to the courtroom left much to be desired with regard to security.⁴⁸

By the 1960s there were similar outdated and inadequate buildings for the Public Library. In 1904, the Salem's Woman's Club hosted a "book social" and received fifty donated books, with more and more coming each day, and with this Salem's Public Library was born. Eventually the Salem's Woman's Club received permission from the Mayor and City Council to use "the east end of the council chambers" as a makeshift library. ⁴⁹ Local carpenters volunteered to build shelves and the Club continued constant fundraising efforts, with little financial support from the city.

In 1912, after the Salem's Woman's Club passed control of the library to the city, funding from Andrew Carnegie allowed for the construction of a 9,600 square foot Public Library building. But by 1968, there was no more shelf space, no off-street public parking, and no administrative spaces. It was clear that Salem's city services were designed for a Salem that no longer existed – a smaller population that relied on different transportation methods and had different needs. As Salemites planned for their future, they had to address their civic needs, and needed a physical manifestation that represented these goals and ideals.

Getting to the Salem Civic Center

The first documented calls for a dedicated Civic Center space to replace the 1897 City Hall occurred in 1947 when the Salem Chamber of Commerce published the "Long-Range Plan for Salem, Oregon, First Annual Progress Report." This report called on Salem "as the capital city, [to] lead the way in civic center development" and act quickly.⁵⁰

Act quickly they did not and the initial discussion of a civic center sat idle until 1958 when the Chamber of Commerce completed a second study that looked at "future urban growth throughout the region."⁵¹ The Committee on Building Needs – a subcommittee of the overall Citizens' Conference for Governmental Cooperation – concluded that "government offices should be centralized to give the best service to the public and permit best coordination, administration, and control."⁵² The recommendation was specifically for Salem to plan for a "city-county annex adjacent to the Marion County Courthouse...[where] city departments could be located in close proximity to related county activities in the same building."⁵³

At this point, both the Salem City Council and Marion County Board of Commissioners requested that James L. Payne, a local Salem architect, start to plan the specifics of this shared space. Payne submitted his final recommendations in 1963, which included a "city-county office building, library building, central fire station, and prison camp" all located near the existing County Courthouse at High and Court Streets (built in 1954 and designed by Pietro Belluschi).⁵⁴ The $3.3 million bond measure that would have allowed for the construction of this shared facility was rejected by voters in May 1964.

Even after facing recent defeat, considerations about a new civic center just for Salem continued. In 1965, Mayor Willard Marshall launched a series of ten studies looking towards Salem in the year 2000. Referred to as the Community Goals Studies, topics considered ranged "from what to do about the 1893-vintage City Hall to what to do to help the elderly combat boredom."⁵⁵ Salemites formed these groups and ultimately made recommendations and guidelines to the City for "genuine needs, and a long-range program" for how to accomplish this.⁵⁶ The entire process took 14-months and involved over 130 community members.⁵⁷ Referred to as the "Package For Progress," this ambitious plan "would see almost every city service, including parks, streets, police, fire, administration, legal, judiciary, traffic signalization and other public works, show dynamic improvements."⁵⁸ However, it was ultimately up to the voters to pass the bonds needed to fund these projects, something that was often easier said than done, especially in the case of the Salem Civic Center.

The Civic Center Committee was one part of the Community Goals Studies and tackled "the immediate needs of a better governmental headquarters... to the influence on civic center planning expected from future new Willamette bridges, downtown freeways and new relationships between city and county government."⁵⁹ Chaired by William L. Mainwaring, the Civic Center Committee encouraged the community to share "what they think a civic center ought to include in Salem's future."⁶⁰ Early meetings of the Civic Center Committee considered multiple sites – including one north of downtown near Union Street and one extending from High Street west to the Willamette River – many of which were deemed costs prohibitive due to the required land acquisition.

Another early site was "just south of the Marion Motor Hotel," a four-block area already partially owned by the city "bounded by Leslie and Trade streets on the north and south, and by Liberty and Commercial streets on the east and west."⁶¹ This site would later be known as the Hillside Site. While slightly farther from the County Courthouse than other options, Payne believed the "site would adapt well to civic center development" and had "good possibilities."⁶² Certain members of the Civic Center Committee, specifically Sol Schlesinger, were concerned that voters would be unwilling to adopt a bond that could cover the cost of "extensive mall development on expensive downtown property."⁶³ Members of the Civic Center Committee also decided they would rather see the new facility located outside of the commercial downtown core.⁶⁴

As early as July 1965, the Civic Center Committee voted – seven of the eleven members in favor – to support the present-day, south Salem location citing "proximity to the downtown core, relatively low land costs, good traffic arterials adjacent and adaptability of the site to a grouping of public buildings" as key reasons.⁶⁵ The City already owned the block immediately south of Trade Street. Original plans called for the city to acquire property all the way to Mission Street (which is one block south of the current Civic Center boundary).

The Community Goals Library Subcommittee voted in July 1965 that the central branch of the Public Library should be included with the civic center, as long as the civic center plans fulfilled the Committees report – which included that the building "be no less than one standard city block in size," have abundant off-street parking and would give the library building priority during construction.⁶⁶ The Library Subcommittee also wanted the building to be located on top of a hill for the most prominent views and placement.

Even though early plans for the complex only called for the city hall, library, fire, and police facilities, other organizations hoped they could be included in Civic Center design. The Salem Art Association requested the Civic Center Committee include a new art museum.89 Another early topic that the Civic Center Committee faced (and a holdover from earlier conversations in 1963) was whether or not to build a "jail farm" or "prison camp" – an agricultural farm where prisoners would work, similar to those run by the State at the time.⁶⁷ It was determined the City did not have prisoners serving long enough sentences to make a farm viable, and instead, a new jail would "be constructed in conjunction with a new city hall in a civic center."⁶⁸

Early plans also took into consideration more than just the services that would be offered and factored in the "attractive setting" that could result from damming Shelton Ditch and creating a lake.92 In September 1965, the Civic Center Committee made their final recommendation – "locating buildings in the center, plus landscaping and parking, in four blocks extending south from downtown Trade Street – an area bounded by Trade, Commercial, Leslie, and Liberty Streets."⁶⁹ The earlier two-block plan was reconsidered based on the plans for the library building, parking demands, landscaping, office space, and future growth potential. The sole dissenter to the larger plan was Sol Schlesinger, who had been a voice for fiscal conservatism from the beginning of the Civic Center Committee meetings. The two-block building would cost an estimated $4.5 million and with the $800,000 needed for additional land acquisition, the four-block Civic Center project would total $5.3 million.⁷⁰

The Civic Center Committee believed they had completed sound community planning work throughout 1964 and 1965 on behalf of Salemites which demonstrated the proposed Civic Center complex would address the needs identified by the community and the City was ready to ask for funding again.

In May 1966, Salem voters were asked to fund the construction of the Civic Center Committee recommendation for the new Salem Civic Center complex. Measure 52 "would provide $4,800,000 in bonds to build not only a new city hall, but a much-needed new library and a central city fire station as well."⁷¹

Those in favor of the new Civic Center argued that the existing City Hall did not offer adequate space for city services considering the building was constructed when the population of Salem was far less (Figure 18).

Those who were opposed to Measure 52 had "concern about the lack of a final design for the building, the cost of the project, or the location."⁷² One Salem resident said they would be voting no given the "low sprawling design" and "wasted areas between the building and around the various building wings," instead wanting a tall, multi-story city hall.⁷³ Another criticizer of the plan said "city fathers should come down to earth, give up the extravagance of hanging gardens and the Taj Mahal and erect a reasonably priced, adequate and beautiful city hall that can be financed and paid for."⁷⁴ Other residents were unsatisfied that tentative plans for the Civic Center stating, "before I give $5.00 to a clerk I want to know what I'm getting for my money – not what it might buy."⁷⁵

Ultimately, 7,715 voters were in favor while 8,653 voted no. Measure 52 failed and the new civic center remained unfunded.⁷⁶ While much of the criticism about the Civic Center revolved around the design, it should be noted the City of Salem did not sponsor a contest for this design. While most Salem architects were in favor of the idea and were calling for an open competition since 1964, the City had entered into a "city-county agreement" with Payne in 1960. While some did not feel that represented a "written contract" and was for another project, Payne threatened legal action if the City opened the design up to competition or pursued another architect.⁷⁷ After many opinions from the city lawyer, in late January 1966, the City Council approved a new, written contract with Payne and Settecase for the design of the Civic Center.⁷⁸ Now to find the funding.

Fourth time at the polls was the charm for the Salem Civic Center project. Planning efforts for a new civic center continued even after the failed bond measure, as the condition of City Hall was not improving and the population of Salem was not shrinking. In 1968, twenty-six Salemites – representing various neighborhoods, ages, and occupations – were appointed to the Civic Building Committee, which was chaired by J. Wesley Sullivan.⁷⁹ The first meeting was held in June and by late July, the Committee made two recommendations to the City Council. The first was to ask voters to pass a $6 million bond measure for the construction of the Civic Center, including the "new municipal administration building, a central public library, police and municipal court facilities, and a central fire station."⁸⁰ The second issues was determining where the Civic Center should be located.

It was clear to the Committee that in order for the community to truly support the construction of the new civic center, they needed to have a direct say in the community planning decision making process and help determine the final location. Therefore, the Civic Center Building Committee asked Salem voters to select the site. The two options were the Hillside Site south of downtown (the present-day location of the Civic Center) and the Mill Creek Site north of downtown "bounded by D, Union, Winter, and High streets."⁸¹ There were concerns that the Hillside site was too close to the railroad and that the Boise Cascade papermill adjacent to the site and near the Willamette River released an unpleasant chlorine odor. However, the site would be cheaper – not only did the city already own part of the property but they would be able to utilize some federal funds given the incorporation of public parks into space – and had better parking options. There were also plans for the Hillside Site which allowed for a better understanding of costs. The Mill Creek Site was located immediately adjacent to the Capitol Mall and away from railroad tracks. However, because there were no plans available, costs and other factors, like the design, were unknown. With a new measure in front of them, many Salemites united to get out the vote for the Civic Center.

Salem's community planning efforts were about to pay off. In 1968, when the country was divided over the Vietnam War, the community rallied together behind the idea of building a new Salem Civic Center. Public outreach and education encouraging a yes vote fell largely on the backs of women – women who were identified in newspapers most often by their husbands' names.⁸² Over 500 women volunteered to host block parties, block coffees, distribute brochures, make and deliver buttons, and share "flipbooks" with an audio recording featuring the plans with the community (Figure 19). There were phone lines citizens could call with questions and volunteers made their headquarters at the Chamber of Commerce office. The Civic Center Building Committee and Willamette University sponsored a "walk-a-thon" event around Salem to show the importance of grouping city services in one place. Many fraternity pledges and brothers participated for the first prize kiss from the reigning Miss Salem.⁸³

The measure received endorsements by a variety of groups and relied on television coverage as well as banners hung at the two sites. These many dedicated volunteers took the information to the voters instead of relying on voters to find it. All of these efforts were successful and after twenty years of talking about it, Salem was finally poised to get a new Civic Center. The measure for funding the Civic Center passed 8,931 to 3,696.

The Mill Creek Site received 5,111 votes and the Hillside Site received 6,644 votes.⁸⁴ Voters went to the polls on September 30, 1968 and at 10am on October 1, 1968, the Salem City Council held a special session to start the bond selling process.

Now that money was available, land acquisition could begin.⁸⁵ Purchasing all the land needed for the 12.85- acre site cost $2,037,000, quite the sum considering some land was already owned by the City.⁸⁶ Once property was cleared, groundbreaking ceremonies were held on May 20, 1970. During the ceremonies, Mayor Vern Miller said the Civic Center would be "a symbol of service, unity and progress."⁸⁷ Hoffman Construction won the bid to construct the project and set immediately to work, even managing to be ahead of schedule for an early period.112 However, the $6 million bond proved to be insufficient in the face of rising material and labor costs.

In early June 1970, just a few days after the groundbreaking ceremonies, Salemites were asked to approve a second bond measure for an additional $2.2 million. The additional funds would allow for the construction of the Fire Station, landscaping, electrical elevators, interior carpets and drapes, and furniture.⁸⁸ With only 15% voter turnout, the measure barely passed (2,679 in favor and 2,510 against).114 The passing of this bond was an especially good thing as pride in the new Civic Center was already high and the City of Salem official letterhead featured the final design – including the fire station – as early as 1970 (Figure 21). With funding secured construction on all elements of the complex continued. The Central Fire Station #1 was the first building completed in May 1971. In June 1972 the Public Library and City Hall began to move into their new homes. The landscaping of the complex was designed "for public enjoyment" and relaxation and included ramps to connect the space for maximum accessibility.[^115] Embellishing the Civic Center was also a community driven effort.

Many items were donated by the community, including the City Council Chambers wood and bronze entrance doors (Figure 22), carved wood doors for the mayor's conference room (Image 38), sculptures throughout the property (Image 40), benches, furniture, flag poles, and more. Dedication for the Salem Civic Center was a weeklong affair in August 1972 with live music, art shows, food, parades, speeches, tours, and unveiling the City's new flag.⁸⁹ Honored guests included Governor Tom McCall (on horseback), Senator Mark Hatfield, and actor James Drury (whose mother happened to live in Salem) dressed in his The Virginian western attire. The only major hiccup was that a helicopter carrying a time capsule was unable to land on the City Hall roof due to gravel. But the time capsule arrived by foot thanks to the National Guard and Salem officially had a new civic center representative of what Salem wanted to be.⁹⁰

The above history captures over two decades of community-based planning efforts led by private groups and Salem government regarding the need for a new Civic Center. This history is represented in the final design and use of the current Civic Center. The Salem Civic Center is historically significant in the context of community planning and development as a lasting reminder on the landscape of how, finally in the late 1960s, the city prepared to step into the future. Years of planning led to the creation of the Civic Center and it represents the goals, ethics, and ideals of Salem during the period of significance. Oregon's capital city had grown drastically following World War II, yet civic spaces had not been able to keep up with demand.

Government, library, police, and fire services were all located in inadequate spaces. The new Civic Center took into consideration changing technologies – from everything from police communications to the preferences of employees regarding workspaces – and also the changing needs of Salemites and desire to participate in government. The Salem Civic Center is directly related to and the best example of how Salem chose to move forward. How a community came together to define its future and its priorities – public services in a well-designed and open public place designed to specifically address the needs of Salemites.

Salem Civic Center Design

A Brutalist "building is allowed to be ‘what it wants to be' – a structural, spatial, organizational and material concept that is ‘necessary' for the particular type of building."⁹¹ Ada Louise Huxtable captured this purpose when describing Boston City Hall (completed in 1969 and designed by Kallmann, McKinnell, and Knowles), another Brutalist civic space, writing the "space is molded to function, form, and expressive purpose."⁹² Combine this style with the need for community engagement and accessibility and that is the foundation of the Salem Civic Center. Whether or not the architects of Salem's Civic Center would self-describe themselves as Brutalist is unknown, but the foundational tenets of the style are well represented in the Salem Civic Center design and how it was adopted by the community in the late 1960s.⁹³

Ultimately architects James L. Payne and Phillip Settecase decided on a Civic Center design that was open, blocky, concrete, and all about the function and needs of the community. James Payne moved to Salem in 1945 after serving the Engineers Division of the United States Navy (Seabees). He opened his architecture firm in 1948. Phillip Settecase moved to Salem in 1956 and began working with James Payne in 1962, becoming a partner in 1964.

Payne, and later with Settecase as the firm grew, designed a number of buildings in Salem during his tenure, but the one most relevant to the Salem Civic Center in the State Agriculture Building located at 635 Capitol Street NE. Completed in 1966, this property is very similar to the Salem Civic Center with regard to design, materials, and purpose. When speaking of this property, Payne noted the fundamentals of civic spaces. The Statesman Journal reported "Architect James Payne pointed out that the
[Agricultural] building will be functional rather than ‘monumental' like the show piece buildings designed for the mall area next to the Capitol."⁹⁴

Payne also designed many of Salem's public schools. During a time when "team teaching" was considered the hot new pedagogy, Payne worked closely with the Salem School District to study the architectural requirements to make team teaching successful. While studying space needs, he concluded "the need now in school design is for flexibility so that buildings can be used for both team teaching and conventional classroom arrangement, by moving partitions."⁹⁵ While the Salem Civic Center was not an educational space, Payne had to apply the same tenets. Creating a space that had the necessary design elements to meet the publics needs in a civic center.

In 1968 Vern Miller and members of the Salem Civic Study Committee took advantage of the media to encourage a yes vote on the bond measure. In addition to noting the inadequacies of the current city hall and the mere $0.60 a month the bond measure would add to the average Salem household, the lobbying highlighted the architectural and planning elements of the building. A 1968 radio broadcast described the building using the following phrases: "not a monument but a functional efficient center for you and your government;" "use of native Oregon materials, stone and brick, will enhance the simple beauty of the Civic Center Design;" "designed to serve you, your children, and your children's children;" "designed to meet the needs of government;" and "a truly beautiful and functional civic center."⁹⁶ These phrases speak to the, as Huxtable described, "function, form, and expressive purpose" of the Civic Center.⁹⁷ The style leads to the function and is grounded in the community needs for an accessible government to create an engaged public.

The Statesman Journal published a one-page spread with frequently asked questions about the Salem Civic Center as another effort to get Salemites to adopt the bond measure in 1968. Some of those questions were specifically about the architecture and how this allowed for public participation in government. Speaking to the sprawling nature of the buildings on the four-block site, some asked "Why don't we just build a multi-storied building on one square block to house the city administrative offices?" The answer:

"There are four very distinct functions severed by these buildings – library, police station, central fire station, and city administrative offices. The library should be at ground level to invite and make public usage convenient. This would not be possible on a one-block site. Police should have ready access to their emergency vehicles and have a jail separated from public view; again, not possible on a one-block site in a multi-storied building. The central fire station personnel have to sleep near the emergency equipment or immediately above it. In summary, too many functions need to be at ground level for effective community service for a one-block site to serve. Also, approximately 335 parking spaces are required for the above uses: spaces which can only be provided by multi-level underground or elevated parking on a one-block site. The committee also feels that some area for landscaping treatment was desired around these buildings, particularly the library."⁹⁸

This concern for space, interaction, and movement is exactly what the Smithson's encouraged with "town building" and what the public demanded. Another frequently asked question was the impression the Civic Center site would have on the public:

"Bounded by major highway routes, the buildings will be visible to tourists and others passing through the city, helping to show the pride that Salem people have in their city. The site itself offers a sweeping view of the heart of the city core area. This has been described as a Parthenon effect by San Francisco architect George Rockrise who helped prepare the plans. The city hall and library will not only have a commanding view of the city but can be seen from many parts of the downtown area, thus providing a visual symbol of city government to people visiting the city core."⁹⁹

The purpose of acquiring four blocks for buildings that could reasonably sit on only two blocks was "to create a green mall-like setting around the buildings."¹⁰⁰ This created a publicly accessible and welcoming space for those wanting to engage with a government meant to serve their needs.

The 1968 Civic Center design was described as "basically vertically reinforced concrete piers supporting a flat roof with horizontal exterior cedar beams at floor and roof levels. The areas formed by the vertical piers and horizontal beams are filled with glass. The Library and Municipal Administrative grouping [are] connected by covered walks. Walking areas are of concrete and brick."¹⁰¹ The completed Salem Civic Center was featured alongside the First National Center in Portland, Oregon in a 1973 edition of Tone magazine, a publication dedicated to ceiling system interior designs sponsored by Armstrong Ceiling Systems. The magazine described the Salem Civic Center as:

"poured-concrete buildings... [that] have a massive, contemporary look but have been designed with an airiness that orients beautifully with the open spaces of the twelve-acre park-like setting. The ten-million-dollar complex comprises a city hall, public library, and fire hall... A reflecting pond, five fountains, and extensive plantings are in the landscape plans. The entire area is designed as a refreshing space for public enjoyment, and all buildings and open areas are connected by ramps for wheelchairs. The center is the largest project ever undertaken by the City of Salem and, in the eyes of the administration, employees, and citizens of the capital city of Oregon, is a great success."¹⁰²

Regarding the architecture, some city leaders believed that the high style gothic city hall from 1897 was an "eyesore" compared to the modern capital building and county courthouse. ¹⁰³ Landscaping was a driver for the large site from the early development. Payne noted that the site could be only two-blocks and accommodate all the buildings, but "three blocks might be better, primarily because the additional space would permit a more extensive landscaping plan."¹⁰⁴

As noted above there was considerable discussion (and dissent) about the four-block site and many believed that building taller on less land could provide cost savings. Mayor Miller responded to one Salemite who raised these concerns in January 1968 (before Salem even knew it would be getting a facility). He noted the design was based on "the analysis done of the traveling habits of Salemites, which determine[d] that ground level access is imperative... [and] high rise buildings are not practical for the type of functions to be located in these new civic buildings."¹⁰⁵ At the same time the City was aware that it would continue to grow and planned to build up on the City Hall building if there was a future need to expand city services. Studies and community engagement were driving the design.

The Salem Civic Center site allowed for "bolder and stronger architectural treatment" and relied heavily on real materials.¹⁰⁶ Even though there was a clear intent of getting Salem to vote for the project, the emphasis that was placed on the Civic Center representing the "appearance and the spirit of Salem" also speaks to ethic of Brutalism, which was beyond just the aesthetics.¹⁰⁷ When the City first set to work on designing the Civic Center, priorities included "accessibility to topography, architectural possibilities, cost, relationship to central business district."¹⁰⁸ The bold architectural style came from the materials, the layout of the site (which was also practical considering the parking area was designed to limit the amount of excavation needed and save money), and the demands of the community. The layout of the buildings in relationship to each other, the overall setting, the emphasis on function and raw materials, and the emphasis in the written record and ongoing use highlight that it was "a project for the people."¹⁰⁹ The Salem Civic Center was not designed for faceless bureaucracy. It was designed for Salem's government and Salem's residents.

Comparative Examples (Or Lack Thereof)

National Register Bulletin 15 notes that comparative examples are not required if the property "is the sole example of a property type that is important in illustrating the historic context or it clearly possess the defined characteristics required to strongly represent the context."¹¹⁰ In the case of the Salem Civic Center, both are true.

While Salem is home to multiple public buildings as the capital city of Oregon, there is only one Civic Center that illustrates the context of local government community planning and development. Therefore, no comparative properties exist at the local level of significance under Criterion A. As noted above, many cities in Oregon and the United States constructed new city halls and civic center during the 1960s and 1970s, but there is only one Salem, Oregon.¹¹¹

Further, the Salem Civic Center maintains all of the necessary characteristics to convey the Brutalist context under Criterion C. Most state buildings built during the 1960s and 1970s, like the State Agricultural Building, were only one building and did not include the larger landscaping element that is essential for the significance of the Salem Civic Center. The Capitol Mall and other state buildings also pre- or post-date the period of significance and are not Brutalist in nature. While Payne and Settecase completed a number of projects at Willamette University in Salem, these were individual buildings and not redefining the entire campus plan.

Finally, people may want to compare the Salem Civic Center to Salem's urban renewal projects built around the same time (and right across the street). Yet, this would also be a faulty comparison. While the Salem Civic Center capitalized on its location adjacent to a designated urban renewal zone (that was completed in 1974) and utilized some limited federal funds for land acquisition associated with park space, it was not an urban renewal project and is not representative of that historic context. There is no other property like the Salem Civic Center at the local level.

The city built one Brutalist Civic Center for one city moving forward.

Conclusion

When describing the 1969 Boston City Hall, Ada Loise Huxtable opined the building "is meant to be impervious to the vicissitudes of changing tastes and administrations."¹¹² At the same time and 3,000 miles west, the City of Salem built a smaller but still impressive civic space with similar goals. Not only is the Salem Civic Center historically significant as a civic space in the Brutalist architectural style, but it also serves as a prime example of the direction Salem was aspiring towards with regard to community planning and development in the late 1960s/early 1970s. The architectural style of the building best reflected the aspirations and ethics for the City of Salem – "what it is and what it can be... civic buildings for the service and enjoyment of all people."¹¹³ With the Salem Civic Center came the opportunity for cleaning up the environment, "triumphs over illness and peace over war."¹¹⁴

The design and function was to ensure that Salem would not be – as Alison Smithson so perfectly described – "Kraft cheese" and would instead venture into the future as a nice sharp cheddar (probably from nearby Tillamook) filled with accessibility and public participation in decision making.

John Terry, news editor of The Capital Journal, wrote "best of all is the sense of community which the [Civic Center] achieves. It is not just a place for the wheels of government to grind their meaningless fodder. It's a place where people can encounter themselves and neighbors; to feel as though they belong."¹¹⁵ The Salem Civic Center was and is the community of Salem. The Civic Center is a reminder to all Salemites of the ideals of Salem in the late 1960s and early 1970s – a desire for efficient and prominent government services worthy of the growing community in a building that was less focused on fancy and more aligned with function.

The Salem Civic Center is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the area of community planning and development and Criterion C in the area of architecture at the local level. It retains sufficient historic integrity – especially with regard to location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling – to continue to convey its important role in shaping the Cherry City of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.