THIS PLACE USED TO BE BEAUTIFUL: THE INFLUENCE OF JOHN CARL WARNECKE

ON SENSE OF PLACE AND BEAUTY

Heather Yee
History 100: Historical Skills and Methods
Prof. Benjamin Breen
November 27, 2023
 John Carl Warnecke’s career existed in a unique space between two major shifts in

architectural thought. His work, then, both responded to and guided his profession’s reply. Born

in 1919 to a Bay Area architect, Warnecke was steeped in both aesthetic design and stubborn

practicality. Personally, he came of age amid a national famine. Earning his Masters in

Architecture from Harvard in 1942, he made his professional debut with war as backdrop.

In 194X, Andrew M. Shanken details the Second World War’s effect on the profession of

architecture. “War jolted an already vulnerable profession into a state of crisis,”1 he writes. At

first, the business of building was bolstered by war needs but that demand dried up fast.

Additionally, aesthetics were the last thing on the minds of military leaders: architects were left

out in favor of the less “artistic and individualistic” engineers. “By contrast, the engineer was

seen as practical, technical, and able to follow orders, the perfect foot soldier for building

projects strained by the exigencies of war.”2

As other architects struggled to shake an image of frivolity and convince the nation of

their importance, Warnecke seems to have taken the constraints of wartime in stride. In the same

way apparel designers created a style by way of the necessary wartime cloth rations, Warnecke

adapted his practice to what was available without forsaking elegance.

In 1951, Warnecke designed Mira Vista Elementary School in Richmond (Figure 1),

across the bay from San Francisco. That site was his first major project to utilize the contextual

style he became known for. The school seems to sprout out of the hill it occupies, with its

delicately angled roofs laying almost flat along the crest. Looking at the site may feel

anticlimactic, but its unobtrusive design is what makes it great. This unflashy style Warnecke

developed became known as contextual modernism.

1
Andrew Micheal Shanken, 194X: Architecture, Planning, and Consumer Culture on the American Home Front
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), 4.
2
Shanken, 194X, 5.
 For many, modernism as an architectural style brings to mind blocky, somewhat sterile

buildings that make a show of being minimalist. These buildings tend to rapidly date themselves.

However, the pioneers of the style had no way of knowing that: they aimed to create spaces that

functioned well in the modern world. According to Hayley A. Rowe’s retrospective on the style,

“The pioneers of the [Modernist] movement held a firm belief that in creating a better

architecture, a better world would ultimately follow.”3 Unfortunately, the pressure applied by the

war’s need for pure function, as outlined by Shanken, pushed this idealistic dream past chic into

garish minimalism.

In the ‘50s, though, this functional focus was popular. New labor-saving technologies

were invented, which lent themselves to the streamlined design style of modernism. However,

novelty reigned in the postwar marketplace. These new technologies, though often objectively

useful, were fueled by a mildly pathological postwar interest in newness. The American home

was flooded with gaudy dyes, patterns, and plastics. The muted florals of the ‘30s and ‘40s

exploded into oversaturated abstract doodles meant to amuse the atomic-era housewife; cars

became shiny spaceships; advertisements shifted from text-based notices to eye-popping,

national campaigns.

By the 1960s, though, designers had tired of choosing colors and textures based on how

far they could push the technology: the charm of oversaturated, busy aesthetics enabled by

wartime scientific discoveries (most notably, plastics) and postwar economic prosperity had

worn off. At the same time, a new way of thinking about thinking emerged: Scientific thinking

had caught up with the trends in the form of computation.

In his doctoral thesis, Altino João Magalhães Rocha considers the influence of emerging

computer technology on architecture in the 1960s. He focuses on “the structuralist method” that
3
Hayley A. Rowe, “The Rise and Fall of Modernist Architecture,” Inquiries/Student Pulse 3, no. 4 (2011).
“fostered the field of semiology and in the course of new studies on the nature of language

[based on the theories of the linguist Noam Chomsky] formed a new intellectual background,

which would soon start to be theorized by architects.”4 The introduction of semiotic thinking into

the physical art of architecture allowed a deeper analysis of how structures are designed. By

breaking designs into their constituent parts the way a linguist uses semiotic units to dissect

language, architects were given new vocabulary– and thus new structure– for their work.

Whether he recognized it or not, Warnecke was a well-suited heir to this revelation in

thought. Rocha quotes architect Christopher Alexander on the overuse of novel computation:

“Only a foolish person wants to use a tool before he has a reason for needing it… and he is

dangerous, because his preoccupation may actually prevent us from reaching that conceptual

understanding, and from seeing problems as they really are.”5 Warnecke seems to agree with

Alexander: in his Long Range Development Plan for the UC Santa Cruz campus he writes:

“There is new desire for emotional content in the design of important buildings, and for a

richness and subtlety that seem to have been lost in a concern with technical innovations.” Both

are concerned with solving problems within their craft, and both are wary of undue zeal for new

techniques.

It’s clear that Warnecke had respect for the old ways. Yet, his professional upbringing left

him at a peculiar crossroads: should he follow the new school he enjoyed as an undergrad on

Stanford’s campus– designed by visionary landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead– or the

old school exemplified by Harvard? By the time he came to Santa Cruz, he had found the

balance between the two.

4
Altino João Magalhães Rocha, “Architecture Theory, 1960-1980: Emergence of a Computational Perspective”
(PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004), 21.
5
Rocha, “Architecture Theory,” 37.
 In the Long Range Development Plan, Warnecke wrote that the residential colleges

should “be designed at a scale related to the individual, to… give a sense of intimate enclosure.”

The academic and administrative buildings, on the other hand, were “where the dignity and

ceremony of University life should be expressed in more formal architecture, and at a scale

recognizing or responsive to the total campus.”6 He realized the power and importance of

formality in the training of young professionals– that frightening yet empowering sense of

grandeur that can only be created by solemn stone– but also aimed to create spaces fully

congenial to humdrum daily life.

This is where Warnecke’s work diverges from his peers within the Modernist movement.

One of the biggest failings of the movement, according to Rowe, is its common inability to

accommodate the realities of human life. The Pruitt Igoe housing complex in St. Louis, Missouri

was completed in 1955, but by the late ‘60s “Poverty, crime and segregation of the community

were major problems for the residents of the development. It was suggested that the modernist

style was to blame for these social problems, and comparisons with the adjacent Carr Village can

be used as an example to back this up.”7 The high-tech high rises of Pruitt Igoe gained acclaim

via intrigue early on, but proved high-maintenance. Carr Village, on the other hand, was less

innovative but more usable.

Though Warnecke was working at the same time as this example, he had the foresight to

avoid such failures. Even in 1949, when he penned an essay on the future of Stanford

University’s architecture, he seemed aware of this danger. “The profession of architecture was

also changing fast,” he wrote, referring in hindsight to the appointment of a new school President

6
John Carl Warnecke and Associates. “Long Range Development Plan.” (Santa Cruz: UCSC), September 1963, 43.
7
Rowe, “The Rise and Fall.”
in 1943.8 “A contemporary style, which is professed not to be not a style at all, but merely a

technique for using new material and modern methods of construction in an organic and

economic manner, was replacing the old.”9 The accusation of this unnamed style, presumably

Modernism, as more medium than method exemplifies his longstanding disdain for

thoughtlessness in design.

This commitment to taking care is clear in his work. The UCSC Long Range

Development Plan is carefully considered and quick to explain the philosophy behind each

choice so future architects and planners can both understand and conform to it. Additionally, his

design of McHenry Library displays taste and a thorough understanding of how the space will be

used by the authentic– not the ideal– student. Here, his responsiveness to the cultural contexts of

a structure described above merges with his sensitivity to the site, briefly described when

discussing his work on Mira Vista Elementary School.

Though committed to modernism, he was also committed to respecting the surroundings.

If other Modernist buildings cleared the land around their sites to create a sci-fi sense of

advancement, Warnecke argued that connection to nature is more impressive. McHenry Library

(Fig. 2 and 3) is a proud example of the Modernist ideals of “function, progress, anti-historicism

and social morality.”10 At the same time, it finds itself in a distinctly ancient location. Nestled

within old-growth redwoods, the concrete structure seems, at first, incongruous. However, the

vertical emphasis created by the columns that support the rooms above the courtyard and the

height of the glass windows blend the silvery concrete with the deep ochre of the trees.

8
“History of Stanford Presidents.” Office of the President, last modified 2023. Accessed November 27, 2023.
https://president.stanford.edu/history/.
9
John Carl Warnecke. Stanford’s Architecture at the Crossroads. (Stanford, California: Stanford University), 1949.
10
Rowe, “The Rise and Fall.”
 In 1977 and 2008 the library was renovated and expanded. In 1977, a five-story addition

was built to house the university’s expanding collections.11 In 2008, Portland-based architecture

firm Bora was commissioned. Their mission was to continue expanding the collections space by

way of compact shelving units, and to bring the spaces used by students into the internet age.12

The designers at Bora were careful to respect the preexisting building. In fact, the continuity of

the addition is so successful that, from the inside, it is almost impossible to tell where the

original structure ends and the new wing begins. Note the identical lighting and window style in

Figure 4 as compared to Figures 2 and 3.

However, not everyone thought the addition successful. A notebook was left on the

ground floor of the library's addition. “Many responses are positive,” wrote City on a Hill

journalist Gianmaria Franchini. They “praise the library’s inspiring environment and ample

space.” However, “a number of comments lament the loss of the old McHenry’s nostalgic

atmosphere.” More poignantly, a first-floor bathroom mirror fell victim to a carving: “This place

used to be beautiful.”13 This testament to the older, objectively outdated building speaks to the

timelessness of good design. Warnecke was concerned not with contemporary trends– his design

only became outdated due to the rapid advances of the ‘90s and 2000s/internet age– but with

underlying principles. This rendered his work timeless.

This impulse to design for what is most sensible and pleasant, as opposed to chasing flash

fame, is what likely earned Warnecke commissions for such illustrious projects as the redesigned

Lafayette Square in DC, Hawaii's state capitol, and JFK’s gravesite (Figure 5). A friend to the

Kennedys, Warnecke’s design could be criticized for its lack of grandeur. Especially compared to

11
American Library Association. “UCSC Library Starts Move into New Addition.” College & Research Libraries
News, 1977. https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/21404/26659.
12
Gianmaria Franchini. “A More Modern McHenry Library.” City on a Hill Press, May 1, 2008.
https://cityonahillpress.com/2008/05/01/a-more-modern-mchenry-library/.
13
Franchini, “McHenry Library.”
the nearby Lincoln Memorial, the lack of height is surprising. Yet, this is Warnecke’s specialty:

giving no credence to hard tradition for the sake of it. Instead of caving to that pressure,

Warnecke created a site uniquely suited to mourning. He replaced the solemn stone walls of the

more common Romanesque mausoleum with a sweeping view of the city where Kennedy lived

and worked.

Still, he did not forgo tradition entirely. He installed an eternal flame behind the

headstone, installed flush with the surrounding stone ground. In this way, Warnecke brings

attention to the fire, inviting visitors to consider the lasting, bright legacy of a President lost too

soon. Reminiscent of the cultures of antiquity he dodged, this flame element also epitomizes

Warnecke’s ability to balance old and new in intentional ways. It is his respect for the site as well

as the subject that makes his work remarkable.

Though Warnecke is universally acclaimed as a champion of contextual Modernism

within official sources, I could find no record of the general public’s perception of his work. My

research was limited to documents like reference entries, obituaries, and reports authored by or

accessible to Warnecke himself.

The closest thing in the sources found was a library student worker’s description of

McHenry: “The ceilings at the McHenry were so low,” he [Angel Subdiaz, a 4th-year student]

said. “The walls were yellowing — it had a real bad vibe to it, an old school vibe. I personally

enjoy just having working elevators and open space.”14 Of course, no design or designer will be

enjoyed by everyone. This student's comment on the “old school vibe” can also be attributed to

the fact that the library was literally an old school building. The complaints of yellowed walls

and low ceilings may have more to do with the age and budget constraints inherent to anything

state-funded. Admittedly, the ceiling issue may be valid, as Warnecke requests that buildings be
14
Franchini, “McHenry Library.”
respectful of the height of the trees in his Long Range Development Plan,15 so comfort inside the

building may have been compromised somewhat in favor of external aesthetics.

It is likely that others shared Subdiaz’s dim view of Warnecke’s work. It’s also quite

possible that, like today, many people simply do not notice the buildings they use. Just this

summer I was surprised by a friend’s complete disinterest in the architecture of the city we were

visiting. In fact, she was shocked I even thought of it and questioned why I cared.

This is why I still argue for Warnecke’s enduring influence. Those who were paying

attention– those who wrote the official reports and articles on Warnecke or his work– laud him.

Thus, the tastemakers and designers who came after him sense his presence, even if the general

public does not. His work has not yet been examined in the sense of its long-term influences

(either those that worked on him or those he effected) but his career is no less important for it.

His techniques and philosophies have made an impact on the field of architecture, whether or not

that sway is intentional or quantifiable.

It might be worth looking into the possibility of other equally impactful architects, such

as Frederick Law Olmstead (who may have influenced Warnecke himself as he designed both his

alma mater Stanford and UC Berkeley). The effect of architecture on learning might also be

investigated. Also, the overlap between architectural styles that, when unscrutinized, seem

distinct but on closer inspection are semiotically similar might be explored. This may be the root

of the general disinterest in architecture: though seemingly unique, many spaces may be the

same underneath the facade– both physically and psychologically. There are many directions this

topic could be taken in: the existing analysis on long-term trends within architecture outside of

the study of specific movements or schools is scant.

15
Warnecke and Associates, “Development Plan.”
 Figures

Figure 1: Mira Vista Elementary School, Richmond, CA. Designed by Warnecke, 1951.

Figures 2 and 3: McHenry Library pre-1968. Fig. 2 (left) was taken by Ansel Adams during his

time as campus photographer from 1962-68. Fig. 3 (right) is from a postcard sold in the Bay Tree

Bookstore on campus, taken by Rudolf K. Meyer in 1968.

Figure 4 (left): McHenry Library after the 2008 renovation and expansion, photographed for

Bora. The new wing can be seen on the right, with the original building making up the wing on

the left.

Figure 5 (right): the JFK memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, Washington, DC. Designed

1963 by Warnecke. Photo courtesy of the US Army.

 Bibliography

Adams, Ansel. Untitled Photograph of McHenry Library. Photograph. UC Santa Cruz, 1966. UC

Santa Cruz.

Association, American Library. “UCSC Library Starts Move into New Addition.” College

& Research Libraries News, 1977.

https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/21404/26659.

“History of Stanford Presidents.” Office of the President. Accessed November 27, 2023.

https://president.stanford.edu/history/.

Franchini, Gianmaria. “A More Modern McHenry Library .” City on a Hill Press, May 1, 2008.

https://cityonahillpress.com/2008/05/01/a-more-modern-mchenry-library/.

Grimes, William. “John Carl Warnecke, Architect to Kennedy, Dies at 91.” New York Times,

April 23, 2010.

John Carl Warnecke and Associates. “Long Range Development Plan.” Santa Cruz: UCSC,

September 1963.

Leipold, J.D. “McHugh Relights Jfk Eternal Flame at Arlington National Cemetery.”

www.army.mil, October 30, 2013.

https://www.army.mil/article/114074/mchugh_relights_jfk_eternal_flame_at_arlington_natio

nal_cemetery.

Magalhães, Rocha Altino João. “Architecture Theory, 1960-1980: Emergence of a

Computational Perspective.” Thesis, Massachusetts Instiute of Technology, 2004.

Marter, Joan. “Warnecke, John Carl.” In The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art. Oxford,

United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Meyer, Rudolf K. The University Library. Photograph. UC Santa Cruz, 1968. UC Santa Cruz.

Mira Vista Elementary School. Accessed November 27, 2023.

https://www.homes.com/school/richmond-ca/mira-vista-elementary-school/gbv75tw3qv56j/.

Rowe, Hayley A. “The Rise and Fall of Modernist Architecture.” Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse

3, no. 04 (2011). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1687.

Rutherford & Chekene, Flack & Kurtz, Joni Janecki, Bowman & Williams, and

Altermatt. “UC Santa Cruz McHenry Library.” Bora, June 7, 2021.

https://bora.co/project/mchenry-library-expansion-and-renovation/.

Shanken, Andrew Michael. 194X: Architecture, Planning, and Consumer Culture on the

American Home Front. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3DsAaW2vn5sC&oi=fnd&a

mp;pg=PR5&dq#v.

Warnecke, John Carl. Stanford’s Architecture at the Crossroads. Stanford, California: Stanford

University, 1949.