the mormon townsite as applied to streets...
TRANSCRIPT
The Mormon townsite as applied to streets andland use in Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Crawford, John Kuenzli, 1931-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.
Download date 16/06/2018 22:33:45
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/566479
THE MORMON TOWNSITE AS APPLIED TO
STREETS AND LAND USE IN NAVAJO AND APACHE COUNTIES, ARIZONA
by
John Kuenzli Crawford
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
COMMITTEE ON URBAN PLANNING
In Partial Fulfillment of.the Requirements For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1971
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED:
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
ANDREW W. WILSON Professor of
Geography and Area Development
J3. /*?'//J Date
DEDICATED
to
DIANE SAUERHOFF
ill
PREFACE
The push for American urbanization on a tremendously large
scale has created the professional opportunity for a host of urban
experts in finance, administration, engineering, planning, et cetera.
It is within these emerging professions and specifically urban plan
ning that many of our major concerns exist. However, there are
countercurrents of tradition, usually rural or even religious, that
conflict with the advances in modern living.
Rather than ignoring the past, as is sometimes done, I have
taken the approach in this thesis that it is important to study
history and geography in order to try to understand their influence.
The objective herein is to show how the system of Mormon town layout
evolved, how its application grew in geographic extent, how it was
applied to large village proposals in a two county area of Arizona
(Apache and Navajo Counties), and what evidence remains of that appli
cation in today's street system and land use pattern. The latter part
of this thesis will contrast the existing situations found in the
Mormon townsites with those found in conventionally designed street
patterns that have recently developed in some of the Mormon villages
or in neighboring towns. This work could provide background informa
tion for planning studies either underway or possible in the future
for the communities or counties so included.
iv
V
One may wonder about the wisdom of a planning study dealing
with small communities for the places involved are rural rather than
urban and vary in population from 500 to 2,500. However, some of the
places herein represent a pure type of Mormon community not likely to
be found in larger places. In order to understand the orthodox
situation, and as no other places are readily available, small places
were used. I was concerned also with disruptions to the Mormon layout
should they occur when a place does grow. Several of the places herein
have grown recently, and the results on the street pattern are shown.
Furthermore, several of these places will soon become large enough to
be classified as urban by the United States Census definition (a place
of 2,500 or more people).Sociologists have studied the Mormons and their villages, and
the author relied heavily on Lowry Nelson's The Mormon Village,
Nels Anderson's The Desert Saints, the Thomas O'Dea's The Mormons. In
an urban planning context, Charles Sellers in his article "Early Mormon
Community Planning" (Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
January 1962) indicated Joseph Smith's role as a planner who antici
pated some of Ebeneezer Howard's proposals by many years. John Reps,
urban planning historian, gave Mormon town development a prominent
place in his recent works: The Making of'Urban'America- and'Town
Planning in Frontier'America. The Mormon experience can easily be
compared to the efforts by other groups. Probably D. W, Meinig's
article "The Mormon Culture Region" (Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, June 1965) is the leading geographical article
vi
to come to grips with the question: where do the Mormons form a
distinctive cultural region? For economic history of Mormon enter
prises t Leonard J. Arrington's Great Basin Kingdom is best. The
political aspects of early Mormonisn are well presented by Klans Hansen
in his The Quest'for Empire and Robert Flanders in his Nauvoo,
Kingdom on the Mississippi. These are the works that should interest
the urban planner the most as they deal directly with socio-economic
and physical planning factors. Historical works are too numerous to
mention at this point in the thesis.
The author would like to thank his thesis director.
Dr. Andrew W. Wilson, and the other members of his thesis committee,
Robert D. Carpenter and Hollis K. Martin, for their time, friendship,
and efforts directed toward the production of this work. Special
thanks are due to Wilfred D. Kelley, University of Arizona's Division
of Economic and Business Research, for his early encouragement and
suggestion of a regional, two-county study. Also, thanks are due to
Dennis Davis, Arizona State Department of Economic Planning and
Development,for discussions pertaining to his hometown? St. Johns,
Arizona.
The author is grateful for leaves of absence from his position
with the Planning Division, City of Tucson, Arizona, which enabled him
to complete the thesis; and thanks are due to his superiors,
Donald H. Laidlaw, David P. Lim, Frank Sortelli, Morris Franks, and
Paul F. Mackey, for approval in such matters. The author also
vii
appreciates the kindness and support from long time friends,
James W. Byrkit, Dr. James R. Hine, and Richard A. Cantrell, who have
read portions of this work.Many local residents in Apache and Navajo Counties were very
helpful, especially in supplying basic information. The services of
the two County Assessor's Offices were absolutely essential, and the
author is particularly grateful for the guidance of Mrs. Ailean Cowley,
Deputy Assessor at St. Johns. Also, Mayor Darwin Grant (St. Johns),
Mrs. Hazel Casper (Town Clerk of Springerville), Karl Eagar (Town Clerk
of Eagar), Albert Anderson (St. Johns), Russell Longshore (Springer
ville) , and Lyle Noble (Show Low) provided welcome assistance.
Last minute acknowledgement of Charles Seller's article
"Mormons as City Planners" (Dialogue, Autumn, 1968) should also be
made.
In conclusion, the author is thankful for the patience of his
typists, Mary Jean Murphy, who typed the manuscript, Mrs, LaRenne
Perkins, who typed earlier versions, and Sharlene Bolen, who assisted
in time of need. Other friends and family members have been helpful,
and thanks are due to many.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.................. ..................... xii
LIST OF TABLES....................................... ........ XV
ABSTRACT....................... xix
1. INTRODUCTION.........................’........................ 1
Impressions from the Street Map of St. Johns, Arizona....Impressions from Personal Experiences.... .............. .The Situation as Applied to Navajo and Apache Counties,
. Arizona.................. 9The Topic for This Thesis.... ........................ . 12The Connection of This Thesis to Urban Planning......... . 14
2. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MORMON TCWNSITE........................ 15
The Revelation to Locate Zion in Western Missouri....... 17The Townsite Proposed for Zion........ .................. 19
3. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLAT OF ZION.......................... 21
The Street System and Block Pattern...................... 21Housing and Lot Arrangement.............................. 24Site Plan and Population Factors............... .......... 25Mormon Communities as a Contrast to Railroad Towns....... 26
4. KIRTLAND, OHIO......... 29
The Kirtland Temple.......... 29The Townsite........ ............... ................... 32Conflicting Sources of Information....................... 32Revisions in Block Size and Lot Arrangement............. 35
5. FAR WEST, MISSOURI............. 40
The Original Townsite........... 40Additions to the Townsite....... ..................... . 43 ,Conflicting Experiences in Developing a Central Place.... 46
Page
viii
cm in
TABLE OF CONTEHTS— ‘Continued
6. MAUVOO, ILLINOIS....................................... . 49
Earlier Subdivisions Occupying the Site................ 49The Townsite for Mauvoo............ .................... 52Growth and Development of the City........... . 57Satellite Communities............. ...................... 62Summary and Evaluation.................................. 63
7. CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH......... . 65
Physical Setting........................... 65The Site for the Temple.............. .................. 68The Townsite....... .................................... 69The Mormon Ward System and Neighborhood Structure...... 76The Temple Square and its Vicinity..................... 77The Commercial District and its Vicinity............... 81The Railroad............................. 82The Population Growth of Early Salt Lake City........... 82The Regional Function of Salt Lake City.................. 83Summary and Evaluation..... .................... ........ 84
8. SNOWFLAKE, NAVAJO COUNTY, ARIZONA.......................... 88Physical Setting for the Town........................... 89General Community Description............................. 90The Public Square and its Development............. 95
Early Development on the Square....... ........ 98Recent Developments on the Square...... ........... 99
The School System and Related Uses....... 99Early Period (to 1915)......... .................. 100Middle Period (to 1930)........................ 101Late Period....................... 102
Other Community Facilities..... ........................ 105The Street System....................................... 106
Early Period.... ......................... 106Additions to the Mormon Townsite............... . 107Recent Developments. . . . . . . . . ...................... 109
Residential Land Use Patterns........................... 113Early Patterns................................ 113Existing Residential Land Use....................... 116Basic Mormon Patterns that Remain................... 118Residential Use in the Non-Momon Subdivisions.... 121
Summary of Land Use Quantities............. ............. 122Summary and Evaluation..... .............................. 125
ix
Page
X
9. ST. JOHNS, APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA.......................... 128
Physical Setting for the Town............................ 129Early Settlements Within the Area.... ................... 129General Community Description.... ................. ...... 131The Public Square and its Development................ . 134The School System...... ................................. 138Other Community Facilities........ 139The Street System......... ................. ..........••• 141
Early Period....................... 141Mormon Towns i to Expansion...................... . 142Non-Mormon Townsite Development.... ................ 143
Residential Land Use Patterns................. 145Early Patterns.............. 146Existing Residential Land Use.............. ........ 147Basic Mormon Patterns that Remain....... ........... 149Residential Land Use in the Non-Mormon Townsite.... 149
Summary of Land Use Quantities............. .............. 151Summary and Evaluation...... ............................ 157
10. INTRODUCTION OF OTHER NAVAJO AND APACHE COMMUNITIES........ 162
Joseph City, Navajo County, Arizona............... . 162Taylor, Navajo County, Arizona........... .......... 167Springervilie, Apache County, Arizona............ ....... 170Eagar, Apache County, Arizona.... ....................... 176Show Low, Navajo County, Arizona..... ............... . 180Lakeside, Navajo County, Arizona.............. .......... 184Pinetop, Navajo County, Arizona..................... 187McNary, Apache County, Arizona.............. ........ 189
11. COMPARISON CF COMMUNITIES BY PUBLIC LAND USE SYSTEMS........ 192
The Public Square System............................... 192The Primary Public Square........... ............... 192Secondary Public Squares............... 197Uses Outside the Public Square System...... ........ 199Proportion of Public Uses in the Public Square
System......... 199Changes in Proportion Over Time............. ....... 202
Churches and Fraternal Organizations........ ........... 208Size of Church Sites............. .................. 208Church Location........ 210Church Related Uses and Fraternal Organizations,.... 210 Relationship of Church and Fraternal Organization
Areas to Population
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
213
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
The Public School System........ ...................... .. 213Size of School Sites............................. 216Relationship of School Site Areas to Enrollment
and Population.... ............ 216Location of School Sites............................ 221
Governmental Uses............. 221Other Public Uses........................................ 225
12. COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY GROUPS BY TOWNSITE PATTERNS........ 227
Proportion of Developed Area Inside the Mormon Tovmsite.. 227Street System Comparisons.......................... 229
Area of Developed Streets......... 231Street Length Characteristics....................... 236
Residential Land Use Comparisons.............. ......... 240Residential Area and Density.... ......... 240Housing Counts and Proportions.................. 245Residual Mormon Features............................ 249
Land Use Quantity Comparisons........................ 253
13. CONCLUSION............................... 265
Public Facility Planning............................... 267The Street System.................. 270Residential Land Use...................... 272
REFERENCES................................................... 275
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. St. Johns, Arizona, City Map, January 1950................ 3
2. Town of BensonCochise County, Arizona, City Map,January 1956 ........................................... 4
3. Downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.............................. 10
4. Joseph Smith's Home Area, New York State................... 16
5. Location of Early Mormon Experiences, 1827-1846.......... . 18
6. The Plat of Zion, June 1833................................. 22
7. The Official Map, Town of Benson and Vicinity, CochiseCounty, Arizona, 1960...................... 28
8. Location of Kirtland, Ohio........................... 30
9. The Original Plat of Kirtland, Ohio, 1833-1834............ 34
10. Central Area, Kirtland, Ohio, 1833-1834......... 37
11. Location of Far West, Missouri.... ........................ 41
12. The Original Plat of Far West, Missouri, 1836............. 44
13. The Revised Plat of Far West, Missouri, 1837.............. 45
14. Location of Nauvoo, Illinois....... ....................... 50
15. The First Plat of Nauvoo, Illinois, Estimated at 1839..... 51
16. The Second Plat of Nauvoo, Illinois, Estimated at 1840..... 55
17. The Third Plat of Nauvoo, Illinois, 1842................... 59
18. Location of Salt Lake City, Utah........................... 67
19. The Plat of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1847-1849....... 70*
20. Location of Early Public Buildings, Salt Lake City,Utah..................................... ".............. 80
Figure Page
xii
xdtii
Figure Pagef
21. Location of Snowflake and St. Johns, Arizona.............. 91
22. Location of Community Features, Snowflake, Arizona........ 92
23. Location of Public Uses, Snowflake, Arizona............... 96
24. The Original Plat of Snowflake, Arizona, 1893............. 97
25. The Mormon Townsite, Snowflake, Arizona, Estimatedat 1920................................................ 104
26. Existing Street System, Snowflake, Arizona................. Ill
27. Existing Land Use, Snowflake, Arizona...................... 119
28. Mormon Townsite Characteristics that have Remained,Snowflake, Arizona............... 120
29. Location of Community Features, St. Johns, Arizona...... 132
30. Location of Public Uses, St. Johns, Arizona............... 135
31. The Original Plat of St. Johns, Arizona, 1888............. 136
32. The Mormon Townsite, St. Johns, Arizona, 1913............. 140
33. Existing Street System, St. Johns, Arizona..... .......... 144
34. Existing Land Use, St. Johns, Arizona...... 148
35. Mormon Townsite Characteristics that have Remained,St. Johns, Arizona..................... 150
36. The Original Plat of Joseph City, Arizona, 1917....... 15437. Location of Mormon Townsite, Joseph City, Arizona.......... 15538. The Original Plat of Taylor, Arizona, 1893................ 168
39. Location of Mormon Townsite, Taylor, Arizona............... 169
40. Original Town Plats; Springerville, Arizona, 1888,Show Low, Arizona, 1903, Lakeside, Arizona, 1935....... 174
41. Location of Mormon Townsite, Springerville, Arizona....... 175
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued
Figure Page
42. Townsite of Eagar, Arizona, 1956............ 177
43. Location of Mormon Townsite, Eagar, Arizona. ............... 178
44. Location of Mormon Townsite, Show Low, Arizona........... 182
45. Location of Mormon Townsite, Lakeside, Arizona............. 185
46. Existing Townsite of Pine top, Arizona...................... 188
47. Existing Townsite of McNary, Arizona........... 190
48. Location of Public Uses, Ten Communities In Pocket
49. Existing Land Use, Ten Communities .................. . * In Pocket
50. Street System, Ten Communities In Pocket
51. Mormon Townsite Characteristics that have Remained,Eight Communities In,Pocket
xiv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of Early Townsite Features, Kirtland, Ohio,Compared to Zion....... . ............................ 36
2. Summary of Early Townsite Features, Far West, Missouri,Compared to Zion....................................... 42
3. Summary of Early Townsite Features, Nauvoo, Illinois....... 53
4. Summary of Early Townsite Features, Great Salt Lake City,Utah..... :................... ......................... 71
5. Summary of Early Public Building Features, Salt Lake City,Utah........................................ ........... 79
6. Summary of Early Townsite Features, 1833 to 1860........... 86
7. Land Use as a Percentage of Developed Area, Snowflake,Arizona, by Subdivision Type........................... 123
8. Land Use as a Percentage of Total Subdivided Area,Snowflake, Arizona, by Subdivision Type................ 124
9. Land Use as a Percentage of Developed Area, St. Johns,Arizona, by Subdivision Type........................... 152
10. Land Use as a Percentage of Subdivided Area, MormonTownsite, St. Johns Compared with Snowflake............ 153
11. Land Use as a Percentage of Total Developed Area,St. Johns, Arizona, Compared.with Other Communities.... 154
12. Land Use as a Percentage of Developed Area, FourMaricopa County Communities............. 155
13. Land Use as a Percentage of Total Subdivided Area,St. Johns, Arizona, by Subdivision Type................ 156
14. Characteristics of the Primary Public Square, TenCommunities....... 194
15. Land Use and Location Characteristics of the PrimaryPublic Square, Mormon and Non-Mormon CommunityGroupings................ 196
Table Page
xv
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table Page
16. Characteristics of Secondary Public Squares, EightCommunities.............. 198
17. Land Use and Location Characteristics of Primary andSecondary Public Squares, Mormon and Non-MormonCommunity Groupings........... ........................ 200
18. Land Use and Location Characteristics of the Public UsesOutside the Public Square System, Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groupings........ 201
19. Distribution of Public Land Use in the Public SquareSystem, Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groupings...... 203
20. Distribution of Public Land Use in the Public SquareSystem? Snowflake, Arizona, 1900 to 1968............ . 204
21. Distribution of Public Land Use in the Public Square System;Snowflake, Arizona (1920), Compared to Salt Lake City,Utah (1870)............................................ 205
22. Distribution of Public Land Use in the Public SquareSystem; Show Low, Arizona, 1940 to 1968................ 207
23. Inventory of Churches, Ten Communities, and CommunityGroupings......... 209
24. Location of Churches with Respect to Business Centerand Highway, Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groups.... 211
25. Inventory of Church Related Uses and Fraternal Organizations,Ten Communities and Community Groupings................ 212
26. Location of Church Related Uses and Fraternal Organizationswith Respect to Business Center and Highway, Mormonand Non-Mormon Community Groups......... ^14
27. Church Uses and Fraternal Organizations Combined; LandUse Area to Population Ratio, Ten Communities, and Community Groupings.... .......... 215
28. Inventory of Public Schools, Ten Communities, and SchoolSystems...... ^17
xvi
xvii
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table Page
29. Public School Area, Enrollment and Population Ratios,High School System.... ............. 219
30. Public School Area to Population Ratio Compared toMormon Strength in the Community.... ................... 220
31. Location of Public Schools with Respect to BusinessCenter and Highway, Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groups........................... 222
32. Inventory of Governmental Offices, Ten Communities, andCommunity Groupings............. 223
33. Inventory of Park and Recreation Uses, Hospitals, andCemeteries............. 226
34. Proportion of Developed Area Inside the Mormon Townsite...... 228
35. Characteristics of Street Pattern Types............. ........230
36. Developed Street Land Use, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community..... ............ 232
37. Alley Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community..... 233
38. Average Street Intersection Intervals and Street Widths,by Subdivision Type, for Each Community............. 235
39. Length of Developed Streets, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community.............. 237
40. Street Length Not Compass in Direction, by SubdivisionType, for Each Community................................ 238
41. Length of Penetration Streets, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community........ 239
42. Proportion of Platted Streets Actually Developed, bySubdivision Type, for Each Community.................... 241
43. Residential Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity....... ............ ..........i................. 242
44. Agriculture Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity.......................... ........... ...... 244
xviii
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table Page
45. Residential Density, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity......... 246
46. Single-Family Housing Count, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community....... 247
47. Mobile Home Housing Count, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community........................................ 248
48. Multiple-Family Housing Count, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community................. 250
49. Housing Vacancy, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity.................................... 251
50. Mormon Residential Features that Exist or Remain, 1968,Mormon Townsite Only, for Eight Communities and Community Groups......... 252
51. Public and Semi-Public Land Use, by Subdivision Type,for Each Community...................... 254
52. Commercial Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity.... ............ 255
53. Industrial Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity.... ......................... 256
54. Miscellaneous Land Use, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community....... 257
55. Railroad Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity................. 258
56. Developed Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity........ 260
57. Undeveloped Street Land Use, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community........................................ 261
58. Vacant Land Area, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity.......... . 2 6 2
59. Total Land Area, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity............... ^63
ABSTRACT
The Mormon townsite possessed unique features as the early
Mormons moved from Ohio to Missouri, to Illinois, and finally to Utah.
These communities included the standard farm village system, the church
as the town's public square, an exact grid-pattern for the street sys
tem, and a pattern of low density for residences and gardens.
Later, the Mormons came to Arizona with these ideas. Ten
communities in a two county area of northeastern Arizona were chosen
as examples for a study of historical townsite developments and existing
land use and street patterns. Their current populations range from
500 to 2,500, and their study areas average four square miles each.
Five communities have Mormon townsites large enough so that they were
classified as strongly "Mormon," while non-Mormon patterns now dominate
the street systems of the remaining five.
These small communities have public and semi-public real
estate which provides an excellent example of space utilization still
useful to their citizens. But, modifications to the street systems
are needed. Changing life styles of the Mormon people are modifying
other aspects of the original Mormon town plans.
xix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 1967 an urban planning assistance program^
was undertaken by the University of Arizona's Division of Economic
and Business Research for Apache County, Arizona, and the three in
corporated towns therein; St. Johns, Springerville, and Eagar. Areas
excluded from the study were the two large Indian Reservations
(Navajo and Ft. Apache) that cover the northern and southern portions
of the County, respectively, and planning work for these areas has
proceeded under different arrangements.
A dominating feature of the Anglo-American portion of Apache
County and its three towns is its background of Mormon Pioneer settle
ment. Although Spanish-American sheepherders from New Mexico and
cattlemen (largely from Texas) settled within the area (often before
the Mormons) and contributed their share to the founding of towns
and communities, the Mormons became the most numerous and prominent
group. Furthermore, their influence became obvious with respect to
settlement patterns, configuration of street systems, land use
This type of program is commonly referred to as a "701" Program," and this designation "701" stems from the fact that provisions for this program were originally found in Section 701 of the Federal Housing Act of 1954. Two-thirds of the funds came from the Federal Government and one-third from local governments. The local contribution was in cash from the four units of government involved plus contributing services from the Division of Economic and Business Research The University of Arizona, Tucson.
1
2
arrangements, and social patterns. Material in the last half of
this study will deal with further definition of these unique patterns.
Impressions from the Street Map of St. Johns, Arizona
When work on the urban planning assistance program was ini
tiated in 1967, a street map of St. Johns (dated January 1950) was
obtained that seemed quite unique when its street pattern was con
trasted with communities known to be founded by persons other than 2Mormon. The maps obtained for Springerville and Eagar showed charac
teristics similar to St. Johns, especially in a gridiron system of
square blocks with a "four-square" lot pattern. There was enough dis
tinction so that Mormon characteristics did seem to be a subject for
definition and further study, but differences were apparent which
meant each town had its own history and the subject would not
necessarily be an easy one to pursue.
The impressions made by the St. Johns map were quite startling.
The lots in each block (a "four-square" pattern) were arranged dif
ferently from what might be considered normal or standard practice
which generally includes a pattern of rectangular lots and blocks.
2Contrast Figure 1 (St. Johns) with Figure 2 (Benson).Benson, Arizona, is an example of a community with Southern
Pacific Railroad origins, and its street pattern is typical of such an origin: see Will Barnes, Arizona Place Names (Revised and enlarged by Granger), Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1960, p. 30; .and W.P.A.Writer's, Arizona (American Guide Series), New York:Hastings House, 1956, p. 382.
r---- 1
i :----
'o
--ST. JOHNS ARIZONA
Figure 1. St. Johns, Arizona, City Map, January 1950
Sources City of St. Johns, Arizona.
T O W N OF BENSON
___jL
Figure 2. Tovm of Benson, Cochise County, Arizona, City Map, January 1956
atSource* Town of Benson, Arizona
5This "four-square" patter^ was spread over most of the town except
for a small area near the center and in some outlying areas. The
appearance of such a pattern covering a very large area (almost two
square miles) seemed significant when it was remembered that St.
Johns' population was only 1,300. The map and its visual qualities
stimulated inquiries that led to the work behind this thesis, which
lies beyond the scope of the "701 program."
Impressions from Personal Experiences
Two trips in former years through Utah and southern Idaho,
plus a familiarity with most places in Arizona, created a background
for the author which would enable him to pick out the Mormon charac
teristics of the communities and separate them from the non-Mormon.
Basically, it was known beforehand that Mormon pioneers founded
many communities in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona, primarily during the
1847-1900 era; that these communities tended to be small farming
communities with fields surrounding the towns; that the people tended
to live in the towns and travel to their fields or other jobs out
side; that gardens were a prominent feature within the communities;
and that this system from the past seemed to remain essentially un
changed to the present date.
The physical characteristics of Mormon towns are quite
obvious. In Salt Lake City the Temple occupies a central, prominent
6
location. As its purpose and role"* would suggest" (for the Mormons
are known to be very religious), the Temple building is the most
significant structure in the city, and the grounds are relatively
large when the downtown location is considered. Even the State
Capitol is not as centrally located, although Utah's Capitol is a
large and grand building. The University of Utah is nearby (actually
about two miles to the east), and sane of its newer buildings may be
almost as massive as the Temple. Additionally, the downtown com
mercial structures have obvious importance, but the Temple remains
in first place.
Relatively speaking, the Temple at Mesa (Arizona's largest
Mormon city) occupies a similar position of centrality and prominence,
although in this case the Temple was built 45 years after the city
Special and secret rites occur inside a Temple, whereas ordinary church services, meetings, and social and recreational festivities occur in the "meeting house" which usually appears as a large church. Several terms will be used for this thesis; the expression "church" is the same as "meeting house" or "chapel."
Endowment rites, vicarious baptism, and celestial marriage for eternity occur in the Temple, a Holy Place. Meeting houses are places of worship and recreation, dancing and basketball; Wallace Turner, The Mormon Establishment, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966,pp. 69-71, 74.
Cultural and recreational organizations are many, for all ages, meeting regularly at the meeting house. Baptism, which confirms church membership, may occur in the local church or at an outdoor place. Temples are primarily work places where efforts for the salvation of the dead are prepared by mature Mormons: bythose who steal hours from their business, or by elderly persons who have moved to a temple city; Fife and Fife, Saints of Sage and Saddle, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1956, pp. 2-5,12-13, 16.
74was founded. At Manti, .Utah, the Temple occupies a site on a
small hill and is fully visible from the passing highway.
In recent years, persons of the Mormon faith have settled
in large numbers in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and
San Francisco. Each of these areas now has a Temple, but with their
newness one could not expect a downtown location. The new Temple
at Oakland is clearly visible from the Foothill Freeway, however.
In the smaller communities, the Mormon church or meeting house
has similar significance in respect to location as the Temple has
to Salt Lake City, or Mesa, or Manti. In places such as Snowflake,
St. Johns, Eagar, and St. David, Arizona, the church is located
along the main highway in the downtown area for each town.*’ The
buildings are large, quite beautiful, and are next to impossible for
the casual visitor to miss. In Show Low, the church is located a
block from the highway, but the building is very large and located
on a slight rise in slope. Hence, it too can be seen from the high
way. However, visibility for travelers and tourists is not always
4At Salt Lake City the Temple site was selected first, and the city grew around the site. In Mesa the Temple is due east several blocks from the business center of the city.
^The Oakland Temple is located near the 4700 block of Lincoln Avenue: Oakland, The Pacific Telephone Company, June 1970, p. 121.
6New Mormon "chapels" are always the handsomest buildings in their towns; Marshall Sprague; The Mountain States, New York: TimeLife Books, 1969.
8a major concern, or perhaps it is not always possible for the
church to be so prominently displayed. In a community like Gilbert
(southeast of Mesa), whose location is not on a major tourist high
way, the church still occupies a central location. However, an
exception to this rule is Joseph City where a new and grander church
was built in a less congested area several blocks away from the old
church on the highway.
In communities not originally settled by Mormons but where
persons of this faith now live in large numbers, a similar trend of
prominence or centrality has evolved. In Navajo County, which
received a main thrust of Mormon settlement from Utah, the Mormon7church at Holbrook is located almost downtown but a block from the
highway. Several other churches, which are smaller and less imposing,
are located nearby. In contrast, Yavapai County did not receive a8main thrust of Mormon settlement, and in Cottonwood, located therein,
the Mormon population grew from a small beginning. Their original
Until 1914, Holbrook was said to be the only county seat in the United States without a church. Its early history was one of a tough railroad and cattle town. Mormons settled near Holbrook at an early date and eventually penetrated the town; Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 240; and W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona Cop, cit.), pp. 313-314.
8Cottonwood was founded soon after 1874 by farmers; Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 340. The first Mormon farmers at Joseph City, more than 100 miles away, arrived in 1876 (Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 242). This was the closest Mormon settlement to Cottonwood at that time. (See, also, W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), p. 331.The date of Cottonwood's settlement was placed by this source at 1875.)
9
church was small and located on a residential side-street. When a
new, larger church was desired and needed, a better location was
sought, and the present Mormon church occupies a prominent site on
a secondary thoroughfare near the highway.
A visit to Salt Lake City quickly reveals its strict gridiron
pattern: large, square-shaped blocks with wide streets running north-
south or east-west. This pattern was used for the older, central part
of the city, but more recently typical American subdivision practices
have been used in outlying areas. In the downtown area the wide
streets proved advantageous for moving large volumes of traffic and
for parking many automobiles. However, the interior spaces of the
large blocks have proven to be unusable for commercial buildings or
parking lots unless a court-street penetrated the block. (See Fig
ure 3 for examples of this situation.) City planners on a local basis9have studied this problem. A similar situation of streets and blocks
may be found at Mesa, Arizona.
The Situation as Applied to Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona
In the smaller Mormon communities a similar pattern of square
blocks and wide-straight streets oriented to the compass was developed.
9Charles L. Sellers, "Early Mormon Community Planning," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, January 1962, p. 29.
^Maricopa County and City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Departments, Part 1 of a Comprehensive Plan for Mesa, Arizona, 1961, p. 76.
10
L_tzo
M 3 TH/GH
SCHOOL
~ 2M 2)___□
A6 /.OOP (500 Z,cx>0
JCAie Mf rtcr
t e jrr
E d T£M P L£
JQUAKC
inn\\
U U E n
jv_zn CO
j'JULl[insc rzign
PJ0M££R
PARK'SO
iiiin=ij .j r
O f f AMD C*UMTi BUUPIMG
=□1nniJLn r
m
-iiS 3
ran35 u y tz
1 1 i r — 11 i r rn i i n n n i i n r
Figure 3. Downtown Salt Lake City, Utah
Sources Texaco Oil Company, Highway Map, "Utah," 1964; and lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, 1952, Appendix D.
11A drive through St. Johns or Snowflake quickly demonstrates the
situation. However, these basic aspects are all that is likely to
be revealed of the street system during a brief visit. Maps may
lead to a greater understanding of a community's layout. In 1967,
the map of St. Johns created for this author a new kind of awareness
of the community. The large area that was platted and its regular
(four-square) pattern of streets and lots was strange!
Characteristics of the map seemed to suggest topics for study
beyond the range expected during regular planning exercises performed
for so-called ordinary communities. Subsequent field checks revealed
there were some differences between the map and features on the ground,
issues to be dealt with in the later stages of this thesis. Questions
of an urban planning nature arise such as: How different or unique is
the Mormon situation when forecasting land use requirements? How
important is the difference— Mormon community compared to non-Mormon
community— in (for example) preparing and executing a zoning ordinance
or subdivision regulations? The present study will only lead to
ward answers to these questions. Further understanding is needed
before such questions can be settled.
The planning assistance program (701) in Apache County, a
situation which introduced the topic for this thesis, will not be
mentioned further except to acknowledge the aid of several base
maps which were re-drawn and ire-adapted for use herein. (See map
reference part of reference Section.) It is hoped that observations
12to follow will be useful to planning programs in Apache County, in
its neighbor Navajo County, in other Mormon communities, and generally
in any small community. It should be emphasized that the major topics
will be to deal with physical aspects within the towns!te— especially
with the street system and land-use use pattern— although peripheral
physical features and community social and economic characteristics
will not be entirely overlooked. Furthermore, land use discussion
will emphasize residential and public uses with lesser importance
assigned to commercial and industrial uses.
The Topic for This Thesis
In summary then, the purposes herein are twofold. The first
purpose is to explain how the Mormon townsite began, what its char
acteristics were with a quick indication of their origins, when and
where the principles were applied with success or failure, and why
certain principles were retained and others were dropped as time went
along, A second purpose is to describe the beginnings of a number of
townsites in a two county area of Arizona (Navajo and Apache Counties)
and to examine the situation today for evidence as to how permanent
the Mormon townsite principles really were. Characteristics of the
Mormon townsite will, at last, be contrasted with those of non-Mormon
patterns. A two county area was taken as the Study Area to obtain
as many as ten communities for study and because these communities
are virtually inseparable in their historical and cultural
13
characteristics. The boundary line between Navajo.and Apache Counties
has little or no regional significance.
For the first purpose, the approach taken will be historical
geography. Regarding the early stages of Mormonism, details of set
tlement history were gathered as fully as possible in order to set a
firm foundation for generalities to be investigated later. However,
when the Mormon experiences in Utah were reached the material was
selected to emphasize Salt Lake City as the Primary example of Mormon
city development, rather than to be as inclusive as before.
For the second purpose, historical geography was continued to
show that the Navajo and Apache County experience was a typical one.
A rather long gap in time then occurs in the discussion from early
settlement to the situation today, although the discovery of a few
generalities with regard to settlement change will be attempted. The
evidence of the situation today— street pattern and land use informa
tion-will come from observations in the field. Maps combining in
formation from county assessor maps will be used for the starting
point, with land use base maps for the thesis being an adaptation
from these town maps containing assessment parcels of land. After its
description by maps and tables, the situation today will then be com
pared with the original layout for evidence of the persistence of
certain characteristics? comparisons will be made also with evolution
ary experiences of the previous century? and contrasts will be made,
Mormon to non-Mormon. Data regarding the street system and land use
pattern will be separated to emphasize the Mormon, non-Mormon contrast.
14
A final evaluation will be made as to whether the Mormon pattern
should be retained, perhaps with added emphasis, or be discarded in
future planning proposals.
The Connection of This Thesis to Urban Planning
This thesis is to be considered as a morphological study to
serve as a background for comprehensive planning. Historical studies
are not always credited as being relevant to comprehensive planning.
A fear expressed by some planners is one of becoming so steeped in
the traditions of the past that they will be unable to project neces
sary changes for the future. This author is impressed, unfavorably so,
with how rarely historical study or morphology is included in a plan
ning process, even in cases where preservation of historic sites and
structures should be expressed in the plan. Usually, planning reports
only include platitudes to the effect that "past is prologue," and
then dive headlong into proposals for change. In contrast, this
author believes that morphological studies linking cause and effect
leading to social, economic, and physical relationships in a community
could greatly strengthen the basis for decision-making on future proposals and changes.
1 CHAPTER 2
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MORMON TOWNSITE
In 1830 the Mormon Church was founded in western New York
State by Joseph Smith and a small band of followers. (See Figure 4
for the location of Smith's home area.) The previous decade had been
one where religious tenets had been discovered by Smith and revealed
to his family and friends.* As the next decade began, Smith's sense
of purpose and destiny was to be set into motion by his organization.
He had a notion, at least, of the work that needed to be done, and now
was the time for action.
For executive and administrative purposes the early Mormon
Church was led by pronouncements from God through Joseph Smith in the
form of "revelations." One of the first questions asked of God by Smith
as Prophet was, "Where shall be our gathering place?" Soon after his
arrival in Kirtland, Ohio, on or about February 1, 1831, Smith had a
revelation$
And from this place ye shall go forth into the regions westward; and inasmuch as ye shall find them that will receive you, he shall build up my Church in every region, until the time shall come when it shall be revealed unto you from on high, where the city of the New Jerusalem shall be prepared, that he may be gathered in one, that ye shall be my people and I will be your God.1 2
1Mulder and Mortensen, Among the Mormons, New York: Knopf,1958, p. 13.
2James A. Little, From Kirtland to Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1890, p. 12. '
15
16
l a U 0 ^ io
yr/CA
' ^ ■ I t h a c a
Cdieswue *>j/jfTod
a/e m Yo r k
P£A//JSYl VAa/ZASuSQtiCHAMA 0
O /O ZO 30 40 SO C>0
S cale /// avlcS
Figure 4. Joseph Smith's Home Area, New York State
Sources Rand McNally, Commercial Atlas, 1970, pp. 362-363, 366, 436
17
The Revelation to Locate Zion in Western MissouriIn the summer of 1831 God said that Zion (or New Jerusalem)
should be founded at Independence in Jackson County, Missouri, on the
edge of the prairie and on the far western edge of what at that time
was the beginning of American frontier settlement. (It is now the
Kansas City Metropolitan Area.)3 (See Figure 5 for the location of
Kirtland and Independence.)
It might be speculated as to why this site was chosen. The
Mormons were developing a feeling of kinship for the Indians, and
perhaps they sought to be close to Indian country which then existed
west of Missouri. At the second church conference, September 26, 1830,
Parley Pratt and Oliver Cowdery were called upon to go to Missouri
(and the West) and preach to the Indians/* Smith hoped the Indians
would accept the Book of Mormon as history of their ancestry.5
For reasons of a more practical nature Smith, no doubt, in
tended practically from the start to establish a sizable colony, and he
soon realized that large tracts of inexpensive and virtually unsettled
land would be needed.6 Parley Pratt, from his mission in late 1830 and
oKlans, J, Hansen, The•Quest for Empire, Michigan State University Press, 1967, p. 47.
4Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials of Church History, Salt Lake City: Desert News Press, 1935, p. 112.
^Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, New York: Knopf, 1966,pp. 93-94.
^D. W. Meinig, "The Mormon Culture Region," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, June 1965, pp. 191-220.
>SC”. J Oj
OMAHA q \q COUHCIL Smrrf'^
£^Z AL8MA..^QoSTOti
xy _ ^OpHHiKA v - n ^ Z
rln l uarmM \ CWLfifiM -. ;■sr.Ws'0 \<r" '’ ^ -a. i
v v v------- \ : ___________ ________V--------<° 0wL»
L w * £ s r VJerrcKScJcirf JKlomS;.— * Z ^ - * -: . y(------i
'•O^' / oA oPittsburgh qiPriiLADELFHtAi W : : - : . - ^ r
AFigure 5. Location of Early Mormon Experiences, 1827-1846
Source: Rand McNally, Road Atlas, 1970, frontispiece.
19
early 1831, gave such an enthusiastic report of the Independence area
to Smith that the Mormons very early became interested.^
On September 11, 1831, it was revealed that for five years
Kirtland would be a temporary gathering place, or a way station to Mis- 8souri. At this point in time Smith defined Kirtland as the eastern
9border of the "promised land" which extended westward to the Pacific.
The Tovmsite Proposed For ZionThe Mormons believe that the call to gather at Zion (which was
to be Independence, Missouri) was the direct word of God through acarefully recorded revelation received by Smith. There is no questionfor devout Mormons of the nature of divine revelation, and as Smith
recorded a great deal confusion sometimes arose over the divinity of
a passage he might have written. For example, what divinity might
be claimed for the layout of Zion seems to be open for questioning.^
Neither Smith's letter nor map of June 1833 are officially recorded as
part of the divine record. But, since Smith's words were revered any12letter was likely to be accorded considerable importance. The writ
ten word in those days carried with it a spirit of admiration and awe
^Mulder and Mortenscn, op. cit., p, 59.
®James A. Little, op. cit., p. 13 ^Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 97.^William J. Whalen, The Latter-day Saints'in the Modern Day
World, New York: The John Day Company, 1964, p. 17.
^Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1952; Charles L. Sellers, op. cit., pp. 24-26.
12Charles Sellers, op. cit., p. 26.
13 Therefore, the result was that theto a semi-literate society,
diagram carried with it the stamp of approval, and its fundamentals
came to be used whenever and wherever possible.
Historical circumstances were such as to encourage the
development of a strong faith— the Mormon Church— a faith which per
meated into all phases of life and included, quite naturally, the
proposed layout of cities. At first it was to be one city, Zion, but
circumstances led right away to the development of more than one (by
the summer of 1831 there were two; Kirtland and Independence).
A small diagram resulted in the plan for Zion which, as many
of its features were eventually used over and over again, became the
"Mormon townsite," Certain characteristics of the original changed,
but the basic ideas remained with the establishment of most Mormon
communities.
^^William A. Linn; The Story of the Mormons, New York: Russell, 1963, p. 51.
CHAPTER 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLAT OF ZION
With regard to Zion and its layout# the reasoning pf Smith is
not known for sure.^ In an age when new communities were being built
by the hundreds and perhaps thousands, Smith and his associates were
familiar with the basics of town building. The original plan of Zion
showed the Temple in the center of the City. The entire space of three
blocks, together as a unit, was to be reserved for schools, churches,2and public buildings. (See Figure 6.) The family of Joseph Smith
had its origins in New England, and the Commons or central square was
familiar to them. Too much may be imputed from this, but this aspect
of Smith's plan was to be expected.
The Street System and Block Pattern
The features of order and rigidity of the street pattern might
be wondered about,^ Presumably, the streets of New York and New England
villages familiar to Smith were dirt roads, perhaps narrow and crooked
and irregular. Surely the idea of formality, order and grandeur would
^Specific suggestions aren't known; Lowry Nelson, op. cit.,p. 36.
2John W, Reps, The Making of Urban America, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965, p. 466; John W. Reps, Town Planning in Frontier America, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, p. 411;lowry Nelson, op. cit., p. 38; Charles L. Sellers, oja. cit., p. 25.
30rder and regularity must prevail; Charles L. Sellers, op* oit:., p. 25.
21
22
P u b ucxSQ.UA RE
to 7 4- /tt 8 5 Z/Z 9 0 3
2Z n tl /323 20 /7 14-24 2! t6 /S
jfhSoo /'OOO /,soo j oeo
S c a l e i m E c c t
Figure 6. The Plat of Zion, June 1833
Sourcej John W. Reps, The Making of Urban America, 1965, p. 467j and Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, 1952, p. 39.
23
came to him as an ideall Also, if one is going to draw a preconceived
map of any future townsite, more than likely it will be drawn with a
considerable degree of regularity. It simply is natural to do so.^
Without any knowledge of terrain or topography, how can one draw in
rivers or bluffs or hillsides, etc.?
Smith's diagram was hurriedly drawn although some thought
entered into dimensioning of wide streets and large blocks. The city
was to have been a mile square and divided into blocks forty rods
square (660 feet by 650 feet) except for a middle tier of blocks run
ning north and south. These blocks were to have been forty rods by sixty
rods (660 feet by 990 feet) with the greatest dimension lying east and
west. The area of the regular blocks would have been ten acres each,
while the area of the larger blocks, including those reserved for
public buildings, would have been fifteen acres each. All streets
were to have been eight rods, or 132 feet wide. The squareness of the
dimensions, especially for the overall size of the city, had biblical
significance. Smith and his group searched the scriptures for sug
gestions to construct their city as similar to old Jerusalem as possi
ble. Terms like "lieth four square,” and "the length is as large as 4 *
4Refer to the order and rigidity of Ebeneezer Howard's plan to Garden City; Ebeneezer Howard, Garden Cities of To-Morrow (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, editionof 1965), pp. 52-53
■ gBrigham H. Roberts,"Comprehensive History, Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, Proves Brigham Young University Press, 1965, '’o\. 1, n. 311.
24breadth" justified their use of the mile square, which also fit in
with the United States system of rectangular surveys.
These dimensions resulted in a city plan of eight streets
east-west, eight streets north-south, with seven tiers of blocks in
both directions, or 49 blocks total. (See Figure 6.) If all street
widths are accounted for, the overall dimensions of the city become
344 rods (5,676 feet) north-south by 364 rods (6,006 feet) east-west.
Housing and Lot Arrangement
On the diagram the lots for each house were proposed to be
long and very narrow. Smith evidently followed the custom of his
times in this respect,^ There were to have been ten lots per block
fact, or twenty lots per block. Each lot was to have been four rods
in width and twenty rods in depth (or 66 feet by 330 feet). Tin area
of one half acre would have been reserved for each house, which was
to have been built of brick or stone and set back from the street
twenty-five feet. The front yard was to have been used for lawns and
ornamental trees and shrubs, and the rest for gardens, etc. * 7
References to Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelations, and in Ether (the Book of Mormon) apparently were found, according to Parley Pratt; see Lowry Nelson, op. cit., p. 36.
7Lots for the Cleveland, Ohio, plan of 1796 were 132 feet wide by 660 feet in depth, two acres each in area. This plan was a New England village transplated in the Western Reserve of northern Ohio. The plan gained some regularity in the process; John W. Reps, Town Planning in Frontier America (op. cit.), pp. 356.
25
An interesting feature of Zion was the non-facing of tiers of
houses. Few houses were to face each other directly across the street.®
Site Plan and Population Factors
The plan provided that all people should live in the city, and
that stables, barns, and fields be located north and south of the city.
If sufficient area for fields could not be found close in, then the
plan said to go east and west. Smith was concerned that the farmer, as
well as the merchant and mechanic, have the benefits of society which
he called "the great educator of the human race." Once the first city
was fully developed, Smith's plan called for development of another
city, and then another.®
Comments have been made upon Smith's arithmetic. His plan sup
posed that 15,000 to 20,000 people would live in each city. With
forty-two blocks used for houses, at twenty houses per block, this
gave 840 houses per city. As Reps suggested, did Smith anticipate
polygamy, with twenty persons per house, in 1933?^° Although many
sources do not definitely concur, a few said Smith conceived the idea
of polygamy as early as 1831.^
Of considerable significance, the plan called for twenty-four
buildings for public worship and schools. Each building was to have
®Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 311.
9Ibid., pp. 311-312.10John W. Reps, Town Planning in Frontier America (op. cit.),
"^Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 184.
p. 411
26
been at least 87 feet by 61 feet in ground floor dimensions, and be
two fourteen foot stories high. A few "temples," as they were called,12were expected to be larger. If we assume church and school functions
would have been in one building (a practice which did come later), the
city could be considered divided into twenty-four parts, or neighbor
hoods with about 830 persons in each part if a total population of
20,000 is taken as our given standard. If we further assume that about
half of the people would have been old enough for church membership
(age eight and above)^ we have the theoretical church congregation of
about 400. It is interesting to compare the 400 to today's median ward14membership of 450 (or average size of 631), The point is simply that
ward size (a church congregation) had a possible early percedent.
Generally, we could say that Zion proposed two blocks per ward.
Mormon Communities as a Contrast to Railroad Towns
At this point in time, 1833, the railroad was not a feature of
the American landscape and did not figure into Smith's plan. There
fore, the railroad oriented communities to come later (such as Benson
and Holbrook, Arizona, as mentioned in Chapter 1) were designed to fit
a different situation than the circumstances surrounding the founding
of Zion (i.e., early Mormon communities patterned after the Plat of
12Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit. , Vol, 1, p. 311.13Fife and Fife, op. cit., p, 3.
"^The largest wards do reach 2,000 members, while the smallest might be only 100; Lowry Nelson, o£. cit., p. 57.
27
Plat of Zion), and an attempt at historical comparison for the 1830 era
is difficult.Generally speaking, the Mormon communities centered
themselves around the Temple or meeting house, while the railroad com
munities in the Mid-west and western states often grew out from the
railroad s t a t i o n . T h e Mormon pattern of streets was compass orient
ed. The street directions were straight, regular, and consistent
throughout the entire town, while the pattern of the railroad communi
ties usually accommodated itself in seme way to the line established
by the railroad. Perhaps the streets ran parallel and perpendicular
to the railroad, and then changed direction with a curve in the rail
road. (Compare Figure 6, Zion, with Figure 7, Benson, Arizona.)
A plan for Cairo, Illinois, 1838, was an early example of a proposed railroad town, although developments were slow and it was not until 1853 when the city was officially platted; John W. Reps, The Making of Urban America (op. cit.), pp, 382-389.
In 1855, the Illinois Central Associates adopted a uniform plan for 33 proposed towns along the railroad, Ibid., p. 392.
^"American cities . . . were usually built around forts or railroad stations," Charles L. Sellers, op. cit., p. 30.
Port cities, with the harbor as a focal point, and Spanish- American examples of plazas have been discussed by John W. Reps, The Making of Urban America (op. cit.).
28
THE OFFICIAL MAP TOWN OF BE N S O N Q V I C I N I T Y COCHISE COUNTY. ARIZONA
I 9 6 0T 17 S-R 20 E G8SRM
Figure 7. The Official Map, Tovm of Benson andVicinity, Cochise County, Arizona, 1960
Sourcet Town of Benson, Arizona
CHAPTER 4
■KIRTLAND, OHIO
The first community developed to emerging Mormon characteristics
was Kirtland, Ohio, although evidence shows that Independence, Missouri,
was intended to be laid out according to the Plat of Zion at the same
time."*" We have seen that Joseph Smith, Jr., arrived at Kirtland in
early 1831 and that in the summer of 1833 he sent plans for the City of
Zion to Missouri. In the meantime, Mormon converts gathered at Kirt
land and started building a city according to a plan similar to that
for Zion. (See Figure 8 for the location of Kirtland with respect to
Cleveland, Ohio.)
The Kirtland Temple
At Kirtland, a Temple site was selected, and construction of 2a structure began. In the spring of 1833 a campaign was started for
the purpose of building the Kirtland Temple, although it couldn't
be called a "Temple" at first because the Temple was supposed to be
built in Missouri. Smith tried to call the proposed structure a
meeting house or school, at first, but he couldn't generate enthusiasm
The Mormons were driven from Independence in November and December, 1833; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 322, 348.
2Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. l, p. 310; Mulder and Mortensen, op. cit., p. 86; Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 153; W.P.A. Writer's, The Ohio Guide (American Guide Series), New York; Oxford University Press, 1940, pp. 368-371.
29
<2>AKRON
VaXo,c
SCALE //V MILES
Figure 8. Location of Kirtland, Ohio
Sourcet Rand McNally, Commercial Atlas, 1970, pp, 400-401,
31for it. He had to create the mystery connected with a proposed rite,
"endowment," to get money.**
The Kirtland Temple was slightly smaller in ground floor area
than that prescribed for the "Temples" of Zion. The outside dimensions
were 60 feet by 80 feet, compared to the original 61 feet by 87 feet.
The Kirtland Temple faced east and occupied a site with a noble view
of surrounding countryside. Its first main floor was used for ordinary
public meetings and Sunday worship. The hall on the second floor was
the meeting place for "the school of the prophets" and for the priest
hood. The attic, or third floor, had five classrooms, and high school4classes were held there.
Many other enterprises were underway; from farms to commerce
to religious business. A good sized community was developing and5prospering. There were about 1,200 converts at Kirtland in 1833.
The emphasis of location was then being centered upon Kirtland as far
as Ohio was concerned, a countercurrent as opposed to dispersal. The
Thompson Saints had left for Missouri; Smith had abandoned Hiramf
and Rigdon had apparently left his connections at Mentor. 3 4 * *
3Pawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 127.4Brigham H. Roberts, o£. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 390, 393.
^Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 128. Another source said 1,000 in 1836; Thomas F. O'Dea, The Mormons, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1957, p. 87; and Mulder and Mortensen, op; cit., p. 87.
In spring 1832, Smith had troubles at Hiram from disenchanted converts; Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 118.
I
• The ' Townsite
Lowry Nelson shows a map for Kirkland, but it is not stated
how closely actual development followed the plat or how much area
really was involved. The resemblance of this Kirtland plan to the
Plat of Zion is obvious for it reveals a grid pattern of large square
blocks, straight streets and the alternating pattern of lots. Compass
orientation is suggested. However, the Temple site is not definitely
shown, nor is it made clear how large an area was included in the
town— whether it was more or less than a square mile. Furthermore,7the streets do not show as wide as one might expect.
In the spring of 1833 extensive land purchases were made in
and about Kirtland, and surveyed with a view to enlarging the city.
From Brigham Roberts as the principal source, it is not clear what8kind of layout was made in 1833. This survey may have occurred be
fore the Plat of Zion was drawn, or perhaps during its conception.
Conflicting Sources of Information
Lowry Nelson indicated that a plat for Kirtland was dated in91834. This date, so near, in time to Smith's letter (the Plat of
Zion, 1833), would suggest that the plat Nelson had in mind would 7 8
7 'Lowry Nelson, op. cit., "Appendix," Map B.8Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 310.Lowry Nelson, op. cit., p. 38.9
33adhere closely to the scheme for Zion. The only map of Kirtland
discovered by efforts directed toward this thesis has no date, and
no dimensions are given, but the twenty lots per block pattern is
unmistakable, thereby fitting into the Zion pattern. The lots must
have been 66 feet by 330 feet and the blocks 660 feet by 660 feet,
thereby agreeing with the standards of Zion. The street widths are
obviously narrower than the Zion standard of 132 feet. The streets
of Kirtland appear to be the same as a single lot width, or 66 feet
(four rods). (See Figure 9.)
A second source, William Linn, indicates that large purchases
of land were made in March 1833, and that a paper town was laid out
with 32 streets, four rods wide, on a grid, compass oriented, pattern
to form 225 blocks with twenty lots per block. The houses were to
set back 25 feet from the street, and 24 public buildings (temples,
schools) were p r o p o s e d . T h e characteristic of twenty lots per block,
the setback of 25 feet, and the suggestion of 24 public buildings came
directly from Zion. The dimensions for blocks and lots should have
agreed. Only the street width was different in comparing the probable
10William A. Linn, op. cit., p. 144.A third source substantiated the ten acre block size and the
one half acre lot size per lot, making 20 lots per block. The central square(s) were to be reserved for public buildings, including the Bishop's Storehouse and the central Temple. Twelve additional temples (probably meeting houses) were mentioned. According to this source, at this time, June 1833, Smith was thinking in terms of a one mile square city for Kirtland. This source also said the attempt was not fulfilled at Kirtland: Ray B. West; Kingdom of the Saints, New York:Viking Press, 1957, p. 44.
See, also. Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 128.
34
ZJ/ 2tO /at /so 757 71/ 720 f / to 4/ X4 3/ AO 7
2JZ 201 m mi Ml 721 7/1 fZ A f St 32 Z f 1
2/3 203 X U 77$ 7S3 / w 723 //$ 13 dW XJ S3 33 z x 3
214 207 777 754 7/7 W 81 xx 57 AX 11 4
2/S a * ms 771 755 xer 7/4 A6 45 54 35 24 5
205 775 4% /K f X(f A f XX 35 AX 25 4
2/7 204 /37 774 7S7 / * 727 774 17 A f x z 54 37 24 7
213 203 X # 773 75$ 743 723 ' /(f S 8
13 33 XX 53 38 23 8
2/7 201 m 772 mi Ml 711 /X2 11 32 41 51 31 21 1
220 20/ /to 77/ 743 74/ X * 77/ 81 A? 57 40 2/ TO
22/ 200 /V /TO / ; / 740 73/ 770' AY a * 7/ 50 4/ 20 / /
2ZZ /II m 741 /a 731 A V A02 71 71 41 41 tl H
223 m m 743 / w XM X # A V AW 78 73 48 43 78 /3
224 m m 747 a * 731 X # 704 77 74 47 44 H 14
Z2S /% /IS 744 7S4 73S AW " % * 44 45 74 /s
A -0 1000 2,000 3000 4000 S.0001 I I I I 1
JCAU w rccr
Figure 9. The Original Plat of Kirtland, Ohio, 1833-1834
Sourcej Lowry Nelson, The Momon Village, 1952, Appendix B.
35Kirtland plat to the Zion plat. This layout for Kirtland either
came in spring of 1833 and then changed into the Plat of Zion, or
else it was derived from the Plat of Zion later in 1833 or in 1834.;This plat of Kirtland, with 225 blocks and assuming the ten acre
dimension as correct, covered about 4.3 square miles. (Table 1)
In Nelson's map of Kirtland, a three acre site evidently not
planned for regular residential use exists on block number 113. There
are only fourteen lots shown and numbered for this block instead of
the usual twenty lots so shown and numbered in all other blocks. There
fore, it has been deduced for this thesis that the Temple site was
selected for this parcel of two or three acres on block number 113,
which in turn was demonstrated to be located in the center of the
plat. (See Figure 10 .) The position of the site on block number
113 would also indicate a probable face to the east.^
Revisions in Block Size and Lot Arrangement
The situation is complicated by evidence from Charles Sellers
who states that in 1837 the plan for Kirtland was revamped. The
blocks became 24 rods square (396 feet by 396 feet) and were divided
into four lots each. Therefore, each lot became twelve rods square
(198 feet by 198 feet), or almost one acre each in area. The streets
were four rods, or the same 66 feet wide. However, the positioning
of the streets would have changed radically. The situation remains
^ A two acre site Temple site was deeded to William Marks in 1837; William A. Linn, oja. cit., p. 160.
36
Table 1. Summary of Early Townsite Features, Kirtland, Ohio, Compared to Zion
Characteristics She Plan Kirtland Kirtland' for Zion First Townsite Revised Townsite
Tract or Subdivision!Date 1833 1833-34 1837dArea, acres 782.6 2,762.6Configuration Nearly Square Square —Direction of Major Axis- E-W
Streets!Direction N-S, E-W N-S, E-W N-S, E-WWidth, feet 132 . 66 66Length, niles 17.7 66.4
Blocks!Number 49 225 • —Dimensions, feet 660 X 660 660 X 660 396 X 396Area, acres ‘ 10.0 10.0- 3.6Configuration Square Square SquareRegularity of Size a Regular Regular
Lots!Number per Block 2(f 20 < aNumber per Tract 960 4.494 4,500*Dimensions, feet 66 x 330 '66 x 330 198 x 198Area, acres 0.5 0.5 0.9Configuration Rectangular (thin) Rectangular (thin) SquareRegularity Regular Regular. RegularPattern Type Non-Facing Non-FacingX Four-Square
Alleys!Width, feet None None None
Public Squares! • . ♦Number 3 ic —Area, acres 45.0 3.0 —
"Seven out of forty-nine blocks were to be 660 feet wide by 990 feet long, giving an area of 15.6"acres per block.llilrty lots per block were planned for the larger blocks used for residential purposes (four blocks).(-Twenty-four public buildings were mentioned by one source.ihe first townsite was revamped Into a new towns ite. According to one source it was expanded but the exact size has not been determined.
Source, John W. Peps, The Making of Urban America (op. clt.), pp. 466-467, Brigham H. Roberts, o£. clt.), Vol. 1, pp. 310-311, Lowry Nelson, op. clt., p. 38,• Appendix' (Map B), William A. Linn, oj>. clt., p. 144, Pay B. West, op. cit., p. 44, Charles L. Sellers, ojs. clt.. p. 27.
37
A0 Soo /,000 /,S00 20001 I I I I
Scalc /v /7"<rr
Figure 10. Central Area, Kirtland, Ohio, 1833-1834
Source: Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, 1952, Appendix B.
38
unclear because Sellers says that the Mormons revamped the townsite12laid out by pre-Mormon settlers as a result of the 1837 action.
The large land purchases (on credit) at Kirtland and efforts to build
up a large city were justified in 1836-37 because of difficulties
in Missouri.14It might be that Smith revised the pre-Mormon town, what
ever it was, in 1833-34, by the dimensions suggested by the Nelson
map. Then, from 1834 to 1836 in attempting to apply the scheme of lots
66 feet by 330 feet it was found that this size and shape were too
long and narrow for their purposes of conveniently spacing houses
and gardens. Instead, by trial and error, they hit upon a 198 feet
square lot as suiting their purposes b e t t e r T h e n , in 1837, they
changed the block size and street spacing of Kirtland (which in turn
changed the lot size and shape) although they kept the street width
the same as in 1834. Sellers said that 4,500 lots were laid out in all
This information came from the Fox thesis, "The Mormon Land System," Northwestern University, 1932; Charles L. Sellers, op. cit., p. 27. The exact source of Nelson's information is unknown at the present time.
13Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 397.Also, see Howard R. Lamar, The Far Southwest, 1846-1912,
New York: Norton, 1970, p. 312.14In 1831, Kirtland was a scattering of farm houses; Carl
Carmer, The Farm Boy and the Angel, Garden City: Doubleday, 1970,p. 76.
^ I n 1836 the plat for Far West, Missouri, was made which also showed this square lot pattern, usually referred to by this thesis as a "four-square" pattern. Far West will be discussed in the next chapter.
.If so, an area of almost nine square miles would have been involved.
How much development occurred, or how well these plans were actually
carried out, is not known at the present time. i
The Mormons abandoned Kirtland by degrees for several years,
and by the time Brigham Young's leadership began in 1844, his
branch of Mormonism had few interests there. Kirtland has since16become a suburb of Cleveland.
W.P.A. Writer's, The Ohio Guide (op. cit.), pp. 368-371.
CHAPTER 5
FAR WEST, MISSOURI
Far West was the county seat of Caldwell County, newly formed
in 1836 for the Mormons,* The plan for the community was similar to
that proposed for Zion. Far West was probably the second city pat
terned after the Plat of Zion, and the Mormons were becoming more
experienced at laying out settlement patterns and surveying a town- 2site. The city was located on the highest swell of land for many
miles in rolling prairie country. (Its location with respect to
Independence, Missouri, has been shown by Figure 11.) John Whitmer
and W. W. Phelps chose the site in late summer, 1836. It was located
between two creeks declared to be capable of furnishing water power
for manufacturing purposes. Today, the present county seat, Kingston,
is located about five miles to the east.3
The Original Townsite
The original plat of Far West, dated in late 1836, covered one
mile square, with the Temple site in the center. The dimensions have
been summarized by Table 2. Ihey were similar to the Kirtland plan * 2
*W. P. A. Writer’s, Missouri (American Guide Series), New York: Duel, Sloan, and Pearce, 1941, p. 387.
2The history of events leading to the founding of Far West,See Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p, 196.
^Brigham H. Roberts, o£. cit., Vol 1. pp. 422-423.
40
a p a m -o w -a h m a h
p ° © ST. Joseph \FAR WEST
— o M m SmIi: k m stobi r
2>E W/.TT'CAAROUTON ° f
Ka n s a s Cnr^.^x,
/j (p) INDEPENDENCE jK A N S A S C /T J \ jj |__ C£lLI Ja ckson Co. } ^
S calc iN M/ies
Figure 11. Location of Far West# Missouri
Source: Rand McNally, Commercial Atlas, 1970, ppe 310-311.
Table 2
42
. Summary of Early Towns!to Features, Far West, Missouri, Compared to Zion
The Plan Par West Far Westdiaracteristics for Zion Pirst Townsite Fxnandcd Toxmsite
Tract or Subdivision:Date 1833 1836 1837Area, acres 782.6 782.6 4,213.1Configuration Hoarlv Square Square SquareDirection of Major Axis E-W — —
Streets:Direction Width, feet
H-S, E-W 132
H-S, E-W 82.5C
H-S. E-W 82.5*
Lcnqth, miles 17.7 34.0 143.7
Blocks:Humber 49 169 729Dimensions, feet GGO x GGO 396 x 396 412.5 x 412.5Area, acres 10.0 3.6 4.0.Confinuration Square Square * SquarePenularity of Size a Penular Penular
Lots:20hHumber per Block 4 4
Humber nor Tract 960 672 2,912Dimensions, feet 66 x 330 190 x 198 206.25 x 206.25Area, acres 0.5 0.9 1.0Confinuration Pcctannular Square Square
(thin)Reqularity Penular regular RegularPattern Type Hon-Pacina Four-Square Four-Square
Alleys:Width, feet Hone Hone Hone
Humber 3 1 i JArea, acres 45.0 3.6 4.0d
aSevcn out of forty-nine blocks v;ere to be GGO feet wide by 990 feet Iona, aivinq an area of 15.0 acres per block.
^Thirty lots per block were planned for the larncr blocks used for residential purposes (four blocks).
CFour central streets, passinq by the square, were 132 feet wide.
dThe first to\msite was revanped and expanded into a new townsite. There is a question if the orininal streets were chanaed, a question on expanded townsite street widths, and a question on the town's total area.
Source: John V?. Peps, The "lakinn of Urban Anorica (or. cit.) , rp. 4GG-4G7; BriqbanH. Policr ts, on. cit., Vol. 1, p. 421; Lowry Mel son, op. cit., "Appendix" (Map C)i Charles L. Sellers, on. cit., p. 27.
43
to come several months later, as discussed earlier in the previous
chapter.4
The only available map of Far West shows the original town-
site as having fourteen east-west streets and fourteen north-south
streets which created a framework for 169 blocks. (See Figure 12.)
The dimensions of block size and street widths produced a town 388
rods square (6,402 feet square), for an area of 1.47 square miles
(which is somewhat larger than one square mile as described by several
sources cited herein).
Additions to the Townsite
A rapid influx of Mormons during 1837 caused the Far West town-
site to be expanded in November 1837 to be at least two miles square,
Figure 13. According to Brigham Roberts, the blocks were enlarged5
to be four acres each. The new block dimensions would have been
about 417.4 feet square (or 25.3 rods) if four acres are taken exactly.
(Perhaps the blocks were 25 rods (412.5 feet) square.) There were
now a total of 28 streets east-west and 28 north-south to form a total
grid for 729 blocks, which was an addition of 560 blocks over the
previous year.
The revised plat may have reduced the street widths to 66
feet. If so, the overall town dimensions would have been 13,163
square, instead of 13,545.5 feet square. 4
4Lowry Nelson, o£. cit., Appendix, Map C; John W. Reps, The Making of Urban America (op. cit.), pp, 468-469.
^Brigham H. Roberts, oj>. cit., Vol. 1, p, 424.
44
_ > ! Ii
1 I i —
1I
1
i—
!
PublicSome
jI
| ! \I ! '
i ! i! 1 l
. j - • i1 I
i" I -
i- h
;
i : !
J K0 SCO /.00 0 /JO O 2.000
sc a i c /v n e t
Figure 12. The Original Plat of Far West, Missouri, 1836
Sourcet Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, 1952, Appendix C.
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□n n n n n n n m F i m n m R m n r a n n n n n n nm R R R R n ^ R B B H f f l H H H H H S H H H R H R H□□□□□□□!]□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ao o o o a a o m o o o o o o o a o o o a o o o o o o o
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□a□ □ □ □ □ □ □ B m n n a n n D n n n a n n n n n n nR R R R m R R HRHfflR g a ^ R R R R R R R□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□aI II II II II ir II II II ll ll ll 1( I□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□a
t.OOO 2.CM 3.000 4M0 S.0MSc a ic /v ntr
Figure 13. The Revised Plat of Far West, Missouri, 1837
Source: Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village. 1952, Appendix C.
46By the spring of 1838 the population of Far West was 3,000,
although only 150 houses had been built. There were four dry-goods
stores, three family groceries, a half-dozen blacksmith shops, a
printing establishment, and two hotels. No saloons were permitted.
A school house had been built in as early as 1836 and served as
school, town hall, and court house.^ Far West had been visited by
Smith in September 1837 and designated as a central gathering place.^
The population of the area was about 5,000 at this time.
Conflicting.Experiences in Developing a Central Place
In the years from 1832 to 1839, the Mormon population grew from
about 2,000 to a probable 12,000. It was a period of large scaled
movement; converts from eastern states gathered at Kirtland, and
quickly moved to Missouri, or others remained at Kirtland for several
years and later moved to Missouri, During most of this period. Mormon-
ism had two centers, one in Kirtland and one in Missouri, although the
most important place was where Smith chose to locate himself— which
was in Ohio for most of the period. However, financial disasters at
Kirtland, which were a part of a national panic, caused Smith and most
of Kirtland to move to Missouri. 6 7
6Ibid., pp. 424-425.There remained some confusion of Far West's description,
especially its dimensions; see Mulder and Mortensen, on. cit., pp. 91- 92, for a slightly different version.
7Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 199.
47
Within each general area (either Ohio or Missouri) there was
a tendency for the Saints to fan or scatter out until called together
into one place, which meant a principle of concentration evolved. How
ever, actual experience showed that inflated land costs proved to be a
hindrance for concentrated settlement at both Kirtland and Independence,
so the principle of concentration was impractical in the two earliest
locations. But, at first Caldwell County was very sparsely settled.
Furthermore, the Mormons obtained some sort of political agreement or8right to settle in the area. An aspect of mystery arises on this
point. Instead of keeping their efforts inside that County, Smith
chose to expand beyond, (He must have been the leading force since
these events occurred soon after his arrival at Far West from Kirtland.)
This quickly brought disaster, and the entire Missouri operation was
lost.
The 1832-39 era was one of settlement building and sudden
abandonment of rather large communities. Nothing remained fixed for
long, and the layout of cities was in a state of flux. The Mormons
made several attempts to use the Plat of Zion in actual situations,
and, as is to be expected, some of the original features worked well
and were kept while others were changed. They also had a tendency to
replat an area a year or two later. However, they kept the Temple site
in a central place on a prominent site. They maintained the use of a
grid pattern of compass-oriented, straight streets, a system which was
’Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol, 1, p. 420,
48
easiest and quickest to lay out on a large scale regardless of how well
it fit the prairie swells of Missouri. They maintained, to some extent,
the ideal of a square shaped city, and they rigidly maintained square
shaped blocks.
Changes were made so that the squareness principle extended
down to every house lot, which resulted in the "four-square" block
pattern. In contrast, the mile square principle for the limits of
the entire city was abandoned for a much larger area. The blocks were
greatly reduced in size which meant more streets had to be added. The
width of the streets became greatly reduced, although the area in
streets remained somewhat' the same. The most important change, it is
believed, was that the lots became larger, generally doubling in size,
and they became square in shape. Hence, lot widths became much wider
and at the same time the original excessive depth was reduced to pro
vide a manageable site for house and garden use.
CHAPTER 6
NAUVOO, ILLINOIS
Nauvoo (Hebrew for "the Beautiful," according to Joseph
Smith) rose from swamp and hillside at a bend in the Mississippi1 2 River. The city emerged on two levels, the "Flat" and the "Hill."
The city's central area, including a new Temple site, was located on
a prominent hilltop clearly visible to steamboats on the river.^ It
was a pleasant walk along the banks of the Mississippi River on a
summer's evening. The banks were high above the river with beautiful
ravines below,^ The city's location with respect to western Illinois
and southeastern Iowa has been shown by Figure 14.
Earlier Subdivisions Occupying the Site
The first map that provides us with a glimpse of Nauvoo was
clearly a subdivision map, similar in appearance and utility to other
promotion plans of the 1830's and 1840's.^ (See Figure 15 for an
"^Brigham H. Roberts, op. git., Vol, 2, p. 8.^Vi.P.A. Writer's, Illinois (American Guide Series), Chicago:
A.C. McClurg and Co., 1939, pp. 347-349.3Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 256; William A. Linn, on. cit.,
pp. 226-227; Mulder and Mortensen, op. cit., pp. 113-114,*"138;Charles L. Sellers, op. cit., p. 27.
4Mulder and Mortensen, op. cit., p. 130.
5John W, Reps, The Making of Urban America'(on. cit.). pp. 365, 366, 488, 300, 304, 307, 310.
50
S O M A \ Z L U H O J S !I_ _ _ _ _ _ r•PesAlof/ies. Co— • I I
j q a w M M Ij /° I QJMMOUTti.-
SURLIN&TOli / j |O G/U.£S0VKGr-
\Te't-CT.— ^ ^• -rL IA//1 ^ ^ l o M O K O a M . I%, FT. MAD ISON Jt{enJtrson Co- W triKCf.■ _ # 0 » • — *• * ■— n I *
\0 shokoq.uoN„
MOfiTROSF\ °0 'FotMTAlN GR££NX • - I 0 M a c o m bK£ o k u k o ) 0 Ca r t h a g e j
,*1^5^ f f/ancock Co. j^ * N s s - 1v> # 1M\ \ |i\ Columbus •o
J?USHV/U£ ScAy/crC*.
" \ ® .T^r 6it//A/cy
Ha n n i b a l \—
v(X
? E o m .
S f r in & f j e l v
40.„ SO-
-SCA LE--JN.—MILES. .
Figure 14, Location of Nauvoo, Illinois
Sourcet Rand McNally, Commercial Atlas, 1970, pp. 182-183, 210-211.
51
A/M BAILS
SeCOUD A D D IT IO N
JU._SL__
__ *
n__
A /M BALL'S f lR S T A D D IT IO N
"A_
—
S C A tt in r t i r
Figure 15. The First Plat of Nauvoo, Illinois, Estimated at 1839
Source t Robert B. Flanders, nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi, 1965, Frontispiece.
52adaptation of the first nap known of the city: assumed date, 1839.)
Nauvoo surrounded the previously laid out town of Commerce (1834) and
its companion Commerce City (1837). The streets of Commerce were
perpendicular or parallel to the river, and therefore the Mormon
principle of compass orientation for Nauvoo was at considerable vari
ance to these original plans. A rather jagged pattern was created
where the two street systems attempted to intermesh.
The blocks of Commerce and Commerce City were slightly smaller
than the new ones planned for Nauvoo. Table 3 indicates a summary of
these dimensions. Alleys penetrated the earlier blocks, unlike the
Mormon system.
The Townsite for NauvooThe original plat for Nauvoo was made June 11, 1839, with 150
nblocks. (The source for Figure 15 showed a probable original site of
161 blocks.)* 8
The block size for Nauvoo essentially repeated the original
plan for Far West, Missouri, with a slight variation of the north-south
dimension (Table 3). As in the case of Far West, Nauvoo's blocks were
divided into four lots per block. An interesting aspect was that
Nauvoo's streets were only three rods wide which were much narrower
John H. Beadle, Life in Utah, Philadelphia: National Publishing Co., 1870, p. 56; Robert B. Flanders, Nauvoo; Kingdom on the Mississippi, Urbanat University of Illinois Press, 1965, p, 41.
8Ibid., Frontispiece.
7Robert B. Flanders, o£. cit., p. 42.
53
Table 3. Summary of Early Townsite Features, Nauvoo, Illinois
Nauvoo NauvooCommerce Commerce City pirst Townsite Revised Townsite
Characteristics (Non-Mormon) (Non-Mormon) (Mormon) (Mormon)
Tract or SubdivisionsPate 1834* 1837* 1839 1842Area, acres 46.2 70.1 680 3,880Configuration Rectangular Rectangular Triangular RectangularDirection of Major Axis Parallel to Perpendicular to N-S E-W
River River
Streets;Direction Aligned to Aliened to River N-S, n-w N-S, n-w
Width, feetRiver
80b 80d 49.5* 49.5*Lenath, miles 1.9 3.4 18.2 132
Blocks;21 + 5/2cNumber 10 + 11/2= 141 + 20/2C 917
Dimensions, feet 280 x 280 280 x 290 293 x 363 396 x 363Area, acres 1.8 1.8 3.3 3.3Configuration Square Square Nearly Square Nearly ScuareRegularity of Size Regular Regular Regular* Regular*
Lots;Number per Block 8 16 4 4Number per tract 124 376 600 3,600Dimensions, feet 70 x 132 35 x 132 198 x 101.5 198 x 181.5Area, acres 0.212 0.106 0.825 0.825Configuration Rectangular Rectangular Nearly Square Nearly Square
(thin)regularity Regular Regular Regular RegularPattern Type Parallel to e Four-Square Four-Square
River
Alleys;Width, reet 1G 1G ' None None
Public Squares;Number None None None 3Area, acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
Probable date.
bT,vo short streets were at 70 feet in width.
^Full-sized blocks plus half-sized blocks (or partial blocks).
dOne nain street perpendicular to river was 100 feet wide.
eFirst tier and half were parallel to river; lots further back from river were perpendicular to river.
‘Fecular except where disrupted by the river.
^Cne north-south street (Vain Street was 32.5 feet wide.
Source: Robert D. Flanders, op. clt., Frontispiece, no. 23, 41-43; John 11. Beadle, o£. cit.,p. 56; William A. Linn, on. cit., pp. 226-227; Brinh&n 11. Roberts, on. cit., Vol. 2, p. 200; I/r.rry Kelson, C£. cit., "Appendix" (.Vap S); JAhn W. Pens, The Makino of Urban America (on. cit.), pp. 468-470. "
54
than the width of Far West or the proposal for Zion. Even the specu
lative subdivision streets of Commerce and Commerce City were wider
than Nauvoo's streets. One main street in Nauvoo was grander than the
regular streets. Main Street, a north-south artery going north fromgSmith's residence beside the river, was five rods wide (82.5 feet).
Smith's own town lot fronted the river at its most picturesque, 10 point.
The location of Main Street with respect to the Temple site
has been shown by Figure 16.^ In the case of Nauvoo, unlike Far West,
the widest and therefore the presumed principal street did not lead to
the Temple. Instead, it was five blocks away at its closest point.
One may woncler if a general plan for Nauvoo had been developed in 1839.
In any case, objectives for the city's layout were less definite than
those so clearly stated for Far West and Zion. Land purchase
9Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., p. 23 and map, frontispiece; Charles L. Sellers, og. cit., p. 27; William A. Linn; op. cit., pp. 226—227.
Several errors or questions remain as to Nauvoo's street and block dimensions. Different figures were given by Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit., p. 50, and John W. Reps, The Making of Urban America (op, cit.), p. 468.
One source said Main Street was to be 87 feet wide and Water Street was to be 64 feet wide. Water Street was the east-west street that went by Nauvoo Mansion and Nauvoo House. This information came originally from the 1842 Map to be discussed later in this chapter; Robert B, Flanders, og. cit., p. 43.
*®Fawn Brodie, og, cit., p. 261.
11Figure 16 was redrawn from the "second" known map of Nauvoo whose estimated date was 1840. This map came from Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 200; and, Lowry Nelson, op. cit., Appendix, Map A.
-Ul J HJDEHJ #Y*VM SOUTH'SAiA«syK m f T fr i(Tnnnp-)|
/ z M ^ b e j b B b b b q q b?! slf-
K/MSAU. S JCCMD **D
#
\H t*K lM 6S rtA # A*D Thompson's rmsr ami non
HCAAA/ha T M $ A D D IT IO N
B Q B B B E I B B B Q B B 1 □ B E I B B B B IB B B B B E jB B B E ) * *; fiA X r Ad c it io m j B I B B I B B B I 3!B B B B B E I B B B B B B * IIJ II1j t i E B “ I B B B I
BBBBQ. I'IB B B B B
dBIBUBBBBBBBBBI B B
-lr* I B B B B B B B B B B B ^ "-^b i b q b q b b q b b
S,c.
BBBB
N rh A m o J A A * / a m dThompson's Secopp Aapitiomf tM S T
N M D J tC O M D A D D ITIO N S
'S'ss/AiAlMST.
/>/ StoiiPM £-no
'BBPIIBIBB IBBBIQQ0]B IBBBI
^ r j B B B I dBBBEll
J Koovom*11 7 ll/J IB1BIIADDITION f~|[T~||4t~jp~|ptf~[[
'3ZDBBBI ■3BBB1BI 'BQBEII
il
k
1,000
H— II-II— V
S.OOO
ScAit m retT
Figure 16, The Second Plat of Nauvoo, Illinois, Estimated at 1840
Source: Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, 1952, Appendix A,
56restrictions at Nauvoo, because they did not get the entire site at
once, did not permit a "blanket" plan covering a large area as was
done at Far West, The situation was somewhat complicated by the pre
sence of the townsites for Commerce and Commerce City, In about 1840,
the exact date unknown, the platted area of the city covered about
1,290 acres, or 2,02 square miles, as shown by the reconstructed
map, Figure 16.^
The "first" known map of Nauvoo (Figure 15) included Commerce,
Commerce City, an allowance for the original 161 platted blocks of
Nauvoo, and ten additions"*"^ which were all east of original Nauvoo.
A few months later, probably, when the "second" map of Nauvoo was14drawn (Figure 16) two additions still further east were shown.
They have been existed at the time of the "first" map but they were
beyond its borders, or they may have been platted in the meantime. In
the north-central area, a new addition (Hyrum Smith's Addition) had
appeared. The Temple Square and locations of several more public15buildings were shown on the "second" map but not on the "first" map. 12 * 14 *
12For Nauvoo, 277 blocks were assumed at 4.23 acres each (including streets) to equal 1,182 acres. For Commerce, 40 blocks were assumed at 2.98 acres each (including streets) to equal 119 acres.
^Kimball's First, Second, and Third Additions, Wells Addition, Hibbard's First and Second Additions, Worthington's Addition, Spears Addition, and Herringshaw. and Thompson's First and Second Additions; Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., Frontispiece.
14Warrington's Addition and J, McBison's Addition; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 200.
15Brigham H. Roberts, og. cit., Vol. 2, p., 200.
57
The changes in the two maps show that a great deal of land surveying
activity tool: place in the first year or two of Uauvoo's existence.
Growth and Development of the City
At this time the city had three miles of river frontage.
Two hundred and fifty houses were built the first year.^ By the
summer of 1841 there were about 1,200 houses, and the development of18the city was well underway with a population of over 3,000, although
19Smith had to issue several "calls" to encourage movement to Nauvoo.
Nauvoo developed and expanded, and by 1843 its population was20declared to be between 12,000 and 16,000 and in 1845, a church
published census showed 11,057 in the city and one-third more (about213,700) outside the city limits. One source said 2,000 dwellings
22 * 17 * 19 20 21 22 *were constructed in the first 18 months.23was divided into ten church wards.
In December 1842, Nauvoo
Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit., p. 50.17William J. Whalen, op. cit., p. 63.JLQBrigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 84.
19Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 84; Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 268; Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., pp. 49, 54, 141.
20 .Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 179.21Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit,, p. 51.22John H. Beadle, op. cit., p. 58,23Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 179.
58
The city had liberal annexation powers granted by its Chart-24 25er, and Nauvoo eventually covered five to six square miles. On
March 1, 1841, the streets, blocks, and lots of Commerce and Commerce
City were abandoned and reincorporated into Nauvoo's general scheme of27layout, as .shown by Figure 17. Soon after, Herringshaw and
Thompson's Addition was vacated and replatted to conform strictly to
Nauvoo's plan. These non-Mormon proprietor's were eager not to have28their lots banned. This map showed that the city covered at least
917 blocks, or about 3,880 acres (6,06 square miles) at this time.
There were about 132 miles of streets, with 22 percent (854 acres) of
the total area devoted to street right-of-way.
The Temple was to be the most important public building. Its29site was chosen on the hilltop location which was owned by others
so there was some delay, but eventually the site was secured and con
struction started in April 1841, It was to be 88 feet wide, 128 feet
long, and 165 feet high from the ground to the top of the tower, and 24 25 26 27 28 29
24The city could annex any area laid out into town lots; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 53; Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., p. 99.
25Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., p. v; John H. Beadle, op. cit.,p. 134.
26Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., p. 43.27See Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p, 256, for a probable misunder
standing. Commerce's streets were abandoned, not widened, and new streets were opened.
28
29Ibid.Roberts. Flanders, op. cit., p. 43.
59
. r!j D C
fdEBBEHEBEE Sec/*** l‘*tHRRrl
/ ^ B B a _X iPiFipni " ! ______________________ = __________- n p i F i F n a g l p n F i i ^ i R n m B n n n n n O n n n n n n n n n D D
/ . B n B B m B i i B B B F i P i r n n n n n n M n n n n n n c i a n a o□□□□□□□□□□□□IDnCDDDDDDDDC
•inFFiapiFii5- iiBBf * i F i H i « i n n n n n i i n a p n r i n B i B B F i B B B B B n r i n n n :
j L H B B B B B B Q E B B ^ a a n O Z i ' Z l Z l ij n n D C J B B B E B E t
JISJLBBBBDnanDLlQEBnnDBBBDQ
□ □ □ □ □ B B B E l B t ' n i f f l Q E E Q O J i
B B B B B D D C ^ G l D B B Q n D n a E l B n n r IBFlBBBPsafnnnr )BBEEDDGIBBE3DD
BDDDBBBBI_ _ _ _ _ QLlJBnDnBBELDl PiPiBBBnnnnnninnnnnnBBiBnnf
- ir» iBBBBBnnnnnninnnnnnFiBBnnn- % ^ d q ^ g g ^ g g g B g C O B B B L E ] b
^ / P
A2.000 jo o o
B n HHHRFRBBGDDDDG
Figure 17. The Third Plat of Mauvoo, Illinois, 1042
J c au /* /-/v-r
Source: John W. Reps, The Making of Urban America, 1965, p. 470.
60
was not completed until May 24, 1846.30 A large bowery (an amphi
theatre covered with a roof of brush for shade) was built just west
of the Temple site for a place of worship.* * 3* A grove just outside the32city was also used for services. Smith had welcomed non-Mormon
33settlers, and a Methodist Church was located seven blocks east of
the Temple Square, while a Catholic Church was located one block north
of the Temple Square. Kimball Gardens (about four blocks north-east
of the Temple Square) and Park Place (about nine blocks east of the
Temple Square) apparently were the other public squares within the
city.3'* Other important public buildings included the Armory (on the
bluff near the Temple), the Seventies Hall,^ and Masonic Lodge.3^
The University of Nauvoo was hoped to become a major asset, but
apparently it was not a big institution, and it was impossible to
assess the worth of its instruction. The source for Figure 16
30Brigham H. Roberts, og. cit., Vol. 2, p. 67-472;Robert B. Flanders, ojs. cit., p. 52, 179, 194.
3*Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 82.32Mulder and Mortensen, op. cit., p, 140,33Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., p. 43.34These locations came from the source of Figure 16.35Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., p. 159.36Klans J. Hansen, op. cit., p. 55.37Thomas F. O'Dea, og. cit., p. 53. See also: Robert B.
Flanders, o£. cit., p. 260.
61
showed the location of three ward schools, out of a possible ten
wards.
Main Street was to have been the business street, and it began
that way because of the location of Smith's store and residence (The
Nauvoo Mansion) which also served as the city's principal hotel. A38larger hotel, the Nauvoo House, was begun nearby. However, the
Temple site served to draw many establishments to a location along
Mulholland Street which went along the south side of the Temple.
Consequently, two commercial nodes resulted. Today, however, the rem
nants of Nauvoo's business district exist on Mulholland Street, while39the Main Street area has disappeared.
Many factories were established at Nauvoo, and Smith clearly 40promoted such ventures, but there were economic base problems that
41might have hampered further development of the city. In 1840 Smith
set up the Nauvoo Agricultural and Manufacturing Association. Within
two years, two big steam sawmills, a steam flour mill, a tool factory,
and a foundry were formed. Plans were laid for a chinaware factory.
Farmer converts without money or credit to purchase land worked on a
huge community farm just outside the city. Laborers and skilled
38Brigham H. Roberts, og. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 65, 17939Robert B. Flanders, op. cit., pp. 120, 188; and W.P.A.
Writer's, Illinois (op. cit.), p. 347.
^Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 352.
41Robert B. Flanders, on. cit., pp. 24, 115, 146, 154; William A." Linn, on, cit., pp. 332-333.
62craftsmen without employment worked on the Temple. . In spite of
"words of wisdom" against such beverages, Smith permitted construction 43of a brewery. Rather wild schemes included railroad plans and dams
for the river. The city had steamboat service, although there were44some disadvantages to the site with respect to rapids in the river.
Satellite Communities
We have seen that in Ohio and Missouri there had been a ten
dency for the Mormons to disperse, and to establish satellite settle
ments near the primary city. Such was the case in the Nauvoo experi
ence. In the first place, the Mormons were in Illinois long enough
so that the city dwelling pattern for the farmer, with his fields
outside, was put to a severe test.
By March 1843, Smith likened the Mormon kingdom to a wheel:
Nauvoo the hub, the first spoke at Ramus, the second at LaHarpe, the
third at Shokoquon (in Henderson County twenty miles up the river),
and the fourth at Lima for half the wheel. The other half would be
across the river in lowa.^
Fawn Brodie, op. cit., p. 262.
*Ibid., p. 289.
*Ibid.
1 Lowry Nelson, op. cit., p. 52.
Robert B. Flanders46
63Summary and Evaluation
For the Mormons, the Illinois experience was a contrast to
the Missouri experience because they stayed in one place for seven
years compared to three major moves, with only a two or three years
stay in each Missouri location. The farm-village system was put to
a stronger test in Illinois, and it wavered. The Illinois city,
Nauvoo, became a much larger place than any settlement in Missouri
because they were in Illinois longer, because there was a greater
conscious effort to concentrate their strength in one place (Nauvoo),
and because the Mormon movement gained numerically with the passage of
time and improvement of their missionary efforts.
The reasons for the strong conscious effort to build Nauvoo
into a large city were political, first, and social, second. Smith
was anxious to build a stronghold. He was interested in numbers for
his army, the Nauvoo Legion, and for the ballot box. Strength, of
course, would lead to stability for religious purposes.
A large city would justify a large Temple and a university,
primarily for social-religious reasons. The economic aspects were
important, although Smith was probably weakest in his philosophy in
this respect.
The significance of Nauvoo was primarily in its actual size,
as opposed to the paper-plat size of Kirtland, Ohio, and Far West,
Missouri. Nauvoo*s street pattern was a continuation of that pat
terned at Kirtland and Far West although its widest street ran centri-
fically instead of leading directly to the Temple. At Nauvoo, the
Temple occupied a more prominent site, topographically speaking,
than at Kirtland, Independence, or Far West. Hence, there may have
been more regrets in leaving Nauvoo than in leaving the other places.
The street system difficulty at Nauvoo (that is, getting a
main street to the Temple) was partly a natter of circumstance and
partly a refusal to run a diagonal street across a compass oriented
grid. No diagonal streets were run in Ohio, Missouri, or Illinois,
and strict adherence to a grid system can be stated as a major feature
of Mormon town planning. The importance of the Temple (or central
public place) proves to be the second major feature. We have seen
that the Nauvoo Temple did exert an influence upon the business
district which was unanticipated by Smith (who had business property
on the widest, but a distant street). Therefore, plans did not always
work out exactly as proposed.
64
CHAPTER 7
CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Salt Lake City was the first city in Utah founded by the
Mormons, and it was surveyed immediately to be the size of a large
town or city. Soon after its founding an effort was made to move one
of its major functions, the territorial capital, to another site2_
(thought to be more centrally located)• If this effort had been
successful, perhaps Salt Lake City would not have developed into the
metropolis it eventually became. However, this attempted movement
failed because the new site was isolated from the population center.
Probably Salt Lake City's role as leading city was strengthened by
this occurrence because its location was tested and it became apparent
that it was the best one.
Physical Setting
The site of the city was determined by Brigham Young in the
first month of July 1847. After a quick survey of the Salt Lake
Valley, Young readily became convinced that the best site for the city was the spot chosen by Orson Pratt and his small party on July 22 for
The city was known as Great Salt Lake City until 1868 when the “Great" was dropped; W. P. A. Writer's Utah,(American Guide Series), New York: Hastings House, 1959, p. 232.
65
662*a campsite. The Temple site then was selected, before any other use
or institution was placed. This spot was designated between two
forks of City Creek, the choice location within the area.^ In a
vision, Joseph Smith is supposed to have pointed out the site to 4Young.
The Temple was to be twelve miles southeast from the shoreline
of Great Salt Lake and two miles southwest from Ensign Peak (a part
of the ridge running perpendicular to the main# north-south, structure
of the Wasatch Mountains). As shown by Figure 18, Great Salt Lake
served as the northwest boundary of the valley. Ensign Peak and the
Wasatch Mountains defined the northeast and eastern boundaries. The
city grew beside City Creek and Red Butte Creek to receive water for
2Milton R. Hunter, Brigham Young, the Colonizer, Salt Lake City; Deseret News Press, 1940, p. 134; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit.,
'Vol. 3, pp. 230-231, 279; Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 453; Stanley P. Hirshon, The Lion of the Lord, New York: Knopf, 1969,p. 85; Valley of the Great Salt Lake, Salt Lake City: Utah HistoricalSociety, 1963, p. 10; Hoffman B i m e y , Zealots of Zion, Philadelphia: Penn Publishing Co., 1931, pp* 20-21.
^Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 280; Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 10; James A. Little, o£, cit,, p. 124; W. P. A. Writer's, Utah (op. cit.), p. 58; Leonard J, Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966, p. 45,
4Richard F. Burton, The City of the Saints, New York: Knopf,1963, p. 218; Fife and Fife, op. cit., p. 92; W. P. A. Writers, Utah (op. cit.), pp. 229-230.
67
Clearfield p ’Qo'.
D/hJCRSnl of UTAH
Jorc/an R. Afillcrtth.—\ Cini*
MURRA i 0 j
BDFGHA/A CARfoR
S c a l e /V m i l e s
Figure 18. Location of Salt Lake City, Utah
Source! Texaco Oil Company, Highway Map, "Utah," 1954.
685irrigation. The Jordan River, flowing from the south and terminating
into the Great Salt Lake, marked the western boundary of the early
city.*’ Another north-south range of mountains, the Oquirrh Mountains,
twenty miles to the south-west completed the definition of the valley.
The Site for the Temple
At first, a Temple site of forty acres was proposed,^ but
before the initial city survey was finished it was decided that a ten
acre site would be more convenient. This decision made the Temple
site a regular block size.® It was also felt that forty acres would
be too large and that it would be impractical to use all that extra 9space. (Even by 1870 Church and related uses occupied at least thirty
acres.) The proposed location of the Temple was slightly north-central
with respect to the outer perimeter of the original townsite so it
was not as centrally located when compared to the plan for Zion, but
Richard F. Burton; op. cit., p. 217; Valley of•the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 16; John W. Gunnison, The Mormons, or Latter-day Saints, in the Valley of the Great Salt Lake, Philadelphia: Lippin-cott, Gambo and Co., 1852, pp. 15-18, 21.
®John H. Beadle, op. cit., p, 241; W. P. A. Writer's, Utah (op* cit.), p. 226; John W. Gunnison, op. cit., p. 22.
?Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 453; Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 10; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 280.
®Brigham H. Roberts, oj3. cit., Vol. 3, p. 282; Joseph Fielding Smith, og. cit., p. 453; Milton R. Hunter, op. cit., p. 134.
9Valley of the Great•Salt Lake'(op. cit.), p. 11.
69it was favorably located witii respect to the surrounding valley
and mountains•
!
The Townsite
A large area for the city was laid out immediately. The
survey began on July 31, 1947, by Orson Pratt, and was completed
August 20. Its base line was South Temple Street (along the south
ern edge of the Temple site), and the principal meridian was Main
Street (along the eastern edge of the Temple site), (See Figure 19
for a reconstructed map of the early city, and Table 4 for a sum
mary of dimensions.) The blocks were very large while the lots were
rectangular in shape. The lot pattern was arranged in an alternating10street frontage system similar to that described for Zion. The
entire survey site measured 2.2 miles north-south by 1.3 miles east-
west. The city at this time was roughly rectangular shaped and
covered 1,485 acres, or 2,3 square miles.
The system of low residential density was thought to have
advantages for fire protection.^ Every family was to cultivate
their lot with gardens and beautify the city with shade and fruit
10Brigham H. Roberts, 0£. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 280-282; Milton R. Hunter, op. cit., pp. 134-135; Charles L. Sellers, op. cit., p. 28; Joseph Fielding Smith, o£. cit., p. 453; John H. Beadle, 0£. cit., pp. 240-241; Richard F. Burton, op. cit., pp. 218, 240-241; Dale L. Morgan, "Salt Lake City— City of the Saints," Rocky Mountain Cities, New York: Norton, 1949, p. 184; Valley of the Great Salt Lake )op.cit.), pp. 10-11; Thomas F. O'Pea, op. cit., p. 82; Ray B. West,QP. cit., p. 190; Howard R. Lamar; o£. cit., p. 318.
■^Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 280; Milton R. Hunter, op. cit., p. 134,
Ja wM S3 135 " 1" |= 1 * KfOOO 2,000 joo,0 4,000 3.0008S S4 its
ww*tn
onuo 121 SCAli /V ff£T
hi H" 1
nr ttt t/s PLATA
h 7t“ 1
too tot |c;u ** tOtffST.
shl - 1 h 11-4otzit h 115WARqkJ 13 1***0 to HARO 20
|U SI" 11“ 1h i
04 j“ 1
S3 Q PLAT J)Sour* Tt*nc jr.
4 so 41 \tt \\#>| m*p IS n | B j 1h 7* l|* 1(3 1h i h4k 1“ 1k4k IFPljtC 47 43 C4 is a
" 1a 31 70 // 72 so St 32 S3 S4 SS SC
a a u FI SI S3 SI S3 41 43 41 4i 45 44 43
4ZWA
41 SO 6
CIOr o / r r
41 s » IWA*0
St7
sz 3 3 |WAROv34 SI 37
m * o k SI 40WAS,h
43 44 43 42 41 40 31 P veu c$OUAA£
37 SS 34 S3 32 St 30 21 |
Pure23 21 30 St 32 S3 34 35 34 I Z 23 24 R u tU t
loom 24 27 28
/* ts 21WARl
2i*
25 24 23tV A *I>
22<
It 20WA*Dt tlf 21 10
WARDnf a tl
WAt10
k / IS
ft tz h 1" tz F 14 F /4 "1 18 h 1 /o it 12 13 14
hlh 1’ 1h 1S F h 1hi / 1 7 6 S 4 3 2 /
FIAT /f jT/trc j&hp PU T 3 C*mfrr Amp
Figure 19. The Plat of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1847-1849
Sourcet Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, 1952, Appendix D.1 T 1 ' ' o
Vjr 0
71
Table 4. Summary of Early Townsite Features, Great Salt Lake City, Utah
Characteristics Plat A Plat B Plat C Plat DTract or Subdivision:Date 1047 1848 1849 I860. Area, acres 1,485 693 264 — — —Configuration Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular RectangularDirection of Major Axis N-S N-S N-S E-W
Streets: Direction N-S, E-W N-S, E-W N S, E-W N-S, E-WWidth, feet 132 132 132Length, niles 37 20 7 —
Blocks:Umber 113 63 24 — —Dimensions, feet 660 x 660 660 x 660 660 x 660 330 x 330Area, acres . 10.0 10.0 10.0 2.5Configuration Square Square Square Squareregularity of Size Regular Regular Regular Regular
Lots:Number per Block 8 8 8 4Number per Tract 858 496 150Dimensions, feet 165 x 330 165 x 330 165 x 330 165 X 165Area, acres 1.25 1.25 1.25 0,625Configuration Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular SquareRegularity Regular Regular Regular RegularPattern Type Non-Facing Non-Facing Non-Facing Four-Square
Alleys:Width, feet None None None None
Public Squares: Number 4 1 0Area, acres 40.0 10.0 0.0
Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op, cit.), pp. 12-13; and Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 280-202.Source:
1272
trees* * Irrigation ditches usually lined both sides of each street.
The topographic aspects of the valley, being level or rising gently
to the bench lands or foothills, lent themselves to such a grid
pattern.*3
As Salt Lake City grew, additions were surveyed and added to
the original townsite (Plat A). The first addition (Plat B) came a
year later in 1848 and extended the existing street system and block-
lot pattern to the east. A second addition (Plat C) followed in 1849
which was made to the west side of the townsite and filled out its
boundaries to be about 2.8 miles east-west. The city remained 2.2
miles north-south. Consequently, by 1850 with a population of about
5,000*4 the entire townsite covered 3.8 square miles (2,442 acres)
and contained 201 blocks. Five blocks were set aside for public uses
such as the Temple site, school sites, park sites, or other public
building sites. The public square sites were scattered in four
directions.*3 At eight lots for 196 blocks, the total number of
residential lots was 1,568. At five persons per family, the area
could include 7,840 people using this subdivision pattern.
12Brigham H. Roberts, on. cit., Vol. 3, p. 281; Robert B. Day, They Made Mormon History, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1968, p.Ill; Mulder and Mortensen, op. cit., p. 301; Valley of the'Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 9.
*3Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op; cit.), p. 11.
*4Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 17.
*5Brigham H, Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 281.
73
This large areal extend was remarked upon by early visitors.
For example, one traveler said Salt Lake City was larger than
Pittsburgh.^ The openness and low density of Salt Lake City was
also mentioned. Only a small portion of the city was thickly settled
(even by 1868). In two-thirds of the city’s area, dwellings were
mingled with orchards, gardens, small•pastures, wheat fields, and17cornfields. Nine-tenths of the buildings were adobies. However,18the early city did not sprawl in an uncontrolled manner. Rather,
it developed block by block in an organized manner, even if it was
low density. Curbs were placed upon land speculation. Land, water,
and timber were to belong to the people, as preached by Young on
Sunday, July 25, 1847.^ Town lots were usually located for their
users by drawing lots although leading church officials were given
^ Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 17.17John H. Beadle, op. cit., pp. 240-241; Richard F. Burton,
op. cit., p. 219; Benjamin G. Ferris, Utah and the Mormons, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854, p. 42; Mulder and Mortensen, op. cit., pp. 236, 308.
18Richard F. Burton, op. cit., p. 322.19Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit., pp. 85, 198; Ridge and Billington,
America's Frontier Story, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,1969, p. 516; Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 451; Nels Anderson, Desert Saints, Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1942, p. 68;Stanley P. Hirshon, op. cit., pp. 96-97; Leonard J. Arrington, op. cit., p. 52; John W. Gunnison, op. cit., p. 145.
Pioneers could sell land to later arrivals if called to settle a new community; P.A.M. Taylor, Expectations Westward, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965, p, 52.
2074
special preference. Only one town lot per family was permitted.
Houses were to be set back twenty feet from the street. In the early
days, gardens spilled out from the residential lots into the unused21
portions of the streets. Apparently, space was not wasted.
Beyond the towns!te, the plan called for five acre farming
parcels to be reserved for craftsmen and others whose principal
occupation was not faming. Farm sizes of ten, twenty, forty, and
eighty acres were to be measured in successively greater distances
from the city. As with the town lots, similar measures were taken
to prevent monopoly and land speculation. The size of a man's farm22was based on the size of his family. The Council of Fifty regulated
the distribution of land and determined water rights in the 1048-1950
era. Until well into the twentieth century Utah's farms remained
small.^ The actual experience of farm land distribution in the
Salt Lake Valley has been related by Hunter, The earliest farms had
to be only five and ten acres because the demand was so great. The
20Milton R. Hunter, op. cit., pp. 134-136; Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 15.
21Valley of the Groat Salt Lake (op. cit.), p . 15.22Milton R. Hunter, op. cit., p. 136; Brigham H. Roberts,
o p . cit., Vol 3, p. 282; Nels Anderson, op. cit., pp. 68-69; Howard R. Lamar, op. cit., p, 356; Stanley P. Hirshon, op. cit., p. 90;William A. Linn, op. cit., pp. 397-399.
23Klans J, Hansen, op. cit., p. 124; Stanley P. Hirshon, on. cit., p. 97; Leonard J. Arrington, op. cit., pp. 51-52.
2^Ephriam Edward Erickson, The Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1922, pp. 41-42; Milton R. Hunter, op. cit., pp. 140-141.
75
The mechanics of distribution and assignment proved to be a much25greater task than anticipated by the authorities.
This townsite pattern (1847-1849) sufficed until the 1860's
when subdivision occurred to the northeast of the Temple site. It
probably was realized by then that the ten acre blocks presented dif
ficulties to urban development. Space was wasted inside the block.
(Actually# they must have discovered this earlier with the Kirtland
experience when the lot and block sizes were changed.) Topography in
this newly platted area was unusual as uneven terrain was encountered
which did not permit easy irrigation. Therefore, large gardens were
minimized because of a mixture of terrain factors and urban land- 26value pressures. The blocks in this area continued to be square
shaped with compass orientation# but they were much smaller than the
original size. The alternating lot facing system was given up at 27this time, too. Then# in the 1870's rectangular shaped blocks
28were laid out to the south of the original townsite. This put an
end to the square-shaped block pattern as far as Salt Lake City was
25Hilton R. Hunter# op. cit.# pp. 136-139; See# also: Juanita Brooks# Diary of Hosea Stout# Salt Lake City: universityof Utah Press# 1964, p« 333; and Gustive O. Larson# Prelude to the Kingdom, Prancestown: Marshall Jones, 1947# p. 75.
Brigham H. Roberts, og. cit.# Vol. 3, p. 282; Dale L. Morgan# op. cit., p. 184; Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.)# p. 16.
27Brigham Roberts, ojs. cit., Vol. 3# p. 282.28Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.)# p. 16; Dale L.
Morgan# op. cit.# p. 184.
76concerned* Finally beyond these limits, diagonal and curvilinear
patterns have developed more recently, especially into the twentieth 29
century.
The Mormon Ward System•and Neighborhood Structure
The ward system of church government developed with the plan
of Zion. The Mormons practice their division on a strict territorial30
basis. The Salt Lake Stake was formed on October 3, 1847. soon,
by 1853, the early city was divided into nineteen wards, and each31
weird varied in size from nine to twelve blocks. This system was
extended as the city grew outward. The next subdivision, the one of
the late 1860's to the northeast with the smaller square blocks,32became the twentieth ward. Twenty-one wards existed in 1869.
Usually, a meeting house-school house was built for each ward.
The city tax rate supported the school in each ward. The typical
building was plain adobe, thirty feet by twenty feet in size. They33
served as church meeting places for Sunday evenings. Academies
29Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 16; Charles L. Sellers, op. cit., p. 29.
30Brigham H. Roberts, o£. cit., Vol. 3, p. 302; Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p, 675.
31Richard F. Burton, op. cit., pp. 240-241; Stanley P. Hirshon, 0£. cit., p. 96; Juanita Brooks, op. cit., p. 349;Gustive 0. Larson, op. cit., p. 90.
32John H. Beadle, op. cit., p. 240,
Richard F. Burton, og. cit., p. 475; and Juanita Brooks, og. cit., p* 382,
77
for secondary education were also developed, although references to
their sites have proven to be very few. For example, Burton men
tioned the Academy of the Seventh Ward as standing in a ten acre
block on the north-west.side of the city. The building was built
to be used as a hotel, but Young purchased it for educational 34
purposes.
The Temple Square and its Vicinity
Very early, on Saturday July 31, 1847, the members of the
Battalion Detachment erected a "bowery" for worship services. The35
main purpose right then was to provide shade for worship services.
A second project, proposed August 7, was a fort that came to be known
as "Old Fort Block" and was located five or six blocks southwest of36
the Temple site; see Figure 19. Later, this block became Pioneer
Park and was used as a park and playground. During the 1853 period a37
wall was built partially surrounding the city.
^Richard F, Burton, op. cit., p. 399.35Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 285; Valley of the
Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 10; Stanley P. Hirshon, op. cit., p. 99; Leonard J. Arrington, op. cit., p. 46.
36Brigham H. Roberts, og. cit., Vol. 3, p. 287; Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 457; Daniel Tyler, A Concise History of the Mormon Battalion, 1846-1847, Glorieta, H.M,: Rio Grande Press,1969, pp. 317-318; Richard F. Burton, op. cit., p. 319; Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 10.
37Valley of the Great salt Lake (op. cit.), pp. 15-16;Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 478, Vol. 4, p, 53; Howard J. Nelson, "Walled Cities of the United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, March 1961, p. 19; W. P. A. Writer's, Utah (op. cit.), p. 230.
78
The "Old Council House" was the first public building in Salt
Lake City and was built immediately south of the Temple Square. Table
5 lists dates and sizes of early public buildings, and their locations
have been shown by Figure 20. The Council house was used as a general
council house for the church and by the provisional state of Deseret
as a state house. Then, the territorial legislature met there, and
for a number of years it housed the territorial library. It was also
used for sacred purposes. Starting in 1852, endowment ordinances
were administered there. Finally, in March 1869 the University of
Deseret started meeting there. The building was destroyed by fire 38
in June 1883. "Other early buildings were subjected to multi
purposes in a similar manner.
Ground was broken for the Temple in February 1853, after a vote39
for the action was made in October 1852. It was finished 39 years40
later and officially dedicated on April 6, 1893.
38Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol, 4, p, 13; Richard F. Burton# op. cit,, p. 242; Benjamin G. Ferris, op. cit., p. 43; Leonard J. Arrington, o£. cit., pp, 54, 111; Juanita Brooks, o£. cit., p. 357.
39Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol, 4, pp. 16-18; Benjamin G. Ferris, op. cit., pp. 43-44; John H. Beadle, op. cit., p. 243; Juanita Brooks, op, cit«, p, 388.
40Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 6, pp. 232-235; W. P. A. Writer's, Utah (op. cit.) , pp, 233-240; Leonard J. Arrington# op. cit., pp. 214-215; Ward j, Roylance, Utah, The Incredible Land, Salt Lake City: Utah Trails Co., 1965, pp. 58-59.
79
Table 5. Summary of Early Public Building Features, Salt Lake City, Utah
Building or Length Width Height Starting Finish-Structure Feet Feet Feet Date ing DateFirst Bowery 40 28 —— 1847 1847Second Bowery 100 60 — 1849 1849Council House 45 45 (Two Story) 1849 1850Old Tabernacle 126 64 — 1851 1852Third Bowery 156 138 —— — 1852bSocial Hall 73 33 (Main Floor-Basement) 1852 1853Seventies Hall 50 30 — 1850 1854Endowment House (Two Story) — 1855Salt Lake Theater 144 80 40 1861 1862New Tabernacle 250 150 80 1864 1867Temple 193 125 108a 1853 1893First Courthouse —— —— (Two Story) —— 1854bFirst City Hall — — — — (Two Story) — 1854bCity-County Building — — (Five Story) —— 1894Federal Building — — — — — — 1905State Capitol
a
404 240 (Four Story)c 1912 1916
^Height to east central tower 210 feet; height to west central tower 204 feet.
^Approximate date^Height to tip of the dome 285 feet.
Source: Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 285; Vol. 4, pp. 13-18, Vol. 5, pp. 132-135, Vol. 6, pp. 232-235; W.P.A. Writer's, Utah, (op. cit.), pp. 245-250, 264; Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), pp. 10-28, 76; Leonard J. Arrington, op. cit., pp. 54, 111, 213; Juanita Brooks, op. cit., p. 647.
80
I I II—M I____I
Publicsquarc
JT4TK>«
OLDrom
/ft
j/
! ySTATD AKUt Ca p it o l
AO S9Q IQOO /.SM A & O
sfCAif fl*7
T£MPUSQUARE
I AA/6AM rogue's----ASi-l | | Of!Hone AUD OmeCAUtAi i ii i—r~
74JmamMAUTWAttn
i r
St
22j5SHh i
|_ 4J 4/ 1 Jf &M6AAT/ON JfSquare
»
3
TTi fTTTi r r rn p t
Figure 20. location of Early Public Buildings,Salt Lake City, Utah
Sourcei Lowry Nelson, The Mormon Village, 1952, Appendix D;John W. Reps, The Making of Urban America, 1965, p.471i and Texaco Oil Company, Highway Map, "Utah," 1964.
81Brigham Young's own home area (houses, school, offices) was
located on a two block area just east of the Temple Square. This
contained his two houses (the Lion House and the Beehive House), a
private school for his family, the Deseret Store, the offices of the
Deseret Hews (official church newspaper), the Tithing House and yard,
and various other buildings. The entire area was surrounded by a
wall eleven feet high,^
The Commercial District and Its Vicinity
The commercial area grew up along Main Street, the north-
south street along the east side of the Temple Square. This district
spread to the south of the Temple toward another public square five
blocks away. (The twenty foot set back for residences was not ob
served along Main Street).^2 Religious and cultural enterprises
developed on or near the temple square, while Federal and local
governmental offices eventually emerged near the southern public
square, at first called Emigration Square because each immigrant
group was welcomed to the city on this site.^
41John H. Beadle, op. cit., pp. 243-244; Stanley P. Hirshon, op. cit., p. 226; Richard F. Burton, op. cit., pp, 258, 273-274;Robert B. Day, on. cit., p. 40; W.P.A. Writer's, Utah (on. cit.), pp. 241-245. ---- ---
42Richard F. Burton, op. cit., pp. 222, 241; John H. Beadle, op. cit., p. 246.
43Richard F. Burton, op. cit., p. 249; and Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 27.
82• The Railroad
The railroad arrived from Ogden in 1870, and the station was
built just inside the west line of that third addition of 1849.
The more favorable parts of the city were to the east, and the loca
tion of the railroad, north-south, took a path of least resistance
similar to railroad locations (and, now, freeway locations)typical
of most other American cities.
The Population Growth of Early Salt Lake City
Within a year after its founding, Salt Lake City had 1,500
inhabitants, and ten other settlements were located in the Salt Lake
Valley.* 4** The population total for the valley was about 6,000.4^
By 1855, Salt Lake City had filled out to be about 15,000 which was
about one-fourth of Utah's estimated 60,000 population.4® By 1880
Utah had 120,000 persons and northern Utah, dominated by Salt Lake City,49was emerging into a mature stage of development.
4Brigham H. Roberts, o p . cit., Vol. 5, pp. 250-251; Valley of The Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), p. 24; Stanley P. Hirshon, op. cit., pp. 273; 281; Howard R. Lamar, 0£. cit., p. 375; W.P.A. Writer's, Utah (op. cit.), pp. 77. 232; Leonard J. Arrington, op. cit., pp. 270-275; Gustive O. Larson, op. cit., p. 271-274.
45Texaco Oil Company, Highway Map, "Utah," 1970.^Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit., p. 83. See also: Joseph
Fielding Smith, op. cit., pp. 455, 461; Mels Anderson, op. cit., pp. 69-70; and W.P.A. Writer's, Utah (op. cit.), p. 58.
4^Wallace Turner, op. cit., p. 66; Stanley P. Hirshon, op. cit., p. 96.
48Stanley P. Hirshon, op. cit., p. 138. See also: MelsAnderson, op. cit., pp. 140-141.
4^William J. Whalen, op. cit., p. 78.
03
The Regional Function of Salt Lake City
As tine passed, satellite towns grew north, south, and west
of Salt Lake City, and the metropolitan situation today resembles what
we might call the American situation.^0 Young planned to establish
villages ten miles apart. The furthest distance from a village to
farm was planned at seven m i l e s . H o w e v e r , there is evidence to
show that the Salt Lake Valley grew in a rather unplanned fashion com
pared to the procedures adopted for settlement further away. These
latter operations were highly organized with locations carefully selec-52ted and persons appointed on the basis of needed abilities.
Despite de-emphasis on the glamorous sides of commerce and
discouraging experiences encountered by outsider-non-Mormons who
^Valley of the 'Great Salt Lake ■ (op; cit.), pp. 28-29, 32.
^Milton R. Hunter, op. cit., p. 142.
S^Thomas p, O'Dea, op. cit., p. 84; V7.P.A. Writer's, Utah (op. cit.), pp. 60-61; Leonard J. Arrington, op. cit., pp. 88-95, 215-223; Leland H. Creer, The Founding of an Empire, Salt Lake City: Bookcroft, 1947, p. 362; Ridge and Billington; op. cit., p. 519; P.A.M. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 88-93; Hoffman Bimey, op. cit., pp. 40- 41; Gustive 0. Larson, on. cit., pp. 88, 244.
84
attempted to engage in commerce and industry,^"* the business district
flourished and Salt Lake City became the regional capital of Utah,
southern Idaho, western Wyoming, and eastern Nevada.
It must be remembered that Brigham Young stressed self-
sufficiency which meant encouragement and promotion (and occasional
church ownership) of essential commercial and industrial enter
prises.^^ Copper mining received somewhat the same cold shoulder as
gold and silver mining, and copper companies originated from the
outside and exported their products.
Summary and Evaluation
More so than any previous community Salt Lake City was laid
out to the exact requirements set by Joseph Smith in 1833 for Zion 3
3Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. clt.), pp. 87-89;Stanley P. Hirshon, op. clt., p. 302; D.W. Meinig, op. cit., p. 209;
358, 373; W.P.A. Writer's, Utah
the Gentile commerce was to wither 374; see also: William A. Linn,
215; and Valley of the Great
cit., p. 374; Stanley P. Hirshon on. cit., p. 246; William A. Linn, op. cit., pp. 550-551; Klans J. Hansen, op. cit., p. 120; Howard R. Lamar, op. cit., p. 333.
56D.W. Meinig, op. cit., pp. 210-211; W.P.A. Writer's, Utah (op. cit.), pp. 88, 121; Valley of the Great Salt Lake (op. cit.), op. 105-109, 113-126.
Mulder and Mortensen, op. cit., pp. (op. cit.), pp. 73, 77.
The reason for Z.C.M.I.: away; Howard R. Lamar, op. cit., p. op. cit., pp. 557-560.
54D.W. Meinig, op. cit., p. Salt Lake (op. cit.), pT~90.
’Mulder and Mortensen, op.
(Table 6). The main deviation of Salt Lake City from the plan of
Zion was its lower population density (a system of wider lot widths)
and a system of public squares spread around the city. Apparently,
Brigham Young and his leading officials were interested in closely
following the plan of the earliest date even though they already
had encountered experiences that have shown some of the features
such as large blocks may have been unwise. Then, later, troubles
arose because of Salt Lake City’s large blocks. Ten years or so
after the last ten acre block was platted, the size was cut dras
tically to two and one-half acres per block.
Another change back to the Zion system, the alternating
arrangement of lot facing which characterized early Salt Lake City,
was also abandoned later on. The wide streets of Salt Lake City,
exactly at Zion's specification, proved to be somewhat excessive,
although in this case Brigham Young's wisdom has been broadly ac
claimed. It's possible that Nauvoo's streets proved to be much too
narrow, and Young over-reacted and made them too wide in planning
for the next city (which was the first Mormon city planned under his direction).
The failure of Nauvoo's main street to lead to the Temple
was not repeated at Salt Lake City. Temple building was a struggle,
but it was accomplished. The farm-village system was re-emphasized,
at first. However, two aspects of Zion were pretty well forgotten
by the time Salt Lake City was developing; the square-shaped prin
ciple for the shape of the entire city, and the area and population
Table 6. Summary of Early Townsite Features, 1833 to 1860
CharacterIs ticsThe Plan For Zion
Kirtland First Townsite
Far West First Townsite
Kirtland revised Townsite
Far West Revised Towns!te
Nauvoo(MormonTownsite
Salt Lake CityTractA, B, C
Salt Lake CityTractD
Tract or Subdivisions Date 1R33 1833-1834 1836 1837 1837 1830-1842 1847-1049 1860Con firm ration Nearly Square Square Square — Square Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular
Streets;Direction M-s, n-w M-S, C-W N-R, E-N M-S, E-W N-S, E-W N-S, E-W ?:-s, E-W N-S, E-WWidth, feet 132 66 02.5 66 02.5* 49.5 132
Blocks;Dimensions, feet 660 x 660 660 x 660 306 x 306 306 X 306 XtnriH 306 X 363 660 x 660 330 x 330
Area, acres 10.0 10.0 3.6 3.6412.54.0 3.3 10.0 2.5
Configuration Square Square Square Square Square Nearly Square Square Square
Lots;Number per Block 20 20 4 4 4 4 0 4Dimensions, feet 66 x 330 66 x 330 i o n x i o n 108 X 198 206.25 x 108 x 181.5 165 x 330 165 x 165
Area, acres 0.5 0.5 o . o 0.0 206.251.0 0.825 1.25 0.625
Configuration rectangular Rectangular i 3 Square Square Nearly Square Rectangular Square
Pattern Type(thin)Non-Facing
(thin)Non-racing Four-Square Four- Four- Four-Seuare Non-Facing Four-Square
Square Square
•Assumed
Sourcei rubles 1, 2, 3, and 4
limitation principle, and the principle of placing all public uses
into one site. Nevertheless, the emphasis toward founding new
cities, each to be a little Zion, had not been forgotten.
CHAPTER 8
SNOWFLAKE, NAVAJO COUNTY, ARIZONA
Sunset, Brigham City, Obed, and Joseph City were settled in
1876, and were the earliest Mormon communities in northeastern Arizona.
When they experienced severe difficulties, additional sites for settle
ment were selected. The site for.Snowflake, as an additional location,1was discovered, obtained, and settled under such circumstances. If
conditions for the original four settlements had been more favorable,
it is questionable that Snowflake would have received the favorable
emphasis for settlement that it did rather quickly receive. Neverthe
less, it is quite likely a Mormon settlement would have occurred on
Silver Creek because (as we have seen earlier) there has almost always
been a tendency for Mormons to disperse from a central point. Occupa
tion of territory for political and economic reasons was important
whether the location be Missouri, Illinois, Utah, or Arizona.
In the years from 1878 to 1882, Snowflake rapidly became the
largest Mormon community in northeastern Arizona where there were no2other influences present. Very early, the place was selected as
"^Charles S. Peterson, "Settlement of the Little Colorado, 1873- 1900," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utah, 1967, pp. 33-38.
2Church membership of the largest wards, October 1882: St. Johns 586; Snowflake, 403; Taylor, 387; Joseph Fish, History of the Eastern Arizona Stake of Zion and of the Establishment of the Snowflake Stake, 1879-1893, Snowflake: 1936, p. 12.
88
89
Stake Headquarters^ which was an important factor concerning the kinds
of facilities developed in the community, which in turn reinforced its4potential for growth and development. i
St. Johns has always rivaled Snowflake in size,** and its Mormon
role has been substantial since 1880. In contrast to Snowflake, St.
Johns achieved Stake Headquarters status later,^ and the presence of
the original Mexican community has given that place dual characteristics
which complicate matters. Hence, Snowflake will be discussed first, and
St. Johns will be compared to Snowflake in Chapter Nine.
Physical Setting for the Town .
The community of Snowflake (both town and farm) occupies a
shallow valley in plateau country, the region known as the Mogollon * 4
The Eastern Arizona Stake was formed in September 1878; Joseph Fish, op. cit., pp. 7, 9; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., Osmer D. Flake, William J. Flake, Pioneer-Colonizer, privately published, 1966, p. 80; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 5, pp. 581-582; Joseph Fielding Smith, op. cit., p. 675.
4Howard E. Daniels, "Mormon Colonization in Northern Arizona," M.A. Thesis, University of Arizona, 1960, p. 109.
^Joseph Fish, op. cit., pp. 12, 58; Employment Security Commission of Arizona, Arizona, A Century of Growth, Phoenix: 1963,pp. 37, 73. “
^In 1887, the Eastern Arizona Stake was split to form the Snowflake Stake and the St. Johns Stake. Remnant wards of the Little Colorado Stake were absorbed by the Snowflake Stake: Charles S.Peterson^ op. cit., p. 447; Joseph Fish; op. cit., pp. 29, 76; Howard E. Daniels," op. cit., pp. 107-108; John H. Krenkel, The Life and Times of Joseph Fish, Mormon Pioneer, Danville: The Interstate Printers,1970, pp. 319, 323; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 582;Joseph Fielding Smith, op: cit., p. 676.
so:.
Slope, at an elevation of 5,600 feet.^ Silver Creek drains the local
area, flowing from south to north (Figure 21). The creek rises about
twenty miles from Snowflake, and this closeness to the source has pro
vided a reliable supply of water for the upper valley, especially when
compared to the downstream situation at places such as Joseph City.
The climate of the upper valley is semi-arid, and within the8pinyon-juniper belt of vegetation. These scrub-trees are encountered
along the upper plateaus and mesas when moving away from the flood plain
of the valley. There are no mountain barriers, canyons, or cliffs with
in the immediate area of Snowflake.
General Community Description
The townsite was laid out about one half mile west from Silver
Creek. The best agricultural land in the area is along Silver Creek's
flood plain, and Snowflake emerged just beyond the western edge of this
flood zone (Figure 22). From the southwest, a tributary of Silver
Creek, Cottonwood Wash, cuts across the plateau and forms a northwestern
barrier to town development. Limited agriculture occurs along the wash.
7Navajo County Chamber of Commerce (in co-operation with the Arizona Development Board), Navajo County, Arizona: Industrial andCommercial Summary, December 1961, p. 16; Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 250; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), p. 448.
g
McCleneghan and Henderson, "A Look at the Developing Economy of Southeast Navajo County," Arizona Review, November 1963, p. 2-4; Baker and McCleneghan, An Arizona Economic and Historic Atlas, Tucson: University of Arizona, 1966, pp. 19, 22-28; Cross, Shaw, and Scheifele, . Arizona, Its People and Resources, Tucson: University of Arizona Press,I960, pp. 80, 91, 153-154; Edward H. Peplow, Jr., History of Arizona,New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1958, Voli I, pp. 6-12, 16,29; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), pp. 11-12, 22, 448.
91
KEY MAP
r;i art\ UTAH =J-.AtUOA* | | j SjhM ARC*
> Fmo( * i X ;"-•.J
,Va **j o I *< /■*" R t l t r s i f i o ^
H O LB R O O K -
\ST JO RdSC o h c * o
A/fficmJ forts t
I f t f p * d - t Irtc-tr- f t s t r / t /-<
A" *ah a. IJ-,
Ft. ApachcFt F/>•<<-*
I n J-art f t s e r f* t'Ort
■ . ceJ f / W f /A/ / V f / z f j
Figure 21. Location of Snowflake and St. Johns, Arizona
Source: Guide©, Tucson: "Arizona Territory, 1881," 1969;and Cate, Poland r,7., Wickenburg: "Arizona Territory,Showing Post Offices which were in Existence During This Period, 1863-1912," 1963.
□ _______i-iJ ‘ 1
/s.4-L
LBeJ V HI
Agriculture Momon Church School and Related Use Other Major Public Use
Wb. Industry
Figure 22. location of Community Features, Snowflake, Arizona Source: Navajo County Assessor's Office; and Field Notes, October, 1060
93
Snowflake started near the northeast corner of section 23 and
grew toward the higher mesa to the south and southwest. Room for town
development has been almost unlimited in this direction, although
eventually barriers would be reached if the town were to expand into
small city proportions. Another west-side tributary to Silver Creek
forms a small agricultural basin two miles to the south of the point of
the town's origin.
The general patterns of land for Snowflake were established
early. The Stake House and Social Hall occupy the Public Square along
the west side of the Holbrook-Taylor highway, i.e. the town's main
street (Figure 22). The school properties begin a block to the south
west of the church properties, and extend for three blocks further to
the southwest. The cemetery is one block west of the high school where
the edge of the railroad is encountered.
Two additional school properties straddle the railroad. They
are located one block further west from the cemetery and are beyond the
limits of the Mormon townsite. The property to the north of the rail
road is a yard and garage for school busses. The Union High School
District is a large one, extending from Heber to Show Low inclusive, andgmany busses are needed. The property to the south of the railroad con
tains dormitories for Indian children who attend school in Snowflake un
der a Bureau of Indian Affairs-local school district arrangement. This
Ralph Mahoney, "Snowflake, Mormon Community," Arizona Days and Ways, July 11, 1954, pp. 13-14; Navajo County Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 16.
94
program was initiated during the 1950's as a means to provide education
for Indian children living in isolated areas of the Navajo Indian
Reservation.^ The new Snowflake-Taylor junior high school is located
at the southern edge of Snowflake's townsite along the west side of the
highway to Taylor.
The main concentration of Snowflake's residential use exists in
the original townsite, to the north of the school property. The heaviest
concentration of commercial use logically exists in this area along the
main street. A smaller concentration of residential use exists in the
new, south-side subdivision. The town's poorest housing is scattered
in the area between these two zones of concentration. A few commercial
properties are scattered along the main street through this underdevel
oped district and along the highways to Heber and Holbrook.
Two major industrial uses exist beyond the townsite, as to be
expected when the location of such facilities is determined. A large
lumber mill is west of the original townsite between the railroad and
the highway to Heber.^ These transportation facilities are needed for
such a prominent use. A large construction yard and sand-gravel opera
tion exists to the north of the original townsite along the west-side
of the highway to Holbrook. Gravel from Cottonwood Wash provides some
A similar program exists at Holbrook; Navajo County Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 11; McCleneghan and Henderson, op. cit., p. 9.
n The industry is composed of a sawmill and a moulding and planning mill; Ralph Mahoney, "Snowflake, Mormon Community" Cop, cit.), p. 13; and Navajo County Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 17.
95
of the raw materials for this operation. The Snowflake paper mill
(Southwest Forest Industries) is the community's largest employer, but
it is located ten miles west of Snowflake near the highway to Heber. A
spur of the Apache Railroad connects the line at Snowflake with the
mill.12
Only about eighteen residences are located beyond platted por
tions, townsite or other streets associated with the townsite. The
early tradition of in-town living has held up well at Snowflake. Res
idences definitely do not mar the agricultural" pattern to any great
degree.
The Public Square and its Development
An all-purpose building for church worship, school, amusement
hall, and town hall was of earliest concern. A log house for this
purpose was constructed by the end of 1879. It stood in block one
(southeast corner) of the original townsite (Figures 23 and 24). Later,
the site converted to residential use. In the year and one-half prior
to the end of 1879 one of the adobe buildings of the Stinson Ranch, the
non-Mormon ranch settlement of 1873, served as church and school.12
Hoflich and McCleneghan, "Arizona's New Pulp and Paper Industry," Arizona Review, July-August 1963, pp. 1-8; and Navajo County Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 17.
13Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel, Snowflake: Snowflake Stake, 1939, p. 11; Joseph Fish, oj). cit., p. 16; Osmer D. Flake, op. Cit., pp. 82, 87; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 479; John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 199.
William Flake also provided a room for the first court of Apache County in 1879, as Snowflake was the county seat for a short period of time; Roscoe G. Willson, "Snowflake's Name Honors Two Noted Mormons," Arizona Days and Ways, June 9, 1963, p. 27.
96
; I- ■ • g I' ---—
<8>
XO
PO
Block One Mormon ChurchUse Related to Mormon C h u r c h T Non-Mornon Church School and Related Use Parks and Related Use Post Office Town HallOther Governmental Use
O JOO /,*°0 /soo 1.900
JtALi t* r t iT
L
il
Figure 23. Location of Public Uses, Snowflake, Arizona
Source: Navajo County Assessor's Office, and Field Notes, October, I960
Stef ion £t»t
Cottonwood Wash
/./ 2S
SeclifiA l'*€.
/ K0 lo o ooo i r e 600 fOoo
Jtnu m rttr
Figure 24. The Original Plat of Snowflake, Arizona, Source: Mavajo County Recorder's Office, Book 2, P. 11
98
Early Development on the SquareIn 1881, the old Relief Society Hall was erected on the south
west side of block eight which became the church block. This building
was used for church meetings of all kinds, and was especially noted as
an amusement hall.. Later, starting in 1889 and continuing for several
years, it was used by the Snowflake Stake Academy as a secondary school.
Then, it was used for several more years as part of the elementary
school system. Finally, the building was t o m down soon after 1900, and14a new Social Hall was completed on this site by 1909.
On the eastern portion of block eight, the principal church, or
chapel, was built during 1883 and 1884. Although it was designed as a
ward chapel, during the September 1884 conference of the Eastern
Arizona Stake it was designated as the "Stake House." The building was
soon refinished to accommodate this added f u n c t i o n . F o r a time, the
old Arizona Co-operative Merchantile Institute (A.C.M.I.) operated a
store on the southeastern comer of the church b l o c k . T h i s enter
prise was parallel to Zion's Co-operative Merchantile Institute
14Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.), pp. 11-12, 15, 17.
^ Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.) , p.13; Joseph Fish, op. cit., pp. 16, 50;"Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 479; John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 244.
^The Snowflake Co-operative, established in January 1881, was the first store in Snowflake; Joseph Fish, op. cit., p. 16.
99
(Z.C.M.I.) which was started in 1869 by Brigham Young to compete with17an influx of non-Mormon merchants in Salt Lake City.
Recent Developments on the Square
Growth and development of Snowflake was to the extent that by
the 1930's the Stake House was clearly inadequate to hold large crowds,
or to handle increasing number of classes and meetings.
Construction on the large Ward Chapel and Stake House began in
June. 1938 and dedication services were conducted a year later. This
building adapted itself around the Old Stake House which constitutes18the west wing of the newer and much larger building. There is a
relatively new commercial use on the southwestern part of the Square.
The Social Hall has been converted to be the town's movie theater, and19it is owned and operated by the church.
The School System and Related Uses
Snowflake's first classes were held in the all-purpose adobe
building of the Stinson Ranch, 1878-1879. Classes then shifted to the
community's second all-purpose building, a log house, during 1880-1891.
Leonard J. Arrington, op. cit., pp. 297-304; Ephriam Edward Erickson, op. cit., p. 53; Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 5, pp. 220-223; Gustive 0. Larson, op. cit., pp. 258-260.
^ Dedicatory Services; snowflake Ward Chapel' Cop, cit.) , pp. 5, 13; Ralph Mahoney, "Snowflake, Mormon Community" (op. cit.), p. 12;John Myers, op. cit., p. 24.
19"Snowflake Celebration Marks Mormon Founding," Arizona Days and Ways, July 19, 1959, p. 18.
100
By the 1890's, no doubt there was a pressing need for a school house,
specially built upon its own site.
Early Period (to 1915)
A brick school house (single-storied) was built in 1891 on a lot
in block eighteen (Figures 23 and 24). Several additions were made20during the years to about 1915. This development started the nucleus
of a secondary public square arrangement. Also, for a time, the loca
tions of classes must have been split when the Public Square site was
still used (the Relief Society Hall).
The Academy was established in 1889, and it used the Relief
Society Hall on the Public Square. Experiences were similar to elemen
tary school development, and a separate school building was needed by
the early 1900's.
The Stake Academy building (three-storied) was built in 1901
on the northeast lot of block twenty. The program of the school was
expanded, and additions to the building were completed by 1910. Un
fortunately, this structure was destroyed by fire three months after
its completion. A new Academy building of red sandstone (two-storied)21was finished in 1913, and this building remains in use today.
20Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.), pp.16- 17.
21Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel'(op. cit.), pp.17- 18, 21; and Thomas J. McCleneghan, "The Historic Background of Southeast Navajo County," Arizona Review, December 1961, p. 4.
The Academy development started the nucleus of another
secondary public square. Thus, by 1910 Snowflake possessed the
beginnings of three public squares.
Middle Period (to 1930)
In 1919, a new elementary school (two-storied) was erected on22block nineteen, across the street to the west of the first school.
This site development greatly enlarged the secondary square arrange
ment, and provided a link to block twenty, further west, the Academy
site. Therefore, these two secondary squares tended to merge into one
much larger site.
The church discontinued its system of secondary education in
1924, and the Academy Building was leased to the Union High School
District for its main classroom building. Two years later, a gym-23nasium was built behind the main buildings. The Union High School
101
22Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.), pp,16- 17; and Thomas J. McCleneghan, op. cit., p. 5.
. 23Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.), pp.17- 18, 21; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., pp. 480-481; James H. McClintock, op. cit., p. 265; Ralph Mahoney, "Snowflake, Mormon Community" (op. cit.), p. 13.
Brigham Young Academy in Provo, Utah, was the first Mormon Academy, opening in 1875. The system reached its peak in 1913 with nineteen academies (secondary schools) and three academies at the college level. When the system was phased out, most of the schools were turned over to their respective states. The principal exception was Brigham Young University . . . The Mormon Church never sponsored official elementary schools, as do the Roman Catholics or several Protestant denominations; Wallace F. Bennett, Why jC am a Mormon, Boston: Beacon Press, 1958, pp. 136-137.
District began utilizing the Academy parcels of blocks twenty and
twenty-five, which further enlarged the concept of the public square.
When the public school system assumed the role of secondary
education, a church seminary system was developed for religious educa
tion at the high school level. A seminary building was built in 1925-2426 immediately to the north of the Academy Building. This system of
seminary instruction was initiated by the general church authorities in
1912 and has been a •common practice in many Mormon communities in Utah,25Idaho, and Arizona.
Late PeriodAdditions have occurred until today the elementary school
system uses the entire area of block nineteen, as well as the original
lot in block eighteen. This part of the secondary square (easternl
has been further expanded by the location of the Snowflake Town Hall.
This building is a large, remodeled house on the northwest corner of
block eighteen, next to the old school.
A new high school building to the south of the Academy Building 26was completed in 1938. In the middle 1950's the Academy Building
was being used as an auditorium for music recitals and plays; a new
24Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. citl, pp,17-18.
25Wallace F . Bennett, op. cit., p . 136; William J . Whalen, op. cit., p. 215; Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit., pp. 227-228.
26Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel Cop, cit.I,pp. 17-18.
102
103
gymnasium was built, and a number of classrooms were added to the 27system. The Union High School District has expanded to occupy three
blocks together as a unit, i.e., numbers 20 and 25 of the original town-
site and block three of the Academy Addition (Figure 25). Recently, an
auditorium was built on the north side of block 26, just south of the
elementary school and playground. A new Seminary has opened on the
northeast corner of block 21, the next block west of the Academy site.
The result has been that secondary squares have expanded and
merged so that one large system overshadows the original main Public
Square, i.e., the church block. An appendage use such as the Seminary
typically seeks closeness to a community high school for convenience 28 •reasons.
Despite the size of the school system area, in 1962 the
district had to go outside the townsite for a junior high school site.
In the late period, other non-townsite sites include the B.I.A. dormi
tory area and the school bus yard. Playground uses have been able to
remain in the townsite, but they are well beyond (to the south) the
Public Squares. These uses include the Little League baseball park
in block thirteen of the Academy Addition (just.south of the railroad)
and the high school baseball field in block nine of the Lindsey
Addition.
27Ralph Mahoney, "Snowflake, Mormon Community" (op. cit.),pp. 13-14.
28Wallace F. Bennett, o j d . cit., p. 136; William J. Whalen, op. cit., p. 215; Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit., pp. 227-228.
104
r* /•o'/'+cc' 4
3*t1+p i.'*t J _ _ : ji-rr1
4C »o 4ot 40C $*c * ~
s<*ii far
J.* ’ L i_
1 % 1 L» i-1 \ ± J/./A/DSEY ADD/T/OA/
1_._1 1_:_1 1_1_1. .L y. . 4: ...
. 4 . .. >». n:t
Figure 25. The Mormon Townsite, Snowflake, ^Arizona, Estimated at 1920
Sourcex Navajo County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 44,
105Other Community Facilities
.Another use exists that is characteristic of the Mormon29 .Church. In block five (two blocks to the north of the high school)
a converted residence serves as headquarters for genealogical study con
ducted by Snowflake church members. This is another example of an
appendage use, one that is away from a public square.
Community facilities other than those associated with the
Mormon Church or the public school system are few in number. The post
office is in the business district, and the Town Hall is on the edge
of the business district and the edge of the school system "public
square."
The Snowflake community has three churches other than Mormon,
but they are all very small, and are recent, appendage uses. The
Episcopal Church is located in the northwest non-Mormon subdivision.
The Baptist is located to the east of Block G, along the edge of major
agricultural uses. The Catholic Church is located on the highway to
Taylor, east side, just south of the junior high school. It is
postulated at this time that non-Mormon churches are rarely to be
found inside a Mormon townsite.
There are no other fraternal organizations, at least of
sufficient size to command a major building. It is also postulated
29Wallace Turner, o£. cit., pp. 71, 84; Thomas F. O'Dea, op. cit./ pp. 182-183; Wallace F. Bennett, op. cit., pp. 110-111,130; William J. Whalen, op. cit., p. 262.
106that lack of* such buildings is a good measure of the degree of orthodoxy
likely to be found in a Mormon community.
The Street System
Almost immediately after the Mormon purchase in 1878, with
the approval of Erastus Snow who was enthusiastic over the possibil
ities of the site, William Flake"laid out a townsite of twenty blocks
in typical Mormon f a s h i o n . T h e early townsite for Snowflake, recorded
in 1893, included 27 blocks.
Early Period
The town's outer boundaries were approximately square in shape,
although Cottonwood Wash disrupted the northeast comer. (See Figure
24.) The extremely wide streets of Salt Lake City were not repeated
exactly at Snowflake, but were narrowed to ninty-nine feet. The 1878-
1910 street system produced a pattern of square blocks very similar
to early Salt Lake City. However, the block sizes did not match that of 1847-1860 Salt Lake City, but were much smaller, at 396 feet square.
This size was nearly equal to those of Tract D, 1860.
Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.), p. 9; John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 189; Osmer D. Flake, op. cit., p. 81; Howard E. Daniels, op. cit., p. 99; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit.,PP. 52-54; Joseph Fish, op. cit., pp. 9, 46-48; Roberta Flake Clayton, "Invitation to Snowflake," Arizona Highways, July 1938, p. 16; Roscoe G. Willson, op. cit., p. 26.
31Snowflake Old Townsite, recorded June 5, 1893, Book Two of N.A.R.A., p. 110-111, Records of Apache County; map recorded at Navajo County Recorder's Office, Book 2, p. 11, August 24, 1935.
See also, Navajo County Assessor's office, Book 202, Map 11, part one, March 1960.
107
The problems of adjusting to earlier settlement (as at Nauvoo,
Illinois) were not encountered at Snowflake. The Snowflake experience
of town layout resembled those of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Far West,
Missouri, where the sites were bare to begin with. Apparently,
existing structures on the Stinson Ranch caused no impediment to32developing the Mormon patterns.
Additions to the Mormon Townsite
During the next thirty years, by 1920, two major additions were
made to the original townsite: The Academy and Lindsey Additions.
Both additions were Mormon in character, with an extension of the street
system and the same size per block as before. The Academy Addition
added 35 blocks along the southern edge of the townsite, as shown by
Figure 25, which doubled- the street mileage and the area of the town.
Block number five of the Academy Addition was partly superimposed on33lot number 28 of the original townsite. This parcel has been the
town's cemetery since the earliest days.
The Lindsey Addition was added to the south of the Academy
Addition, probably in about 1920. Fifteen more full-sized blocks
rounded out the boundaries of the Mormon townsite along its southern
32Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.), p . 10; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 53; Osmer D. Flake, op. cit., pp. 68, 74; Roscoe G. Willson, op. cit., p. 27.
33Snowflake Townsite Map, surveyed July 2, 1919, recorded at tJavajo County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 44, December 6, 1926.
See also, Navajo County Assessor's Office, Book 202, Map 11, part two, March 1968.
108
edge. Five half-blocks of the Lindsey Addition (blocks one through
five) were superimposed upon the southern half of blocks twenty-one34through twenty-five of the Academy Addition. Apparently, the prox
imity of the section line caused some confusion in surveying or platting
techniques.
During the period from 1878 to 1920, eight more blocks were
added to the Mormon towns!te, to the east of the original townsite.
These blocks were labled blocks A through H, and the map of 1893 sug
gests that six of these blocks existed then.
Another block (to the west of block three in the original town-
site) was added in about 1920, probably, but its exact origins are
unknown. This block appears on the County Assessor's maps only
This last addition brought the Mormon townsite to a maximum of 86 blocks.
In 1920, the roads to Woodruff (northeast quadrant) and to
Taylor (southeast quadrant) existed essentially along today's highway
alignments, although the highway directly north to Holbrook came later.
An old wagon road to Holbrook exited the townsite to the northwest
near block f o u r H o w e v e r , the route to Woodruff was the important
34Navajo County Assessor's Office, Book 202, Maps 17 and 18, March 1968.
^Navajo County Assessor's Office, Book 202, Map-30, March 1968,
^Snowflake Townsite Map, op. pit.
10937route and this tended to keep Main Street development on the eastern
side of the tovmsite. Snowflake's Main Street was established early
in its present location which passes by the Public Square (the Mormon
Church). Therefore, this Mormon planning principle was successfully
followed.38The Apache Railroad penetrated the townsite in 1918. The
railroad originated at Holbrook and was built to the new lumber camp
of Cooley (later McNary). In the Snowflake area, the railroad fol
lowed a convenient grade line and disrupted the townsite at probable
points of least resistance and minor urban development. Although
few buildings were probably displaced by the railroad, the angle of
its right-of-way rendered at least twelve parcels of land difficult
to use because of their new, awkward shape. Otherwise, the Mormon
street system was not disrupted during the 1910-1935 era.
Recent DevelopmentsIf the street system had developed according to the way the
Mormon townsite was planned there would have been 7.35 miles of east-
west streets and 7.90 miles of north-south streets. Instead, about
77.0 percent of the right-of-way was developed which resulted in an
actual distance of 5.74 miles, east-west streets, and 6.00 miles.
The routes to Woodruff, Concho, St. Johns, and Round Valley were via the northeast exit as traveled by Joseph Fish; John H. Krenkel, op. cit., pp. 200, 242.
38Jo Jeffers, "Apache County, Arizona, U.S.A.," Arizona Highways, May 1969, p. 9; Baker and McCleneghan, op., cit., p. 7.
110
north-south streets. Figure 26 shows the location of these streets.
On the east side of town the streets are fully developed. The princi
pal locations of undeveloped streets are in the north-east quadrant
next to the Cottonwood Wash, on the west side around the high school
and the cemetery, and over all portions of the south side.
Unlike the experience at Salt Lake City, few court streets
penetrate the square. Mormon blocks. Only three short streets have
been added, in blocks four and twelve of the original townsite (north
west quadrant) and in block fourteen of the Academy Addition just south
of the railroad in the center of the subdivision. There is no evidence
that formerly developed streets have recently been closed, although
two platted street sections between high school blocks are used as
high school space.
From 1950 to 1968, six subdivisions of a non-Mormon pattern
were platted around the Mormon townsite (Figure 26). These sub
divisions are small to medium in size as they vary from one block
(on the east side) to ten blocks (on the south side). Three sub
divisions (to the northwest, northeast, and southeast) were laid out
in a grid pattern with rectangular blocks and small, almost square
shaped, lots. The regularity of these three subdivisions is typical
of earlier American practices. The larger subdivision to the south is
the only curvilinear type at Snowflake and greatly resembles practices
of the 1950-1968 period in Arizona metropolitan centers. In order to
plat the south side subdivision, nine blocks and three half-blocks of
the Lindsey Addition were abandoned.
Ill
. ■'» * . * i I
..Developed Street Undeveloped Street Penetration Street Mormon Townsite Non-Mormon Tovmsite
M " - s A
Figure 26. Existing Street System, Snowflake, Arizona
Source: Navajo County Assessor's Office, and Field Notes, October 1968.
112The street systems of the six subdivisions are usually not an
extension of the Mormon system. Two of the subdivisions (to the north
west and to the southeast) do not abutt an edge of the Mormon townsite.
Three of the subdivisions (to the northeast) are mere appendages to
the Mormon townsite edge. These three small subdivisions extend into
the original agricultural zone. The street systems of these five small
subdivisions are incidental to Snowflake's overall pattern.
The south-side subdivision extends Snowflake in a southwest
direction over plateau-like terrain, and the curvilinear street pattern
is a radical departure from the Mormon system. The streets of the
new subdivision match the Mormon edge at only three points* Otherwise,
there is no continuity from the grid pattern to the curvilinear. If
the curvilinear system should be enlarged (which is easily possible
further to the southwest) Snowflake would achieve significant examples
of two different street systems.
Some highway changes since 1920 are shown by Figure 26. The
old road to Holbrook (northwest quadrant) was essentially abandoned,
and a new highway was built which leads directly north from the town.
This route connects directly to the main north-south business street,
passes by the Mormon Chapel and continues south on to Taylor, Show Low,
and eventually Phoenix or Tucson. The road to Heber (northwest
quadrant), which goes further west to Payson and Phoenix, parallels
the townsite part of the old road to Holbrook. The alignments of the
roads to Taylor and Woodruff remain the same, except with regard to
the emphasis in getting to Woodruff. That road (northeast quadrant)
113
has retained its route as a direct link to Concho and St. Johns. One
can still drive to Woodruff via part of this road, but a quicker way
to Woodruff is by the paved highway toward Holbrook.
Residential Land Use Patterns
The farm-village system was quickly utilized at Snowflake.
At first, agricultural land was divided into tracts of ten acres each.
A family drew for one good tract and one second class tract, making
twenty acres of farmland per family. Each family also drew for one^ ^ 39town lot.
Early Patterns
For the 1893 townsite, all lots were large, square, and
intended for house, large garden, and agricultural building use. A
large lot in block number 23 (.the cemetery) was the only exception in
the early pattern. Apparently, the Public Square was not shown
differently from a residential block, although the site was selected
early.
When the Academy and Lindsey Additions were made the residen
tial (or "four-square") pattern was repeated. All but two of these
blocks at one time or another were suggested to be divided into the
"four-square11 pattern of lots. The excepted blocks, Y and Z, were a
39Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel Cop., cit.), p. 9; Joseph Fish, op. cit., p. 48; James H. McClintock, op. cit., p. 165; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., pp. 53-54.
Apparently, some of the tracts classified as "second class" were five acres in size; Roscoe G. Willson, oja. cit., p. 27.
114
part of the Mormon Academy property, and apparently were not meant for
residential use.
Eventually, this ownership pattern began to change. One family
might secure two or more adjacent town lots, or one town lot might be
divided into two or more parcels. By 1920, seme mixture of ownerships40and uses had developed, but the patterns of change were different
for the northern part of town as compared to the southern part.
In the northern part, six out of 35 blocks show evidence of one
or more lots having been split, whereas in the southern portion only two41of 35 blocks showed this tendency. These two blocks were adjacent
or nearly adjacent to the northern part, and the presence of intensive
development from the northern part probably influenced this change.
The tendency of securing two or more lots for a single owner
ship was especially true in the southern part of town, which was also
the least developed. Apparently, owners often purchased an entire
block in the Academy Addition. In this part of town, 29 out of 35
blocks had parcels collected together, whereas in the more fully de
veloped, northern part, 22 out of 35 blocks showed a similar tendency.
In the northern part, development of specific uses often caused this
change. For example, the elementary school assembled all parcels for
a site in block nineteen and the Academy assembled all parcels in
See Figure 25 for an illustration of this pattern in the original townsite, the Academy Addition, and blocks A through H.
41For a parallel situation: eight of 44 blocks at Escalante,Utah, had lots that were split in 1950; Lowry Nelson, o£. cit., p. 121.
115
blocks twenty and twenty-five. In the southern part, no specific uses
existed, except for one of the Academy property blocks mentioned
earlier.
By 1920, eight of 35 blocks in the northern part retained the
original "four-square" pattern, while four of 35 in the southern part
had a tendency toward the pattern but the disrupting influences of the
railroad and section line make it difficult to substantiate this con
clusion .
Assuming full development of about eighty blocks on the "four
square" pattern, in about 1920 the officials of Snowflake had apparently
visioned a community of about 320 families which would produce a popu
lation of 1,600 (at an average of five persons per faitiily). At this42time, the actual population of the town was about 800.
One's first inclination would be to say that one-half the
town's area was vacant. However, the ownership pattern had already
changed to be quite different from the original, or at least from the
originally planned residential system. The situation suggests a mix
ture of development in the northern part, with one or two residences
per block developed to Mormon principles and several more houses on
the remainder of the block, or instead one house might have had an 1.8
acre garden (twice the planned size). The southern part of town must
have been mostly vacant.
Employment Security Commission of Arizona, Arizona, A Century of Growth, Phoenix: 1963, p. 73.
116
Existing Residential Land UseBy 1968 the Mormon townsite produced a total of 380 lots on
about 70 blocks. The average lot size in the Mormon townsite was
reduced from the original 39,204 square feet to 28,900 square feet.•
However, it is interesting to note that the current number of lots in
the Mormon townsite is only nineteen percent greater than that pro-43 •vided by the original "four-square" pattern.
Existing residential features within the Mormon townsite are
shown by Figure 27. Residences are concentrated north of the school
properties, and are scattered to the south. To the north, in an area
of 76 acres (or twenty-one blocks) there are 202 residential units.
To the south, in an area of 162 acres (or forty-five blocks) there are
129 residential units. This does not mean there is a significant
difference in use area per family, north to south. In fact, the use
area per family is about 9,580 square feet, or 0.22 acres, on both
sides of town.
The housing in Snowflake is overwhelmingly single-family
residential (80.7 percent). The breakdown in the Mormon townsite is
267 single-family residences, 22 mobile home units, and 42 units in a
multiple-family situation, or 331 units total. The degree of vacancies
is small, four percent in the northern part and seven percent in the
southern part, or 4.1 percent for the entire townsite. The poorer
43Compare 380 lots, today, to the "four-square” pattern of320 lots.
housing quality in the southern part is associated with, the greater
number of vacancies in that part of town.
Gardens, orchards, pasture and small barns and sheds have been
stressed as being a typical part of a Mormon townsite. In Snowflake44there are 24 such sites. Seventeen of the plots are in direct
45association with a residence from the standpoint of ownership. The
remaining seven plots are separated from the owner's residence, either
by actual location or by an alleged ownership boundary, which are
not basic Mormon customs. As there are 267 single-family residences in
the Snowflake Mormon townsite, it seems that seventeen gardens is not
a very high degree (6.4 percent) of adherence to the Mormon system.
The average size of garden or orchard plot is very small, being
only 0.46 acres in size. This average size does conform to the
theoretical pattern because if 0.5 acres for agriculture and 0.4 acres
are allowed for housing, the area adds together to become a typical
0.9 acre Mormon lot. In Snowflake, the largest such garden plot is
1.35 acres in size, and only one other site exceeds 0.9 acres. There
fore, the sites are consistently small in size. Fourteen of the plots,
or a majority, are in the northern part, but a higher proportion with
respect to residential use are in.the southern part of town.
117
As late as 1956, an article states that the family cow was important; John Myers Myersi "The White Mountains, West," Arizona Days and Ways, July 1, 1965, p. 24.
45For these cases, the garden and house are located on one parcel as described by the assessor's map. For several examples of garden and house layout in a Mormon community (Escalante, Utah), see Lowry Nelson, op. cit., p. 89.
118Basic Mormon Patterns that Remain
If the ownership system had developed according to plan and
had remained in use there would be 11.5 miles of lot lines forming
the "four-square" pattern. However, many small lots now exist which
has destroyed the pattern to a considerable degree. In the developed
portions of the townsite many of the original lot lines remain as
boundaries even though the square lots have been divided one or more
times into one-half or one-quarter acre lots, or of other similar
sizes. The presence of original lot lines has been shown by Figure 28.
These lot lines represent 48.6 percent of the planned original.
A high degree of the 0.9 acre lots have been divided or
collected as revealed by both Figures 27 and 28. Forty-one out of
a possible 304 lots remain unchanged as either unsubdivided or tin-
collected with another lot. Seventeen of these 41 lots lie vacant,
and sixteen of the seventeen are in the southern part of town. Three
unchanged lots are used for public uses: The Seminary (block twenty-
one) occupies one, and the old school building and the city hall (on
block eighteen) occupy the other two. Four lots are used for residen
tial purposes, but two or more residences exist on each lot. There
fore, seventeen of the 41 lots remain with the orthodox Mormon pattern
with one residence per lot, with or without a garden. The location of
these seventeen parcels are specifically shown by Figure 27, and
they are widely scattered over the townsite.
O Soo A»oo /SOO t»oo jc*it )* rtn ‘
Figure 27. Existing Land Use, Snowflake, Arizona
Source: Navajo County Assessor's Office; Arizona State Highway AerialPhotographs; and Field Notes, October 1968.
120
\ X ' I
m m m_71
___.
0 ^ M o m o n Church Blockv>w-w Existina Original Lot Lino'cExisting Original Lotl!l!"1 Residential Use
Agriculture Use
Figure 20. M o m o n Toi/nsite Characteristics that have Remained, Snowflake, Arizona
Source: Compiled from Figures 24, 25, and 27
121
Residential Use in the Non-Mormon SubdivisionsThe six recent subdivisions produced a total of 239 lots. If
we consider that the Mormon townsite produced a total of 80 blocks,
or 320 lots, the recent activity would have increased the number of
lots by 75 percent. Because of changes in the Mormon townsite, this
percentage of increase is not exact, but it does serve as a guide.
The typical lots in these new subdivisions are about 100
feet in both width and length, and the average lot size is nearly
11,700 square feet. The length and width of these lots are about one.
half the length and width of the original Mormon lot, and their areas
are almost one-quarter the area of the original Mormon lot. In spite
of changes in the Mormon system, nevertheless, on the average, the
lots in the Mormon townsite are still much larger than those in the
non-Mormon subdivisions.
The non-Mormon townsite is overwhelmingly single-family
residential. There are 101 single-family units out of a total of 108
residential units. The two trailers and apartments are located in
the southeastern subdivision. The curvilinear, south side subdivision
is exclusively single-family. There are eight vacant dwellings, and
six are in the large, south side subdivision, which produces a high
degree of vacancy at about eight percent. The area in residential
use, non-Mormon townsite, averages 6,500 square feet per family, which
is much smaller than the 9,580 square feet per family, Mormon town-
site.
122
Summary of Land Use Quantities
Public and semi-public uses occupy 34.2 acres of the Mormon
townsite, or 11.7 percent of its total developed areas. This percentage
is relatively low when compared to many other c o m m u n i t i e s a n d occurs
in spits of the size of the Union High School (Tables 7 and 8).
Snowflake *s situation seems very unique when the area devoted
to the street system is considered, and can be compared to percentages
from other community groups (Table 7).
The percentage for commercial is small as Snowflake has had
a tendency to lose business functions to Holbrook or Show Low. Also,
Snowflake does not emphasize tourism (motels, restaurants, and gas47stations) as do Holbrook and Show Low. Industrial uses within the
Mormon townsite are small and insignificant as the town's main
industries are beyond the townsite.
46The average for 28 central cities, population under 50,000, was 18.33 percent; Harland Bartholomew, Land Use in American Cities, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955, pp. 65-68.
When comparisons are made to an average for six Arizona towns and cities. Snowflake's situation is typical. Six places in Maricopa County have an average percentage of 13.1; Maricopa County Planning Department, A Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona, August 1961, p. 13.
The Mormon townsite of Snowflake does not cover the entire community; hence this observation is open to question, in the strictest sense. Table 7 clarifies the situation; the percentage for "all subdivisions" is very nearly a community percentage, and it has changed only to 10.7.
47In 1961 there were five restaurants in Snowflake compared to fifteen in Show Low and twenty-seven in Holbrook. Show Low has approximately the same population as Snowflake, while Holbrook has about twice the population of Snowflake; Navajo County Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 4.
123
Table 7. Land Use as a Percent of Developed Area, Snowflake, Arizona, by Subdivision Type
Mormon Non-Mormon All' Townsite ’ Townsite Subdivisions
Residential 25.0 53.3 27.7Agriculture 3.7 0.0 3.4Public and Semi-Public 11.7 0.7 10.6Commercial 2.9 1.3 2.8Industrial 1.9 0.0 1.7Miscellaneous 2.3 0.0 2.1Railroad 3.9 0.0 3.5Developed Streets 48.6 44.7 48.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Figure 27
Table 8. Land Use as a Percentage of Total Subdivided Area, Snowflake, Arizona, by Subdivision Type
Land Use Mormon Townsite Non-Mormon Townsite All SubdivisionsCategory Acres Percent Acres Percent ■ Acres Percent
Residential 73.4 16.1 16.1 22.1 89.5 16.9
Agriculture 11.0 2.4 — 0.0 11.0 2.1
Public fi Semi-Public 34.2 7.5 0.2 0.3 34.4 6.5
Commercial 8.5 1.9 0.4 0.6 8.9 1.7
Industrial 5.6 1.2 — 0.0 5.6 1.1
Miscellaneous 6.7 1.5 0.0 6.7 1.3
Railroad 11.3 2.5 0.0 11.3 2.1
Developed Streets 142.3 31.1 13.5 18.6 155.8 29.4
Undeveloped Streets 42.5 9.3 4.0 5.5 46.5 8.8
Vacant Land 121.1 26.5 38.5 52.9 159.6 30.1
Total 456.6 100.0 72.7 100.0 529.3 100.0
Sourcei Figure 27
124
125In small communities there are often a number of unclassified
buildings which are semi-vacant and only occasionally used. In Snow
flake 's Mormon townsite, there are 38 such buildings evenly spaced
north to south in relation to residential uses. As this miscellaneous
use occupies 2.1 percent of the developed area there is some degree of
'significance because it is greater than industrial use and is large
compared to commercial use. However, it is believed that this use is
generally a waste of space.
There is a small degree of vacant land in the northern part
of the Mormon townsite when compared to the southern part. When taken
together, 26.5 percent of Snowflake's Mormon townsite lies vacant. A
high degree of vacancy in the non-Mormon townsite raises the percentage
for the community to 30.1, which compares equally to an undeveloped
land percentage of 34.2 for Buckeye, Arizona (population 2,286)
Summary and Evaluation
The process of addition to Snowflake's original townsite was
similar to experiences discussed earlier for Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo,
and Salt Lake City although Snowflake's additions came slowly. In
these cases, one or more additions were made which indicated it was
difficult to plan the exact size of the community at first. Isolation
from Utah and the lack of ample water supply kept Snowflake small in
its early years, and by 1920 the population distribution pattern of
Maricopa County Planning Department, A Planning Report for Buckeye, Arizona, October 1961, pp. 29-30.
126
Navajo County was established, which generally kept Snowflake at its
small size up to 1960. During the 1920-60 era, young adults of Snow-49flake sought economic opportunities elsewhere. The community then
increased its size rapidly to another level because of the new paper
mill.50
The break from Mormon tradition in townsite layout occurred at
Salt Lake City much earlier than at Snowflake. In fact, Snowflake's
original townsite was being laid out to Mormon specifications at about
the same time the change to conventional patterns was being made at
Salt Lake City in the 1870*s. This occurrence would tend to suggest
non-Mormon influences had made heavy inroads in Salt Lake City by 1870
(and certainly, after 1869 the railroad aided in the influx of such
influences!. However, it took many years for similar non-Mormon
influences to reach southern Utah and northern Arizona. Snowflake
found no necessity to add to the street system during the years of
1920 to 1950.
Other Mormon to non-Mormon parallels can be made in addition
to the one concerning the street system. The Mormon Church began
"Snowflake Celebration Marks Mormon Founding," Arizona Days and Ways, July 19, 1959, p. 18.
50McCleneghan and Henderson, op. cit., pp. 1-10; Hoflich and McCleneghan, op. cit., pp. 1-8; University of Arizona Journalism Edition, "The White Mountain Story,"'Apache County Independent News, St. Johns: April 12, 1963, pp. 9, 12.
Seventy-five homes were built in 1961; Navajo County Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 17.
Limited growth had occurred during the 1944—54 era from an earlier build-up in the lumber industry;.Ralph Mahoney, "Snowflake, Mormon Community," op. cit., p. 13.
127
dropping their secondary school system (Academies) in urban areas as
early as 1 9 1 2 , but Snowflake tenaciously retained its Academy until
1924, and the President of the Snowflake Stake had misgivings and
expressed deep regrets with the change to tiie public school (Union High
School District). Installation of the seminary system tended to52alleviate these apprehensions.
In summary, in the Snowflake townsite (Mormon) the public square
and street systems remain Mormon in character, but the land subdivision
and residential land use patterns can no longer be called Mormon in the
traditional sense. Only a few situations of acre-size lot use typical
of Mormon ideals of the 1830-1877 era remain.
In 1912, a seminary system started by the usual means of placing an off-campus building near a public high school« Students go there for non-credit religious classes in addition to high school; Wallace F. Bennett, op. cit., p. 136.
Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel (op. cit.), p. 19.52
CHAPTER 9
ST. JOHNS, APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA
For most of its history, St. Johns had been (and remains) a
dual community: Mormon and Mexican-American. The Mexican village
developed first; then the Mormon group settled next to the Mexicans,
The earliest Mormon townsite was large compared to the compact,
adobe village, but the population of the two groups was nearly equal
in the first few years of dual existence.^ The Mormons were deter
mined to succeed with their St. Johns enterprise, and it has been
observed that the last Mormon colonization call was an effort to2bolster an explosive situation at St. Johns, in 1884. Eventually,
the Mormons achieved a major degree of community control, and St.
Johns is usually accepted, in commonly known terms, as a Mormon
settlement although this assumption is not precisely correct.
Cecil C. Richardson, "St, Johns, the Town of Friendly Neighbors," Arizona Highways, November 1949, p. 36; James H. McClintock, op, cit., p. 182.
2David K. Udall, Arizona Pioneer Mormon, Tucson: ArizonaSilhouettes, 1959, p. 106; John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 252; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 58; Joseph Fish, op. cit., p. 58.
128
129
Physical Setting'for the Town
The town of St. Johns occupies a shallow valley in plateau
country at an elevation of 5,700 feet.^ The setting is similar to
Snowflake's, described in Chapter 8. Ridges and eroded hillsides
rise away from the valley in most directions. The Little Colorado
River serves the valley in a similar matter to Silver Creek, including
the direction of flow and location of the valley with respect to
water source and higher elevations. Likewise, the climate is semi-
arid, and the vegetation type is pinyon-juniper.
Early Settlements Within the Area
The site of St. Johns was first called El Vadito (Little
Crossing) by freighters bringing supplies to Ft. Apache (established
in 1869) from Ft. Wingate, New Mexico, or other eastern supply
points/* The leading personality in the early promotion of St. Johns
was Solomon Barth, who had spent several years trading in California
and western Arizona. By 1870, he was in the freighting business
between Dodge City, Kansas, and Ft. Apache. In the next year (1871)
he brought a group of Mexican families from Cubero, New Mexico, and
^Apache County Chamber of Commerce (in co-operation with the Arizona Development Board); Apache County, Arizona: Industrial andCommercial Summary, January 1966, p. 29; Will Barnes, o£. cit., p. 21; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), p. 428.
4Jo Jeffers, "Tales of the Little Colorado," Arizona Highways, September 1965, p. 8.
130settled them at El Puente# a rocky crossing near El Vadito.® Pre
viously never one for settling down# Barth finally married in 1874
and built an adobe house at El Vadito# which later became the Barth
Hotel on Main Street.^ Barth also changed the name of the settlement
to San Juan# in honor of one of the Mexican women. Later# in 1880,
the Postmaster General anglicized the name to establish a post of?-7fice. (Apparently# it was not the Mormons who changed the name.)
In November 1879# the Mormons came and purchased 1,200 acres8of land from Solomon Barth. Their initial settlement was laid out
in March 1880 about one mile north of the Mexican community. How
ever, the site was in a flood zone# and in September and October they
In 1871, Barth brought about 30 families; Howard E. Daniels# op. cit.# p. 102.
®M. Alice Berry# "And the Desert Shall Bloom as the Rose,A Tribute to Apache County," Arizona, August 1910, p. 17; Frank C. Lockwood# Pioneer Days in Arizona# New York: MacMillan Co.# 1932,p. 340; Joseph Fish# op. cit.# p. 3; Ralph Mahoney# "Apache Land," Arizona Days and Ways# May 23# 1954, p. 16; David K. Udall# o£. cit.# p. 77; Charles S. Peterson# op. cit.# p, 47.
7James H. McClintock, op. cit.# p. 177,8Joseph Fish, op. cit.# pp, 18, 58; Charles S. Peterson#
op. cit.# pp. 55-58; Howard E. Daniels, op, cit.# p. 102; James H. McClintock# op. cit., pp. 177-179; Evelyn B. Measeles# "Lyman Dam# Monument to Mormon Pioneer Courage and Industry," Arizona Highways, September 1965, p, 44; Apache County Board of Supervisors# Apache County# Arizona, St. Johns: Brown Publishing Co., 1950, p. 16.
131
began moving to be adjacent to the existing village, and a new town-
site was laid out.®
• General Community Description
The Spanish-speaking community of San Juan was strung along
the west bank of the Little Colorado River. Probably one north-south
street paralleled the river one-hundred feet away and served most of
the early dwellings. This Spanish pattern was about half a mile in
length and very narrow in width. In 1879, there were about 75 Mexican10families in the village. The commercial center and Catholic Church
grew up around the Solomon Barth properties which were along the east-
west street that crossed the river.** Consequently, an east-west
street became the main thoroughfare of the town. (See Figure 29 for
the location of important community features.)
9Joseph Fish, op. cit., pp. 18, 58; David K. Udall, op. cit., pp. 76, 198; James H. McClintock; op; cit., p. 179; Cecil C. Richardson, og. cit., p. 34.
About thirty Mormon families were at Salem, the settlement just north of St. Johns (in April 1880); John H. Krenkel, op. cit.,p. 206.
Another source says about 190 persons were at Salem (in March 1880); Jo Jeffers, op; cit., p, 8.
*°John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 200.Another source called it a squalid village of a dozen or so
flat-topped mud houses; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 47.
HThere were two stores, two billiard halls, and one saloon in 1879; John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 200.
132
L.i
u—
1 ' -j ! =
F t i
■—
EB
Ct
m l b EC
!
lUEjE
r aEBEBffl
EBEBEBEBEE
3EB
m sfflfflifflEiara
mra
laa
IBdEBBEEB BfflQHfflffll BBHBElBa,EfflaSBfflB' ,-- --- ♦ . . ■.— • ■ ■ — » • ■"— —■ • - ' ——
iis @ @ _ .
fa
mmJ T'----
\
joe /»*a ■ )»o i sooJtAii '« ~*tt >' ~ Agriculture
8 8 ^ Mormon Church Catholic Church
WHill School and Related Use j^^Other Major Public Use
Industry
Figure 29. Location of Community Features, St. Johns, Arizona
Source: Apache County Assessor’s Office; and Field Notes, November,
The Mormon townsite was laid out exactly along the western
edge of the Mexican village, further away from the river. Although
no mountain barriers prevented town expansion, lesser barriers
give definition. Relatively flat-floodable land used for agriculture
tended to prevent town development to the north. Flood danger and12poor soil tended to prevent expansion eastward, across the river.
Therefore, the principal thrust of residential development was south
and west to higher ground. A westside drainageway about one mile
south of the community prevented town expansion in a south central
direction. This area, in the early days of settlement, became a
reservoir site known as Little Reservoir.^ (See Figure 29.)
Major public uses are either centrally located, or along the
edge. The St. Johns Airport, the Apache County Fairgrounds, and the
cemetery are large users of land and are located along the north
western edge. On the far south side, a picnic area (City of St. Johns)
has been developed next to the Little Reservoir.^ Industrial uses
are primarily contractor and construction yards and are scattered in
the sparsely developed residential areas.
12Conversation with Dennis Davis, May 20, 1969,13David K. Udall, op; cit., pp. 184, 192; Charles S,
Peterson, o£. cit., p. 318.14Apache County Chamber of Commerce, oo. cit., pp. 6, 30.
133
134
The Public Square and its Development
The site for the Mormon Church was chosen before the St. Johns
townsite was laid out next to the Mexican village. David K. Udall has
written this account of what occurred in October 1880s
She next morning after the meeting President Jesse N. Smith and I walked from Salem to San Juan and up the river looking over the country. When we were returning to Salem and were on the prairie land west of the Mexican town, I said, "President Smith, where would you suggest that we locate the corner of the public square?" He said, "Why not right here?""Good enough," I said, "this cactus will be a landmark for me to remember." A day or two later when we began surveying the town plat we started from said cactus, using it as the southeast corner and ran our first lines around a tract of ground to be known as the public square measuring twenty- four rods each way.15
The Public Square was block number 34 in the original town-
site, Figures 30 and 31. The Assembly Hall was finished in December
1881, and this log building was used as the ward meeting house and
school.^ A "bowery" nearby was for gatherings in good weather.
During these early years a brick two-story Tithing Office was erected
in block number 33, just to the west of the Public Square. In
February 1881, the St. Johns Co-operative Store was established.1®
The Assembly Hall served its purposes until 1900 when the Academy19Building was dedicated.
^David K. Udall; og. cit.,
16David K. Udall, o£. cit., op. cit., pp. 18, 61.
^David K. Udall, op. cit., 18Joseph Fish; op. cit., p.
19David K. Udall; o£. cit.,
p. 76.
pp. 86, 89-90| Joseph Fish,
P. 87.
63; David K. Udall; op. cit., p. 89.
p. 90.
J
. i—v'r-
Mormon Church O Non-Mormon Church # # School and Related Use
Parks andRelated Use Post Office Town Hall Court House
Figure 30. Location of Public Uses, St. Johns, Arizona
Source: Apache County Assessor's Office, and Field Notes, November, 1968.
Hwin
SrcS’** Z>>c tibtittitti fflSfflfflfflE
1
/Q
iiuiiiii
HfflfflfflfflEBQfflE Q B Q E3 E3 E"J 0 3 EE-/W J LaLJ H J H 0 1 1 1 E H |y "| p
CJfJ*
T If"E01 —|-*I—f-1- 1— i --—i 1 1-4—:-@ [ 1! 1 ~ Tt—r
Sfr6~ S>»€ ^ EDEDEDEi \Bv A V l l J Q
diffk ArT
'"'""iif Spanish Pattern
Figure 31. The Original Plat of St. Johns, Arizona, 1888
Source * Apache County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 2.
137
The St. Johns Academy was founded in 1889, and at first used
the upper rooms of the Tithing Office. The Academy Building was
started in 1892 and finished in 1900 on the Public Square in front of
the Assembly Hall. This building then became the Mormon community's20secondary school, chapel, and amusement hall. A two story resi-
21dence was used as the Academy's dormitory for several years.
In the spring of 1921 the St. Johns Academy was closed, and22a public high school was established. The new high school building
was located on the westside of the Academy Building on the Public
Square, and a Seminary was initiated.
Later, in 1937, the Academy Building was incorporated into23the St. Johns Ward Chapel which is the present-day structure. The
Tithing Office site now includes a single storied Bishop's Storehouse,
community tennis courts, and the St, Johns City Hall. The principles
of Joseph Smith, which emphasized the Public Square idea, seem to
have been well utilized at St. Johns, where Stake House, Chapel, Social
Hall# Seminary, High School, City Hall, and Tithing Office are all
located very closely together; (And, recently the post office has
joined the group.)
20John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 358; David K. Udall, op. cit., pp. 152-154; James H. McClintock, op. cit., p, 265.
2^David K. Udall, op; cit., p. 154.
22David K. Udall; op. cit., p. 155.
23David K. Udall, op. cit., pp. 154, 238.
138
The School System
The log-building and the Academy on the Public Square were
the forerunners to the St. Johns school system. From about 1880 to
1884, two separate school districts existed, one for each segment of
the community, and another school developed in the Mexican village
(block 37, near the Catholic Church). When the dual system was dis
solved by the Apache County Board of Supervisors (who were then non-
Mormons) , the Mormons attempted to have a private school, but they24paid taxes to the public school (Mexican). Later, when the Mormons
gained sufficient political strength, block 56 in the Mormon townsite
was secured for a second school, which eventually became the communi
ty's principal elementary school.
The St. Johns High School still has its main classroom build
ing and gymnasium on the Public Square. It uses a nearby block,
number 25, as its practice football field and playground. Regularly
scheduled high school football games are played at the stadium at
the County Fairgrounds, located to the north beyond the Mormon town-
site. Block number 74, to the east of the river, has been developed
as the high school baseball field.
The result has been the continuance of the Public Square for
church and school purposes, and the emergence of two secondary
David K. Udall; op. cit., p. 86; Joseph Fish, op. cit., p. 34; Charles S. Peterson; op; cit., pp. 418-419.
139
squares: one located in the Mexican village and the second located
near the center of the Mormon tovmsite, several blocks to the west
of the town center. As at Snowflake, the area provided by these sites
has proven to be insufficient and outlying sites have had to be ob
tained for non-class room uses.
Other Community Facilities
The first county court was held in an adobe shack in Mexican 25town. By 1918, a site had been obtained in block 95, original town-
26site, and a court house building dedicated. Two other public uses
have existed near the Court House: the City Park, including a swim-
ming pool (1954), located in block twelve of the Jarvis Addition
one block to the northwest (Figure 32), and the hospital building28(vacant in 1968) located in block 96 one block to the east. A small
Baptist Mission is an incidental use in the Denver Subdivision which
repeats the pattern of non-Mormon churches found at Snowflake. There
are no other Protestant Churches or fraternal organizations.
25Ralph Mahoney, "Apache Land" (op. cit.), p. 16.
2^David K. Udall, op. cit., p. 203.
2^Ralph Mahoney, "Apache Land" (op. cit.), p. 16.
28Ralph Mahoney, "Apache Land" (op. cit.), p. 16; Cecil C. Richardson, og. cit., p, 36.
TBEBtitifflEffl fflBEBfflfflfflBJiffh CtL'.J,
EQ El El El ffl EB B ffl EB EB' BBBBBE8BBI#^%KREBEBBE BBBfflBBBBB^EfflBEBBEbppjpp|pjqppg ra pq pprjp jf-K\ CD m u .1 □ f
EBBBffifflHfflfflfflamm m EiEBBEIBi aEnmmEttas%£?*/'+* /*€
tttno* of j4/3Z>/fAJ/0A/ N 'l.
lEVviJBm m* tm *4 m~ j
41
Figure 32. The Mormon Tovmsite, St. Johns, Arizona, 1913
Source: Apache County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 9. Ho
141
The Street System
Compared to Snowflake, St. Johns was intended to be a good-;
sized town. The Mormon pattern at St. Johns (1888) covered about 29450 acres compared to a coverage of 170 acres at Snowflake (1893).
The situation at St. Johns was complicated by the presence of the
Spanish community. The layout of St. Johns resembled that at Mauvoo
which was complicated by the earlier layouts of Commerce and Commerce
City. Unlike Nauvoo, however, St. Johns never completely absorbed and
rearranged the earlier pattern.
Early Period
The recorded plat of 1888 shows the Mormon pattern of streets
and blocks surrounding the Spanish pattern on three sides: to the
north, west, and south,^ On the west side there was an abrupt change
from one pattern to another. Street and lot lines jogged with the
break. In particular, Water Street near block 21 shifted about sixty
feet to the right when going north (Figure 31).
The Spanish pattern developed in an irregular manner. Water
Street was not truly north-south, nor was Commercial Street strictly
east-west. Several alley-like side streets jutted out at odd angles
to the east or west from Water Street,
29 .David K. Udall, op; cit., p. 77) Charles S. Peterson,QP» cit., p. 306.
^°Apache County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 2.
142
On the west side, the Mormon pattern of streets reached to
be a mile from the river. About 480 acres were platted on this side
of the river. The streets of the Mormon sector ran rigidly to pre
determined principles. However, Commercial Street from the Spanish
pattern cut two blocks west into the Mormon pattern at a slight angle
thereby creating about fifteen odd shaped lots in blocks 50 through
53, a result of Apache County Board of Supervisors* action in 1883
or 1884.^" Two small north-south streets enclosed block 90 in place
of the regular Mormon street. These deviations created only a
slightly different arrangement from the normal situation. To the
east of the river, for about one-half mile, proposed streets tended
to be east-west or north-south, although they were not located at
such regular intervals as on the west side.
Mormon Townsite Expansion
The Mormon townsite of St. Johns was expanded by the Jarvis32Addition, platted in 1913. (See Figure 32.), The entire Mormon town-
site then included one hundred full-sized and nineteen half-sized or
partial blocks. The Jarvis Addition completed eleven half-blocks of
the original townsite, and the new blocks were a repeat of the original
size. The street alignment changed slightly beyond these completions.
The new streets of the Jarvis Addition were smaller in width, and
31Joseph Fish, op; cit., p. 34.32Apache County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 9.
143this caused jogs in the street pattern when trzmsferring from one
subdivision to another. This procedure was different than that per
formed at Snowflake where the streets of the Academy and Lindsey
Additions were a strict extension of the original street system.
The lack of town development sites on the north and east sides
prompted the Jarvis Addition on higher ground.
Non-Mormon Townsite Development
The Jarvis Addition was not the earliest addition to be re
corded. In 1911, the Denver Subdivision on the far southwest side was 33added. (See Figure 33.) Additional jogs were encountered when
transferring from the Jarvis Addition to the Denver Subdivision.
Because the company involved with this subdivision was based in34Colorado and generally considered to be non-Mormon, because the
streets were relatively narrow, and because the "four-square" lot
pattern was not continued, this subdivision was classified as non-
Mormon.
Hie last subdivision to be added to St. Johns was the Westside 35Addition, in 1915. Its location was on the far west side, detached
^Apache County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 11.
3^David K. Udall; on; cit., p. 185.There were big hopes for town and farm expansion in 1910;
M. Alice Berry, op; cit., p. 18.35Apache County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p, 10,
Developed Street Undeveloped Street Penetration Street Mormon Townsite Non-Mormon Townsite
Fiqure 33. Existing Street System, St. Johns, Arizona
Source: Apache County Assessor's Office; and Field Notes, November, I960
H
145
from the Jarvis Addition by about 700 feet. This subdivision has been
classified as non-Mormon# because nine of the twelve blocks were large
rectangles rather than square shaped. The large rectangular blocks
resembled a pattern of two Mormon blocks put together# north to south.
This characteristic has not been discovered for any other town or
subdivision studied by this thesis.
Uhlike Snowflake# St. Johns has no railroad that disrupts the
street system. However# the highway to Springerville disrupts the
Mormon street pattern for five blocks on the south side of town. The
railroad at Snowflake seems to be the greater barrier because develop
ment is sparse nearby, while most of the parcels along St. Johns'
southern highway are residential.
Most of the streets within the central part of St. Johns have
been developed, with undeveloped streets being found along all four
edges of the townsite (Figure 33). No court streets (cul-de-sac)
penetrate a Mormon block. There is a pronounced lack of strip com
mercial development which is a reflection of the modest traffic flow
through St. Johns and the town's stability in growth and development.
Residential Land Use Patterns
The fields were outside the town# especially to the north and
west# and were laid out in parcel sizes of five, ten and twenty
St. Johns did not strongly desire a railroad in 1914; "On the Little Colorado; St. Johns# a Prosperous Town Without a Railroad#" Arizona# February 1914# p. 19.
14637acres. The acre-sized Mormon lots in town were intended as house,
bam, and garden locations.
Early Patterns
The fifty lots of the Spanish pattern only approximated a
square or rectangle in shape, and they varied considerably in size
(Figure 31). Their arrangement only tended to approximate a straight
line. In fact, the alignment of side yard and rear yard lines was
rather haphazard.
In contrast, the Mormon lots were uniformly square, with
four lots to a block. There were four exceptions to the "four
square" pattern in 1888. Blocks 34 (the Public-Square) and 90 were
not divided into lots, and blocks 34 (east of the Public Square) and
69 were divided into five parts.
In the northeast quadrant one large block (number nineteen)
was divided into sixty-one lots. Many of these proposed lots had no
access to a street. Similar unusual features were platted to the
southeast, in blocks 77, 84, and 85. About 210 lots were involved
with this strange feature of checkerboard lots.
In summary, about 312 lots could be classified as Mormon lots,
another 83 as Spanish and commercial lots, and 210 as irregular and
unexplained. The number of Mormon lots might suggest an anticipated
population of 1,500, assuming five persons per household, which oddly
'Joseph Fish, op. cit., p. 60.
147
enough has been St. Johns' actual population for many years. How
ever# the Mormon pattern never fully developed as initially intended#
and other land was organized as part of the town.
Existing Residential Land Use
With the passage of time, other lots throughout the Mormon
pattern were divided or collected together to form different sizes
and shapes from this original plat. This pattern of change was simi
lar to that at Snowflake.
The housing on the St. Johns Mormon townsite is almost ex
clusively single-family residential (Figure 34), The number of
residences is similar to Snowflake# but the average land use area
per dwelling unit is much larger. There is much less emphasis upon
mobile homes and apartments than at Snowflake. The vacancy rate at
St. Johns is twice that at Snowflake.
Agriculture uses are very much in evidence inside the St.
Johns townsite# which includes large areas of pasture land along the
north and west edges. Large areas of pasture land do not occur
inside the Snowflake townsite; the emphasis upon agriculture is
greater at St. Johns. Household gardens and other small parcels
number about sixty-five which is 2.7 times the number of similar
parcels found at Snowflake. Fifty-five of the St. Johns parcels are
in direct association with the owners residence# as compared to only
seventeen parcels at Snowflake. Several pasture plats at St. Johns
cover the entire block, a feature which does not occur at Snowflake.
//
> y "Figure 34. Existing LaAcf Use
Public and Semi-PublicCommercial
, St
Industrial Miscellaneous . Johns, Arizona
Source 1 Apache Countv Assessor's Office, Mark Hurd Aerial Photographs, and Field Notes, November, 1968.
148
149
Basic Mormon Patterns that Remain
Original ownership lines of the "four-square" system are much
in evidence. However# undeveloped land on the edges of the townsite
help produce the result that only 43.8 percent of the original lot
lines remain which is similar to the percentage that exists for Snow
flake (Figure 35).
At St. Johns# the number of unchanged lots is almost twice
that found for Snowflake. Over one-half of these lots lie vacant#
mostly around the edges of the townsite. About one-half of these
lots remain with the orthodox Mormon pattern# i.e.# one residence per
lot or one residence and garden or pasture per lot. They are widely
scattered on the northwestern and southern parts of the town# away
from the more intensely developed central area.
Residential Land Use in the Non-Mormon Townsite
The Hestside Addition and the Denver Subdivision remain prac
tically vacant. The non-Mormon townsite (including the Mexican vil- '
lage) has a residential density somewhat smaller than that found for
the St. Johns Mormon townsite. However, the lots in the Spanish town-
site are not as small as one might suppose. There is only one trailer
in the non-Mormon townsite. The degree of vacancy is much higher in
the non-Mormon townsite than in the Mormon townsite# and most of the
vacant dwellings in the Mexican village are in poor condition.
Agriculture is medium-sized pasture or field crop use, com
parable to similar uses on the north side of the Mormon townsite.
Several small agricultural parcels do exist in conjunction with a
_ _ 14::: *: v:: h : h -k :; :
Mornon Church Block— Existina Oriainal Lot Line Existing Original Lotliil’!i!ii!i Residential Use
Agriculture Use
Figure 35. Mornon To-.msite Characteristics that have Remained, St. Johns, ArizonaSource: Compiled from Figures 31, 32, and 34.
151
residence which means that a.Mormon layout feature has been carried
over to a non-Mormon townsite. However, the degree of occurrence is
small. . 1
Summary of Land Use Quantities
Public uses of land in the St. Johns Mormon townsite have
developed areawise as shown by Table 9. The situation today indi
cates 19.4 acres compared to 34.2 for Snowflake (Table 10). In a
large measure, the Union High School situation at Snowflake accounts
for this difference, although the Court House at St. Johns partially
counterbalances this.
For St. Johns, the developed street percentage of the non-
Mormon townsite is slightly greater than that for the Mormon town-
site (Table 9), and this characteristic is different than the situa-
tion at Snowflake (Table 7). The streets at St. Johns occupy rela
tively greater land than (four) Maricopa County towns, but the
difference is not as great as that for Snowflake (Tables 11 and 12).
A high degree of similarity between the two.Mormon townsites
exists for residential land use, area for developed streets, and area
left unused in undeveloped streets and vacant land (Table 13). The •
principal differences are in agriculture and public land uses.
About one-half of St. Johns' business district is located in
the non-Mormon townsite. The townsite has been split for purposes of
explanation used by this thesis to be comparable with Snowflake and
other communities. St. Johns' business district is compact and is
not divided as the statement above might* suggest. (There is no longer
Table 9. Land Use as a Percentage of Developed Area, St, Johns, Arizona, bv Subdivision Type
Land Use Mormon Towns!te Non-Mormon Townsite All SubdivisionsCategory Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
Residential 102.6 29.8 28.4 37.9 131.0 31.3
Agriculture* 50.7 14.8 5.5 7.3 56.2 13.4
Public s Semi-Public 19.4 5.6 2.1 2.8 21.5 5.1
Commercial 5.0 1.5 2.3 3.1 7.3 1.7
Industrial 10.4 3.0 — 0.0 10.4 2.5
Miscellaneous 3.1 0.9 0.7 0.9 3.8 0.9
Railroad 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0
Developed Streets 152.9 44.4 36.0 48.0 188.9 45.1
Total 344.1 100.0 75.0 100.0 419.1 100.0
♦Large gardens or snail pastures, usually within a block surrounded by developed streets.
Source: Figure 34
152
153Table 10, Land Use <is a Percentage of Subdivided Area, Mormon >
Townsite, St, Johns Compared with Snowflake
Land Use Acres PercentCategory ■ St. Johns Snowflake • St; Johns ' Snowflake
Residential 102.6 73.4 17.2 16.1
Agriculture 111.9 11.0 18.8 2.4
Public fi Semi-Public 19.4 34.2 3.3 7.5Commercial 5.0 8.5 0.8 1.9Industrial 10.4 5.6 1.7 1.2
Miscellaneous 3.1 6.7 0.5 1.5Railroad — 11.3 0.0 2.5
Developed Streets 152.9 142.3 25.6 31.1Undeveloped Streets 49.7 42.5 8.3 9.3Vacant Land 141.8 121.5 23.8 26.5
Total 596.8 456.6 100.0 100.0
Source: Tables 8 and 13
154Table 11. Land Use as a Percentage of Total Developed Area,
St. Johns, Arizona, Compared with Other Communities
St. Johns All
•Subdivisions
Snowflake Four Maricopa All County
'Subdivisions'''Communities*
Residential 31.3 27.6 25.7
Agriculture* 13.4 3.4 -—
Public fi Semi-Public 5.1 10.7 11.1
Commercial 1.7 2.8 5.5
Industrial 2.5 1.7 4.8
Miscellaneous 0.9 2.1 —
Railroad 0.0 3.5 14.1
Developed Streets 45.1 48.2 38.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
♦Large gardens or small pastures, usually within a block surrounded by developed streets
aSee Table 12
Source: Maricopa Planning and Zoning Department; A 'Planning'Reportfor Surprise,'Arizona, August, 1961, p. 13, and A Planning Report~ for Buckeye, Arizona, October, 1961, pp. 29-30.
Table 12. Land Use as a Percentage of Developed Area, Four Maricopa County Communities
Buckeye Gila Bend Gilbert Surprise * Four * (communitiesAcres3 Acres Acres Acres Acres Percent
Residential 104.8 76.8 65.4 79.1 326.1 25.7
Agriculture — — — — — —
Public S Semi-Public 51.2 43.5 44.5 1.0 140.2 11.1
Commercial 23.8 37.7 3.7 4.4 69.6 5.5
Industrial 22.7 24.7 7.9b 5.9 61.2 4.8
Miscellaneous — — — — — ■ ——
Railroad 43.6 101.9 9.5 23.8 178.8 14.1
Streets s Alleys 123.0 260.5 52.3 55.0 490.8 38.8
Total Developed 369.1 545.1 183.3 169.2 1,266.7 100.0
Undeveloped Land 191.7 734.9 359.1 447.0 1,732.7 57.8
Total Study Area 560.8
Population 2,286
*Town of Buckeye, only^Light Industry onlycBased on a 2 square mile area
1,280.0°
2,700
542.4
1,640
616.2
1,574m
2,999.4 100.0
155
Table 13. Land Use as a Percentage of Total Subdivided Area, St. Johns, Arizona, by Subdivision Type
Land Use Mormon Townsite Non-Mormon Townsite All SubdivisionsCategory Acres Percent ' Acres • Percent ■ Acres Percent
Residential 102.6 17.2 28.4 10.0 131.0 14.9
Agriculture 111.9 18.8 64.7 22.8 176.6 20.1
Public & Semi-Public 19.4 3.3 2.1 0.7 21.5 2.4
Commercial . 5.0 0.8 2.3 0.8 7.3 0.8
Industrial 10.4 1.7 0.0 10.4 1.2
Miscellaneous 3.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 3.8 0.4
Developed Streets 152.9 25.6 36.0 12.7 188.9 21.5
Undeveloped Streets 49.7 mCO 21.4 7.6 71.1 8.1
Vacant Land 141.8 23.8 127.8 45.1 269.6 30.6
Total 596.8 100.0 283.4 100.0 880.2 100.0
Source % Figure 34
156
a Mexican business district competing with a Mormon business dis
trict.) It is a matter of historical circumstances that places the
St. Johns business district at a point where the Mexican town joins
the Mormon. At Snowflake there was no Mexican community, and the
business district naturally grew up inside the Mormon townsite.
Summary and Evaluation
For Snowflake’s early years# we have seen that the Stake House
and Social Hall were developed on the Public Square, and that these
uses have continued there with the addition of the community's movie
theater. The Academy site was detached several blocks from the Public
Square and eventually the Union High School developed on this site
which has been expanded from time to time. A Seminary started in a
separate building on the Academy site and later moved to its own
site, a block from the high school.
At St, Johns, developments were somewhat parallel, but dif
ferences did occur. The St, Johns Assembly Hall paralleled the
Snowflake Relief Society Hall, but, Snowflake emphasized the building
of a church structure which enabled the community to better serve its
responsibilities as Stake Headquarters, which up to 1887 included
St. Johns within its jurisdiction. (St. Johns was the County Seat,
but Snowflake had the Stake Headquarters.)
St, Johns, momentarily free from Stake organization responsi
bilities, sought to build a commercial-like structure as its first
major community effort, the Tithing Office, Several years later, in
157
1887, St. Johns was elevated as Stake Headquarters which forced ex
pansion of the Assembly Hall to provide a larger meeting place.
After 1887, the differences between the two communities showed
up in the location of the Academy sites. The policy was for each Stake
to have one secondary school, with students from outlying communities
residing in the Academy Dormitory on in other residences. The large
size of the Snowflake Stake House, plus the presence of the Social
Hall and the A.C.M.I., suggests that the Public Square was amply
utilized, and that a separate site was needed. In contrast, at St.
Johns, the enlarged Assembly Hall did not occupy enough space to dis
courage the location of the Academy Building on the Public Square.
The result has been that most of the community uses are located on the
Public Square or in its vicinity, whereas at Snowflake a secondary
public square has emerged to rival, and probably overshadow, the
original Public Square. It might follow then that the ideals of
Joseph Smith have been realized to a greater extent at St. Johns than
at Snowflake.
A counter-argument would be that emphasis upon the primary
square is not the important thing. Facilities were provided early at
both Snowflake and St, Johns, and the communities grew. The use of
available buildings was maximized, and Public Squares and secondary
sites were sufficiently large for a long period of time.
158
159
The ability of David K, Udall (and others), and the Mormon38Church's determination to succeed at St. Johns kept the community
alive, in many respects. The establishment of the St. Johns Stake39illustrates the Church's concern. The Stake boundary line is
important because Stake organization gave St. Johns stability to
develop the Academy which indirectly aided in the retention of the40county seat during the fight with Holbrook, 1881-1895. The Stake
boundary line also seems to have suggested the location of the new
county line in 1895.
Had St. Johns lost the county seat, the town today would
probably be much smaller than its present size.^ St. Johns was not
strong enough to prevent the creation of another county, so its growth
potential was somewhat restricted. On the other hand, Snowflake seems
to have had no chance to gain seats of both county and church
S. George Ellsworth (Review of David K. Udall, Arizona Pioneer Mormon), Utah Historical Quarterly, April 1960, pp. 179-180. See, also, Hoffman Bimey, op. cit., pp. 234-237.
39Annual visits are made by Church Authorities from Salt Lake City to Stake Headquarters; Wallace F. Bennett, op. cit., p. Ill; see also, David K. Udall, op. cit., p. 105.
40Brigham H. Roberts, op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 582; Howard E, Daniels, op. cit., p. 107.
Actually, the division in 1887 was made to create two stakes equal in population; Joseph Fish: op. cit., p. 76.
41The dependency of St, Johns upon county government has been noted by Ned H. Greenwood, "A Geographical Survey of the Upper Watershed of the Little Colorado River, Arizona,” M.S, Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1960, p. 139.
160
governments # and therefore its growth potential was also somewhat
restricted. However, Snowflake did gain from the influence of its
Academy because the Union High School emerged from this institution.
A balanced situation was achieved which kept the villages large, but
one community did not dominate the area. Church policy seems to have
aided this stability, and large-scaled Mormon townsite village devel
opment remained.
At both St. Johns and Snowflake Main Street passes by the
Public Square. However, at St. Johns there is a difference from the
typical American Main Street, Court House Square pattern. Of the
fourteen court houses in Arizona, the location at St. Johns is unique
because it is one of two that lacks a downtown and/or major highway
location. (The other exception is Clifton, which has peculiar town-
site features because of terrain.) A vague parallel can be made by
comparing the late development of the Apache County Court House to
the late development of the State Capitol at Salt Lake City. The
suggestion is simply that buildings related to church usage were apt
to be built first.
Circumstances at St. Johns are similar to those at Snowflake
with respect to the street system which basically has remained un
changed in character. St. Johns' central area (about twenty blocks)
is no longer orthodox and greatly resembles Snowflake's north side
area (which in effect is the central area of that community). How
ever, the southern part of St. Johns' townsite and other edges do
greatly resemble the traditional pattern. Initially, St. Johns had
161
a larger Mormon townsite, and the town’s growth in recent years has
been much slower than that at Snowflake. These reasons generally
account for a higher degree of orthodoxy at St. Johns with respect
to the public square system, land subdivision, and residential land
use patterns.
CHAPTER 10!
INTRODUCTION OF OTHER NAVAJO AND APACHE COMMUNITIES
The eight remaining communities of northeastern Arizona will
be introduced by this chapter: their general settlement histories,
physical settings, and community descriptions. Each of the first six
possess a Mormon townsite, whereas the last two do not.
' Joseph City, Navajo County; Arizona
Of surviving communities, Joseph City (elevation 5,100 feet)
is the oldest Mormon community in Navajo and Apache Counties.^ How
ever, its existence only predated Snowflake by two years so this fact
is incidental for comparative purposes. During the years from 1870
to 1887, Joseph City was a ward of the Little Colorado Stake, which2had its headquarters at Sunset. When Sunset was abandoned, Joseph
City became a ward in the Snowflake Stake.1 2 3 Sunset's failure showed
that Stake Headquarters status did not necessarily guarantee a
1W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), p. 314.2The Little Colorado River Stake was formed in January 1878;
Howard E." Daniels, op; cit., pp. 79, 106; Brigham H. Roberts; op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 581; Joseph Fielding Smith; op; cit., p. 675; West- over and Richards, Unflinching Courage, Story'of'Joseph'City; Arizona, privately published, 1967, p. 13.
^Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 447; Howard E. Daniels, op. cit., p. 83; Westover and Richards, op. cit., p. 14.
162
163
community's"survival.^ Joseph City's struggle for its own survival
included a change in tovmsite location when the original fort was
abandoned in about 1884,*’ This new location became today's town,
which is the smallest community of the thesis Study Area, and it is
the only one without a non-Mormon subdivision. (See Figures 36 and
37.)
The town is located eleven miles west of Holbrook and twenty-
two miles east of Winslow, Possible shopping functions have been lost
to these larger places, as well as entertainment features. Otherwise,
Joseph City is essentially a self-contained community. It is the only
community of the Study Area upon a mainline railroad or Interstate
Highway system.
The site of Joseph City became a special problem as to land
titles for the Mormons because it proved to be located upon section
sixteen (a school section) of its respective township. The Mormons
settled as squatters before government surveys were made with the
expectation of buying their land as soon as possible. (This procedure
4Howard E. Daniels, op. cit., p. 65; Hoffman B i m e y , op. cit., pp. 227-233, 240-241.
With a great deal of poverty, Sunset's United Order survived to about 1885; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 163.
5Westover and Richards, og. cit., pp. 34-36, 65; Howard E. Daniels, op, cit., p. 69; Ida Smith, "Old Fort Monument," Arizona Days and Ways, August 28, 1960, p, 20; Will Barnes, op. cit., pp. 242- 243; Thomas M. Stubblefield, Economic Survey of Navajo County, Tucson: Agricultural Extension Service, University of Arizona, April 1953, p. 23,
To* ‘ V
Si \si
48 4144 45
.1 -
Jattf I* ft€T
Figure 36. The Original Plat of Joseph City, Arizona, 1917
Sourcet Navajo County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 14.Ho
i(minimu inirL
Vrmrrrr
Mormon Townsite
Figure 37. Location of Mormon Townsite, Joseph City# Arizona
Source: Navajo County Assessor's Office. 165
was the accepted practice.) After the survey was made, the trouble
was discovered. The land was to be reserved for sale by the state as
a means to finance its schools. Arizona did not become a state until
1912, and the land could not be sold until then. Finally, by 1917 the
purchases were arranged and the townsite properly recorded.6 This
delay has caused a lack of townsite information on Joseph City for its
early period, 1876-1916.
The townsite is located on bench or mesa land well above the
flood plain. The canal system irrigates land below the town (on the
edge of the flood plain) and above the town (higher up) P
The patterns of general land use for Joseph City show sub
stantial urban development within the townsite and a scattering to
the northeast and northwest quadrants. Compared to several other com
munities, there is very little agriculture within the townsite.
Agriculture outside the town is also relatively insignificant. Drought
and flood control problems have kept irrigated fields to a minimum,8and the emphasis has been upon the chicken or egg industry.
Commercial uses are relatively few and scattered along the
highway. Industrial uses are very few, and are usually utilities
essential to the town's existence. The public land use area in the
gHoward E. Daniels> op. cit., p. 120.
Thomas M. Stubblefield, op. cit., p. 36.8Westover and Richards; op. cit., p. 28.
166
167
north central part of town consists of the elementary school and high
school, and the Mormon chapel,
Taylor; Navajo County; Arizona
Taylor is located three miles south of Snowflake, in Navajo
County, and its setting (elevation 5,700 feet), history, and develop
ment have been closely linked with the larger town. The site of
Taylor, along Silver Creek, was secured by the Mormons in late 1878,
at the same time William Flake purchased the Stinson Ranch for Snow—Q *flake. The original townsite on the east side of Silver Creek was
10laid out soon after. (See Figures 38 and 39.) Its western half is
of relatively low elevation, and the early settlers were counseled to
move to higher ground on the west side of Silver Creek. Unlike a
total movement which occurred at St. Johns, Taylor's original resi
dents essentially ignored their counsel and remained on the east 11bank. In time, they extended their townsite toward higher ground
to the east. Eventually, the town expanded westward.
The patterns of general land use for Taylor show a scattering
of urban uses among a sizable irrigated agricultural area along
^Joseph Fish, op. cit., p. 51; James H. McClintock; op. cit., p. 166; Charles S, Peterson, op; cit., p. 50; Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 250; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), p. 449.
10Joseph Fish, op. cit., p, 52.
^Osmer D. Flake, op. cit., p. 82.
1 __ A__
-Xf
Jc*<f Hf r*tr
faJTo
Fiqure 38. The Original Plat of Taylor, Arizona, 1893 Source: Navajo County Recorder's Office, Book 2, p. 13.
168
To/Sa**//***.
—j— ii
._Zu I---
Mormon Townsite
Figure 39. Location of Mormon Townsite, Taylor, Arizona
Source: Navajo County Assessor's Office HCT>vO
170
Silver Creek. The expectations that the Mormon townsite be moderately
well developed night be wondered about. A few, scattered commercial
uses occur along the north-south highway to Snowflake (north) and Show
Low (south). Industrial uses, which include several contractor's
yards and a water tank, are extremely rare.
There are three major public use areas at Taylor. The com
munity's park (rodeo grounds, etc.) and cemetery are located on the
west side. The elementary school" and Mormon Chapel are located next
to each other on the east side.
Taylor's lack of business, industrial, and public facilities
is partly due to its closeness to Snowflake, Some functions, espe-
dally the junior and senior high school, are clearly lost to the
larger place.
Springerville, Apache County, Arizona
Springerville's early history paralleled that of St. Johns
with initial settlement made by traders in 1871, Several cattle
ranches were established in the vicinity. Agricultural enterprises
joined with those in the Show Low area to provide for the military
171
post at Fort Apache. Springerville was an early crossroads town,
with routes from Zuni and Socorro, Hew Mexico, to Ft. Apache merging
at the base of the White Mountains. The mountains eventually became
the community's greatest asset. Today, Springerville is the trading
center for summer resorts, campers, and summer home dwellers scattered
in the eastern part of the White Mountains.^ The crossroads role has
been reinforced with modern highways leading in different directions
to Show Low, Holbrook, Gallup, Socorro, El Paso, Safford, and 14McNary.
Springerville1s role as a Mormon community is obscure and
overshadowed by the obvious orthodox situation at Eagar, which is * 14
^Ned H. Greenwood, op. cit., pp. 93-94.University, of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., p. 5;
Frank C. Lockwood; op. cit., p. 340) M. Alice Berry, op. cit., p. 18; Jo Jeffers, op. cit., p, 6-7; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 47; Lawrence Cardwell, "Springerville, Gateway to the White Mountains," Arizona Highways, June 1950, pp, 18-23; Lucile Popenoe, "The Green White Mountains," Westways, March 1964, p. 42.
^Mildred Wallace, "Springerville$ A Chosen Spot," Progressive Arizona^, September 1928, pp. 14-15; Elmer E. David, " Warm Welcome Awaits You at Springerville," Progressive Arizona, May 1929, pp. 21-23; Mrytle Petersen, "Springerville— The Center of the Hunter's, Fishermen's and Camper's Paradise," Progressive Arizona, September 1929, pp. 21-23; L. C. Bolles, "Springerfille— On Top of the World - In More Ways than One," Progressive Arizona, July-August 1930, pp. 22- 24.
14Lowell J. Arnold, "Saga of Springerville," The Arizona Magazine, August 1937, pp. 8, 21; Raymond Carlson, "White Mountains of Arizona," Arizona Highways, May 1953, p. 25; Med H. Greenwood, on. cit., p. 146; "Special Section on the White Mountains, " Arizona Wildlife Sportsman, July 1959, pp. 21-24; Edward H. Peplow, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 395-396.
172
located one mile to the south. The tendency has been to think of
Springerville as "non-Mormon" and Eagar as significantly Mormon,^
The situation differs from that at St. Johns where the Spanish and
Mormon communities developed side by side into one complete com
munity, physically speaking. In the Round Valley area, the Spanish-
Anglo trader community was separated enough from the Mormon so that
two distinct towns emerged.
However, in the 1880's, the Mormons did attempt settlement at
Springerville, and a townsite was laid out on the northern edge of
the early town.^* A ward was organized as the Oner Ward with another
ward (Amity) still further north by about four miles.^ But, con
flicts caused most of the Mormons to join the better established
group at Eagar during 1886. Then, Omer and Amity Wards were combined18to form the Union Ward, and non-Mormons occupied the Omer site. 17 18
^Ralph Mahoney, "White Mountain Paradise Opens Gate to Sportsmen," Arizona Days and Ways, May 16, 1954, p. 16; Jo Jeffers, op. cit., p. 5.
^University of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., p. 5;James H. McClintock, og. cit., p. 88; Pearson H. Corbett, Jacob Hamblin, the Peacemaker, Salt-Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1952, pp. 403, 407.
17Joseph Fish; op. cit., pp. 9, 19, 67.18 . . Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 23; Charles S. Peterson, op. cit.,
pp. 58-59; Joseph Fish, op. cit., pp. 19,-67; James H. McClintock,op. cit., p. 185; Ned H. Greenwood, op. cit., pp. 95-98.
173
In spite of Springerville's high elevation- of 7,000 feet, the
climate is essentially semi-arid and the vegetation is either grass
land or pinyon-juniper.^ Pine forests are encountered several miles
to the south of the valley. The Little Colorado River drains the west
side of Round Valley, and Nutrioso Creek drains the east side, spring-
erville is located in an upland wedge between the two streams with
pastureland along the flood plain (Figures 40 and 41).
Springerville has a well-developed commercial strip along its
Main Street. Its elementary school is southeast of the core area.
The cemetery is on a hillside site overlooking the town from the south.
The headquarters of Apache National Forest occupy a new building along
the highway to Eagar, and the local Soil Conservation Service Office
is in the Post Office Building, located at the town's major highway
intersection.^^
Springerville has no Mormon Chapel. The Mormon families
who live in this community attend one of the two wards that meet at
the Eagar Chapel. The five churches located in Springerville are
small except for the Catholic Church which could be classified as
"medium-sized" with respect to the larger-sized Mormon organizations
found throughout the communities of the Study Area. Three of the 19
19Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 23; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), p. 429.
onLowell J. Arnold, op. cit., p. 21; Ralph Mahoney, "White Mountain Paradise Opens Gate to Sportsmen," (op. cit.), p. 16; Discussion with Russell Longshore, July 1967.
174
Source:
StcfiOfi tine
1BfflB ^ ‘s BfflB BfflB BfflB
Springerville
BfflB Show Low
sSciut tn rtn
Figure 40. Original Town Plats; Springerville, Arizona, 1888, Show Low, Arizona, 1903, Lakeside, Arizona, 1935
Apache County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 1; and Navajo County Recorder's Office, Book 1, p. 5, and Book 2, p. 10.
i !Sector 4 "€ |
Sect** //*«
Figure 41. Location of Mormon Townsite, Springerville, Arizona
HinSource t Apache County Assessor's Office
176
Springcrville churches, including the Catholic, are centrally located
and have been well established, historically speaking, within theilcommunity.
Eaoar., Apache Countv, Arizona
Eagar (elevation 7,000 feet) is located immediately south of
Springcrville, and in many respects the two are one community. Cer
tainly, Eagar residents shop in Springcrville as Eagar has virtually22no business facilities. ** The children of Springcrville attend high
school (Round Valley) located in Eagar. One airport serves both com
munities. The major industry for the area is a lumber mill at Eagar.
One sewer system serves both towns.
In opposition to the "one community" viewpoint, each community
has an elementary school, a cemetery, a post office, town government,
an arrangnent of social and religious activities, and a separate
townsite (Figures 42 and 43).
The site of Eagar was occupied by Mormons such as the Eagar
brothers in 1080, soon after St. Johns was settled. The Mormon 21 22
21The Arizona Year Book, 1930-1931, Phoenix: The State ofArizona, 1930, p, 174; Lawrence Cardwell, on. cit., p. 25; "Special Section on the White Mountains," op. cit., p. 25.
22Ned H. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 139; Ron Silverman, "White Mountains, East," Arizona Days and Wavs, July 21, 1957, p. 21.
177
TKUCT A
Sk*— /me_ L 311 ! r L‘ 1 1 J
^ |! i *s ».____
• i -
«!!Hi«* _ 14=- 4 - - S _B 'cti| - Z kW i# , L !1 1- t* 1 k A* - _V « - _ j"c_
tf >#_{ < L _
R fi— 1 A'* 'its1! :«*. =j "
ng w » MO vm t— MO
V i » JT 4 i/ 4W / i f / r
Sh *— La* •#4 «
Figure 42. Townsite of Eagar, Arizona, 1956
Source: Apache County Recorder’s Office, Book 1, p, 29
170
Mormon Townsite
Fiqure 43. Location of Mormon Townsite, Eaoar, Arizona
Source: Apache County Assessor's Office
179
Church's action forming the Union Ward served as a magnet to draw23families to the Eagar site and a townsite was laid out in 1888.
The Eagar townsite is long and narrow, running two miles north
to south. The northern part is on bench land above the Little Colo
rado River, while the southern part is in a bowl-like valley between
several hills. Pasture land and other agriculture are on either side
of the town, and considerable agriculture exists inside the town by
Mormon custom. Residential land use is widely dispersed inside the
street system.
Public uses are significant, but scattered on the northern and
central side. Round Valley High S c h o o l , i n the northern part of
town occupies an entire block while the baseball field occupies a
parcel nearly equal in size, to the east just outside the townsite.
The Mormon Chapel occupies a block in the central part of the townsite.
The Eagar Elementary School is located two blocks south of the church
block. The cemetery is one block west of the townsite on a gentle
sloping hill. The Town Hall and Post Office form a very small nucleus
as a town center. 23 *
23Charles S. Peterson, op. cit., p. 58; Ned H. Greenwood, op. cit., p. Ill; Janes H. McClintock, op. cit., p. 184; Mill Barnes, op. cit., p. 10.
^fpache County Board of Supervisors, op. cit., p. 27.
180
The principal industry of the Eagar-Springerville area is the
Southwest Lumber Mills sawmill located on the southern edge of 25Eagar. Several small contractors and construction yards are the
other industrial uses. •
Show Low, Navajo County, Arizona
The site of Show Low (elevation 6,300 feet) was settled as a
ranch in 1870 in similar fashion to the Stinson Ranch which later be-26 27came Snowflake. A two-story house was the settlement. The Mor
mons became familiar with the Show Low area during their explorations
of the 1876-1878 era. By 1880 a number of Mormon families had set
tled in scattered fashion along Show Low Creek and ward organization 28was formed. In fact, rancher Corydon Cooley had employed Mormons as * 26 27 28
pcRon Silverman, op. cit., p. 26; University of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., p. 5.
26Joseph Fish, og. cit., p. 3; Ralph Mahoney, "Pine Country Setting Lures Tourists into Show Low Area," Arizona Days and Ways,June 20, 1954, p. 11; John Myers Myers, op. cit., p. 18; Lucile Popenoe, pp. 42-42; University of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., p. 13; Roscoe G. Willson, op. cit., p. 26; Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 249; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op. cit.), p. 449
27Ralph Mahoney, "Pine Country Setting Lures Tourists into Show Low Area," (op. cit.), p. 11.
28Joseph Fish, og; cit., pp. 22, 55.The center of ward population at first was at Forest Dale,
and the ward was so named. Later, when Forest Dale was abandoned, the name was changed to Show Low; Joseph Fish, op. cit., p« 17.
181
early as 1876.29 In 1886, Joseph Pish surveyed a small townsite for
Mormon use about a mile north of the present town (and the site of
Cooley's ranch). Lack of water prevented development of the Fish
townsite.30 * 32 The principal site, the Cooley Ranch, was not purchased
by William Flake until 1903. At that time a small townsite was laid
out which became the nucleus of Show Low. (See Figures 40 and 44.)
This townsite was to the west of Show Low Creek on higher
ground at the edge of the agricultural area, in a fashion similar to
that experienced at Snowflake. The town grew primarily into the pine
forest further west. However, initially Show Low remained much smaller
than either Snowflake and St. Johns. As late as 1940 the town had only
about 450 persons and covered the Mormon townsite and highway areas 32nearby. The Mormon chapel was a small structure, and the community
29James H. McClintock, op; cit., p. 168.
30John H. Krenkel, op. cit., p. 313; Joseph Fish, op. cit.,p. 55.
3^Ralph Mahoney, "Pine Country Setting Lures Tourists into Show Low Area," op. cit., p. 11; Lawrence Cardwell, "show Low, the Town a Road Built," Arizona Highways, July 1948, p. 5; Charles S. Peterson, ojo. cit., p. 285; Harold C. Wayte, Jr., "A History of Holbrook and the Little Colorado Country," M.A. Thesis, University of Arizona, 1962, p. 67; University of Arizona Journalism Edition; op. cit., p. 13.
32Lawrence Cardwell, "Show Low, the Town a Road Built," op. cit., p. 6.
□
I H H i m i H I H Mormon Townsite:!
Fiqure 44. Location of Mormon Townsite, Show Low, Arizona
Source: Navajo County Assessor's Office.
183
had not developed a complete set of its own functions,^ For example,
high school students were transported to Snowflake to the Union High
School. (This arrangement persists although a site for a Show Low
high school has been selected).
U.s. Highway 60 and its tourist traffic caused Show Low to34grow, and it changed the function and character of the community.
In the middle 1940's when the first addition was made to the Show
Low townsite the Mormon pattern was out of fashion, and the many
subdivisions and additions since have all been of a conventional non-
Mormon pattern. These areas have been strung along with easy, access
to the main highway, or along the secondary highway to Lakeside, or
along other county roads.
Show Low has a well developed commercial strip along U.S.
Highway 60, with sixteen motels and fifteen restaurants dominating 35the scene. The town's other economic activities include two large
33Ibid., pp. 6-7.
^Ned H. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 146; John Myers Myers, op. cit., p. 18.
^University of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., p. 8.
sawmills t one is in the south-central part of the community and the36other is to the north edge of map coverage.
37By 1950 Show Low had about 1,000 population and soon after
it became the largest incorporated community of the six Study Area
incorporated towns, a position it is not likely to relinquish unless
Lakeside chooses to incorporate. Show Low's 1970 population has been38established at 2,285.
Lakeside, Navajo County, Arizona39A few Mormon families settled on the Lakeside site by 1906,
but remoteness (eight miles south of Show Low) and cold climate at
7,000 feet in elevation kept agricultural pursuits and the population
insignificant, A small townsite, Mormon pattern, was recorded in 401935. Lakeside takes its name from Rainbow Lake which was developed
in the early years for agricultural purposes.(See Figures 40 and
45.)
. • .184
36Lawrence Cardwell, "Show Low, the Town a Road Built," op. cit., p. 6; Ralph Mahoney, op. cit., p. 12.
37Ralph Mahoney, "Pine Country Settling Lures Tourists into Show Low Area," (op. cit.), p. 15.
38Valley National Bank,•Arizona Progress, January 1971 (Reprint of U.S. Census, 1970, for Arizona Cities and Towns).
39Ralph Mahoney, "Pine Country Setting Lures Tourists into Show Low Area," (op. cit.), p. 14; Thomas M. Stubblefield, op; cit., p. 43; Will Barnes, op. cit., pp. 243-244; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (op, cit.), p. 450.
40Navajo County Recorder's Office, Boo): 2, p. 10, Sept. 36, 1935.
John Myers Myers, op. cit., pp. 26-27.41
185
i-lrnri r m Tr
w r ^
i Momon Towns ite
Fiquro 45. Location of .Mormon Tovmsite, Lakeside, Arizona
Sourcet Navajo County Assessor's Office.
186The community has emerged as a summer resort area because of
its cool climate and forested setting, and the impetus for development
(summer homes, especially) came with the rise of Arizona's metropoli
tan centers (Phoenix and Tucson) since 1950. A sizable proportion
of the community's housing units are summer homes.^ Some are likewise
used for temporary winter living. However, the number of year-around
residences has increased to the point where Lakeside is comparable in
permanent population to Snowflake and St. Johns, and is nearly as
large as Show Low.Most of the new subdivisions are located in the forest, scat
tered in a manner similar to Show Low's, and the community1 s size is
not apparent from the Show Low-Pinetop highway (State 173). Lakeside
does not have a commercial strip of the proportions found at Show Low
although several large resorts have been developed. Lakeside's
Mormon Chapel and Elementary School are centrally located in the
Mormon townsite.The new high school at Lakeside serves Lakeside and Pinetop
(Blue Ridge High School). Its location in the direction of Pinetop
is a convenient one to the main highway connecting the two com
munities.
Ralph Mahoney, "Pine Country Setting Lures Tourists into Show Low Area," (op. cit.), n. 14; University of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., p. 10; Lucile Popenoe, on. cit., p. 42.
187
Pineton, Navajo County; Arizona
The community of Pinetop (elevation 7,000 feet) was founded in431888 by several Mormon families, but a townsite either never was
laid out or never developed. The community (twelve miles south
of Show Low) remained small until 1950, and since then its growth and
development has paralleled that of nearby Lakeside and Show Low
(Figure 46). Tourism and summer home activity have been a major im-44petus to the town's growth. There has also been a tendency for
the mill workers at the McNary lumber mill to seek non-company 45housing. Pinetop is the closest location to McNary where private
land exists for development.
A well developed commercial strip has developed at Pinetop,
relatively as significant as the one at Show Low or Springerville.
Pinetop's commercial district serves residents of Lakeside, Pinetop,
and McNary, and summer cabin dwellers and campers that locate in the
western side of the White Mountains. Pinetop does not serve much .
transient highway traffic as do Springerville and Show Low because
43James H. McClintock, on. cit., pp. 155, 170; Etta Gifford Young, "In the White Mountains, the Angler's Paradise," Arizona, January 1913, p, 12; Will Barnes, o£. cit., p. 247; W.P.A. Writer's Arizona (op. cit.), p. 450.
44University of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., n. 10; John Myers Myers, p. 26; Joyce Rockwood Muench, "The Delectable Mountains," Arizona Highways, May 1958, p, 16.
45University of Arizona Journalism Edition, on. cit., p. 10.
/'/<*» £/»
<.
Source: Navajo County Assessor’s Office
State Highway 173 is not a transcontinental or regional highway to
the proportions of U.S. 60.
Although it was founded by Mormons, non-Mormons influenced
Pineton's development in early years, and a Mormon chapel does not
exist in this community. In this respect. Lakeside plays a similar
role to Pinetop as does Eagar for Springerville.
' McNary, Apache County, Arizona
Although it is located in Apache County, McNary is closely
tied to Navajo County communities of Pinetop and Lakeside. Pinetop
serves the shopping needs of McNary to some degree, and many workers
at the McNary mill live in Pinetop or Lakeside. However, McNary
has its own school system and a distinctive townsite which requires
separate attention (Figure 47).
McNary is located on the Ft. Apache Indian Reservation at an
elevation of 7,200 feet in a dense pine forest s e t t i n g . T h e status
of land ownership and parcelization is different than other communi
ties studied by this thesis. For example, in 1968 there were no
Apache County Assessor's Maps for the community.
The town as it is today started in 1914 with the beginnings of
development for a large lumber mill and a railroad to Holbrook. V7.M.
Cady Lumber Company of Louisiana secured the site and timber rights in
46Will Barnes, op. cit., p. 15; W.P.A. Writer's, Arizona (on. cit.), p. 444.
189
•» • •] !••• •! I'****l ItfJ
a i r ^
*■■$!■ S.
Figure 47. Existing Townsite of McNary, Arizona
Source* U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, "McNary, Arizona," 1961. Hvoo
1911923, and built up the town with 500 employees brought in from
Louisiana. The town was enlarged from about 50 houses to 450,
The townsite that evolved from these enterprises was ■ typical
of a company town, and the street system, housing patterns, community
facilities, large company store, etc. were also typical. These fea
tures remain although changes have occurred. Many of the houses have
been sold to individual owners, and most of the town's poorest 48housing lies vacant and hopefully will be removed. The better
housing is now racially mixed. (llcHary is the one community of the
Study Area which possesses a relatively large Negro population.)
^University of Arizona Journalism Edition, op. cit., p. 9?Jo Jeffers, "Apache County, Arizona, U.S.A.," Arizona Highways, May 1969, p. 9? Edward H. Peplow, Jr., op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 80; Thomas M. Stubblefield, op. cit., p. 44.
48Jo Jeffers, "Apache County, Arizona, U.S.A." (op. cit.),p. 9.
47
CHAPTER 11
COMPARISON'OF COMMUNITIES BY PUBLIC LAND USE SYSTEMS
The importance of the public square to a Mormon community has
been remarked upon for Kirtland, Ohio, et cetera. At this point, the
public squares and other public use arrangements of ten communities
will be described. See Figure 48 (m Pocket) for the location of
public uses for the ten communities of the Study Area.
The Public Square System
In many American towns which are the seats of county government
the courthouse square can be regarded as the basis for a public square
system. Usually, the town's business district surrounds the square
to form an area important to human activity. Uses adjacent to the
square could include schools, churches, or other public offices. These
adjacent uses would be a part of the system. Important features of
the square are magnitude and location. Several small public uses near
each other could be taken as one public square, or one large use could
be a public square by itself. The public square could be an entire
block, or it could be pieces from several blocks. Ordinarily, each
town has one primary square and several secondary squares.
The Primary Public Square
The only community with a courthouse is St. Johns; however,
unlike in many other county seats, the courthouse is not centrally
192
193
located. So the courthouse square as a central point of land use
acquisition is not applicable to northeastern Arizona communities.
Those communities such as Snowflake and St. Johns with a
strong Mormon settlement history have a church as the major use in
the town square (Table 14). Activities at each church occur almost
daily, a frequency which enables a large church to become a focal
point for the community. Springerville, with an ambiguous Mormon his
tory, has no Mormon Church, and the post office is the major use for
its town square with nearby Catholic and Presbyterian Churches as
minor uses. During its years as a Mormon settlement, Pinetop was
small, and no chapel was developed there. Hence, the post office has
been designated to best represent a town square. The'lumber company
provided McNary with a central park surrounded by business uses and
other community facilities such as post office, fire station (town
hall), hospital, and union hall.
Three of the largest squares (at Joseph City, Lakeside, and
Taylor) have a school adjacent to the church. The two post office
squares (Pinetop and Springerville) are the smallest (public land use
measurements, only). The seven communities with the strongest Mormon
settlement history have Mormon churches, and they in turn have the
largest squares (a 5.9 acre average) compared to the three communities
without a Mormon church (a 2.2 acre average). No community has two
Mormon Church buildings, although several communities have two wards
and other buildings in association with church activities.
Table 14. Characteristics of the Primary Public Square, Ten Communities
Community MajorUse
SizeAcres
Location Business* Center
' Feet
HighwiFeet
Snowflake Mormon Church 3.6 0 0St. Johns Mormon Church-School 4.9 600 0Joseph City Mormon Church-School 9.8 1,100 1,000Taylor Mormon Church-School 6.3 1,500 1,500Springerville Post Office 1.0 500 0Eagar Mormon Church 5.7 350 0
Show Low Mormon Church 4.0 250 150lakeside Mormon Church-School 7.1 500 500Pinetop Post Office 0.2 150 150McNary Park-Post Office 5.4 0 0
aThe center point of the town’s business frontage, excluding 'tourist oriented business areas.
^State and federal routes.
Sourcet Figure 48
195
Two measurements of location are revealed by Table 14: dis
tances from the square to the town's business center and from the
square to the nearest highway. The largest squares tend to have the
greatest separation. The three largest squares are located at an
average distance of 1,030 feet from the business center and at 1,000
feet from the nearest highway. The three smallest squares are located
at an average of 150 feet from the business center and only 50 feet
from a highway.
Partly then, because of the size relationship, the Mormon
Church squares are located away from the business center or a highway,
while the post office squares are close. This discovery seems counter
to the belief expressed in Chapter 1 that the typical Mormon Church
sought a highway location. In this particular study area, only three
of the seven chapels have a highway location, although two more are
moderately close (within 500 feet).
The chapels for two communities (Joseph City and Taylor^)
are 1,000 feet or more from both the business center and highway.
For purposes of comparison, these two communities have been taken
together as Group A (Table 15). Five communities with churches
beside or near a highway are Group B, and three remaining communities
without a Mormon Church are Group C. The relationship of the square's
distance from the business center resembles that of highway distance;
1Taylor also has a main cross street.
Table 15. Land Use and Location Characteristics of the PrimaryPublic Square,
Characteristics
Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groupings
Mormon Communities Non-Mormon
Group A Group B Group C
Communities (Number) 2 5 3
Primary Squares (Number) 2 5 3
Averages per Public Square:
Area (Acres)
Mormon Church 2.0 2.8
Non-Mormon Church — 0.2
Non-Church Use 6.1 2.3 2.0
Total 8.1 5.1 2.2
Distance (Feet)
From Business Center 1,300 340 217From Highway 1,250 130 50
Community Groups:
Group A: Joseph City and Taylor
Group B* Snowflake, St. Johns, Eagar, Show Low, and Lakeside
Group C$ Springerville, Pinetop, and McNary
Source: Figure 48
i.e., Group A is greatest. Group B next, and Group C the least for
both business center and highway separation.
?
Secondary Public Squares
Uses resembling those of the primary public square may be
detached and located in other areas of the community. Snowflake's
Academy was such an example, and the Union High School has grown to
be a large secondary square.
Usually, school classroom sites plus adjacent associated uses
create the secondary squares (Table 16). The two smallest communities
(Joseph City and Taylor) do not have a secondary square because the
public uses for these communities are located, for the most part, in
the primary public square. The situation at Lakeside resembles that
of Snowflake: The high school occupies a large site away from the
church, and it has been called a secondary square.
The three largest secondary squares (two at Snowflake and one
at Lakeside) include high school or junior high uses. The three smal
lest squares (at St, Johns, Pinetop, and McNary) include a mixture of
high school, elementary school, and Catholic Church. All secondary
squares include public school uses, and they average 5.2 acres in
size. This average is slightly greater than the 4.8 acre average for
primary public squares.
The size-location relationship for secondary public squares
is not as definite as that for primary squares. The three largest
secondary squares are located at an average distance of 2,933 feet
197
Table 16 Characteristics of Secondary Public Squares, Eight Communities
Community MajorUse
SizeAcres
LocationBusinessCenterFeet
HighwayFeet
Snowflake Union High School 15.3 1,200 550
Junior High School 13.4 6,000 0
Elementary School 5.4 800 250
St. Johns Elementary School 3.6 1,500 0
Elementary School* 1.8 600 0
Springerville Elementary School 6.5 500 0
Eagar High School 8.8 2,800 750
Elementary School 5.7 1,000 650
Show Low Elementary School 7.2 1,400 700
Lakeside High School 36.0 1,600 0
Pinetop Elementary School 2.3 300 300McNary High School*3 2.3 800 350
^Located in the Mexican Townsite; second major use.
the Catholic Church is a
^Several elementary school gardes are located on this site.
Source: Figure 48
199
from the business center, but their average distance from a highway
is only 183 feet. The three smallest secondary squares are at am
average of 567 feet from the business and 217 feet from a highway.
So, large uses are widely separated from business but are near a
highway. School transportation is an obvious necessity.
A special use should be mentioned. In two cases, at Snow
flake and Eagar, a Mormon Seminary is adjacent to the high school.
A third seminary building, at Lakeside, is located by itself outside
the public square system.
When data are shown together, secondary squares are not as
close to the business center and a highway as primary squares (Table
17).
Uses Outside the Public Square System
A large number of public use establishments have emerged out
side the public square system. With the exception of cemeteries and
post offices, it seems probable that many of these uses are recent,
having emerged in the last twenty or thirty years. The area per site
is usually smaller than that of a public square, and the sites are
widely scattered and separated from the business center and highway
(Table 18).
Proportion of Public Uses in the Public Square System
In the smallest communities (Joseph City and Taylor) public
use areas in the primary square dominate over those uses outside the
200
Table 17, Land Use and Location Characteristics of Primaryand Secondary Public Squares, Mormon and Mon-Mormon Community Groupings
M o r r . o n C o n n u n i t i e s ! J o n - M o m o n C o n n u n i t i e s
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s G r o u p A G r o u p R G r o u p C
P r i n a r y S e c o n d a r y P r i n a r y S e c o n d a r y P r i m a r y S e c o n d a r y
___________________ S o u a r c s S q u a r e s S r r u a r e s S c u a r o s ________ S q u a r e s S q u a r e s ________
N u m b e r o f S q u a r e s 2 0 5 9 3 3
A v e r a g e s p e r P u b l i c S q u a r e :
A r e a ( A c r e s )
M o r m o n C h u r c h . 2 , 0 2 . 8
M o r m o n S e m i n a r y — - — - - — 0 . 1 — - —
N o n - M o m o n C h u r c h — — — - o . o a 0 . 2
P u b l i c S c h o o l 6 . 1 — 1 . 2 1 0 . 6 — - 3 . 7
O t h e r U s e — — - 1 . 1 0 . 1 2 . 0 — -
T o t a l 0 . 1 — - 5 . 1 1 0 , 8 2 . 2 3 . 7
D i s t a n c e ( F e e t )
F r o m B u s i n e s s C e n t e r 1 / 3 0 0 3 4 0 1 , 8 7 0 2 1 7 5 3 3
F r o m H i g h w a y 1 , 2 5 0 — 1 3 0 3 2 2 ' 5 0 2 1 7
aAveraqc, 0.02 acres
C o m m u n i t y G r o u p s :
G r o u p A : J o s e p h C i t y a n d T a y l o r
G r o u p B : S n o w f l a k e , S t . J o h n s , E a o a r , S h o w L o w , a n d L a k e s i d e
G r o u p C t S p r i n n e r v i l l e , P i n e t o p , a n d M c J I a r y
S o u r c e : F i g u r e 4 8
Table 18. Land Use and Location Characteristics of the Public UsesOutside the Public Square System, Mormon and Non-MormonCommunity Groupings
Characteristics Mormon Communities' .....Non-Mormon
• Group A .... Group B Group C
Communities (Number) 2 5 3
Number of Establishments 5 52 25
Averages per Establishment Site:
Area (Acres)
Mormon Church Use . 0.1 0.2 0.2
Non-Mormon Church 0.5 0.8
Fraternal Organization 0.8 0.7
Public School Use 3.5 1.7
Parks and Recreation 7.8 7.8 —
Governmental Building 0.1 0.5 1.2
Cemetery 2.1 4.8 3.6
Total 2.0 2.3 1.2
Distance (Feet)
From Business Center 760 2,876 2,054From Highway 720 820 374
Community Groups:
Group A: Joseph City &
Group B: Snowflake, St,
Taylor
, Johns, Eagar, Show Low and Lakeside
Group Ct Springerville, Pinetop and McNary
Source: Figure 48
202
system (Table 19). For the other communities (Groups B and C) public
use areas in the primary squares are relatively much smaller.
When the proportions for secondary squares are considered,
however, the Mormon group (B) has a high degree of public land use
within the public square system. The proportion is 50.2 percent com
pared to 36.3 percent for the non-Mormon group (C). When the seven
Mormon communities are taken as a unit the proportion rises slightly
to 51.3 percent (Groups A and B).
Group B has been revised into two groups (Group B (1) and
Group B (2)) to separate still mainly Mormon communities (Snowflake,
St. Johns, and Eagar) from those where non-Mormon influences already
have emerged in recent years (Show Low and Lakeside). At this point,
no differences between the two revised groups are revealed (Table 19).
Changes in Proportion Over TimeAs a community grows, the proportional relationships of
the public square system are likely to change. These influences might
be accentuated by the influx on a non-Mormon population, or not.
Until recently, Snowflake has had minimal non-Mormon population yet
the importance of the primary square has dropped steadily since 1900
(Table 20). Emphasis upon secondary squares has increased to offset
this loss, and the relationship of the public square system to total
public area has remained constant.
As to a special stage in community development, Snowflake of
the 1920 era resembled Salt Lake City of the 1870 era (Table 21).
Table 19. Distribution of Public Land Use in the Public Square System, Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groupings
203
CommunityGroupings
PrimarySquares
Percent'
SecondarySquares
Percent
PublicSquareSystem
Percent•
Uses Outside the Public Square System
Percent- ‘
AllPublicUses
■ Percent
Group A 61.2 0.0 61.2 38.8 100.0
Group B 10.3 39.9 50.2 49.8 100.0
Group C 13.5 22.8 36.3 63.7 100.0
AllCommunities 15.0 34.0 49.0 51.0 100.0
Revision: Group A 61.2 0.0 61.2 38.8 100.0
Group B (1) 10.3 39.1 49.4 50.6 100.0Group B (2) 10.5 40.9 51.4 48.6 100.0
Group C 13.5 22.8 36.3 63.7 100.0AllCommunities 15.0 34.0 49.0 51.0 100.0
Community Groups t
Group A: Joseph City and Taylor
Group B(l): Snowflake, St. Johns, and Eagar
Group B(2): Show Low and Lakeside
Group C: Springerville, Pinetop, and McNary
Source: Figure 48
204
Table 20. Distribution of Public Land Use in the Public Square Systemi Snowflake, Arizona, 1900 to 1968
Date PrimarySquare
SecondarySquares
PublicSquareSystem
Uses Outside the Public Square System'
AllPublicUses
Population
Area (Acres):
1900 2.7 1.9 3.6 1.8* 5.4 500
1920 3.6 5.4 9.0 3.6* 12.6 8001940 3.6 11.7 15.3 7.2* 22.5 1,000
1968 3.6 34.1 37.7 17.3 55.0 1,800
Percent Distribution1
Acres per ,000 Pop.
1900 50.0 16.7 66.7 33.0 100.0 10.8
1920 28.6 42.8 71.4 28.6 100.0 15.71940 16.0 52.0 68.0 32.0 100.0 22.51968 6.5 62.0 68.5 31.5 100.0 30.6
^Assumption for Cemetery Use
Source: Figures 24, 25, and 27
Table 21. Distribution of Public Land Compared to Salt Lake City,
Use in the Utah (1870)
Public Square System; Snowflake, Arizona (1920)
Community PrimarySquare
SecondarySquares
Public Square System'
Uses Outside the Public Square System
AllPublicUses
Population
Area (Acres):
Snowflake(1920)
3.6 5.4 9.0 3.6 12.6 800
Salt Lake City (1870) 35.0 40.0 75.0 51.3 126.3 20,000
Percent Distribution: Acres per 1,000 Pop.
Snowflake(1920) 28.6 42.8 71.4 28.6 100.0 15.7
Salt Lake City (1870) 27.7 31.7 59.4 40.6 100.0 6.3
Source: Figures 19, 20, and 25
205
206
Snowflake was forty years of age at this point and Salt Lake City was
only twenty years (1870), but Salt Lake City grew faster and was much
larger very quickly. However, at these respective dates each place
had achieved a similar level of maturity.
The situation at Salt Lake City has changed since 1870, and
these features have resulted from a mixture of Mormon and non-Mormon
influence. (Prior to 1870, the influence upon Salt Lake City was
exclusively Mormon. The parallel holds for Snowflake prior to 1920).
At Salt Lake City, changes in the public school system, the rise of
the University of Utah, the State Capitol, and a city park system, and
an increase in non-Mormon churches, parochial schools, and fraternal
organizations would be a large part of this development.
Similar changes, much smaller in size but somewhat similar
relatively speaking, have occurred in many of the communities of
northeastern Arizona. The changes at Snowflake involve the public
school system and the emergency of several (very small) non-Mormon
churches. At St. Johns, the change has been almost exclusively with
the school system as only one new non-Mormon church (very small) has
emerged so far.
The greatest degree of change has probably occurred at Show
Low, hence the justification for separating it within Group B.
Table 22 has been constructed to give an idea of the change at Show
Low. Lakeside is included in the subgroup and also resembles Show
Low in many respects. Now,other public functions will be studied in
order to define the differences between Mormon and non-Mormon towns
207
Table 22, Distribution of Public Land Use in the Public Square System; Show Low, Arizona, 1940 to 1968
Date PrimarySquare
SecondarySquares
PublicSquareSystem
Uses Outside the Public Square System
AllPublicUses
Population
Area (Acres) :1940 0.9 3.2 4.1 2.9 7.0 450
1968 4.0 7.2 11.2 29.0 40.2 2,100
Percent Distribution:
1940 12.9 45.7 58.6 41.4 100.0 15.61968 10.0 17.9 27.9 72.1 100.0 19.1
Source: Figures 40 and 48
200
and evaluate the effects of non-Mornons on Mormon developed
communities. .
Churches and Fraternal Organizations
In seven of ten communities the Mormon Church has been
designated as the basis of the town's primary public square, an
area which best represents a gathering place for the entire community.
In this thesis, a description of church area (site size and location)
is the first priority with respect to public land use types.
Size of Church Sites
There are eight Mormon Churches in ten communities which
occupy a total of 17.3 acres. Seven of the sites are large, between
1,8 and 3.7 acres, and these represent large chapels with one or two
ward organizations each (Table 23). The small site, at McNary,
represents a branch organization which meets at a house. There is
considerable difference, then, between the long established wards and
the branch.
A similar contrast is shown when non-Mormon church sites are
considered. Two communities (Joseph City and Taylor) have no church
other than Mormon. In the other eight communities there are 27 non-
Mormon churches that occupy a total area of 14.3 acres which is some
what less than the Mormon Church area. Thus, the number of churches
creates a vastly different situation, reflected by a site per church
of 0.6 acres compared to 2.2 for Mormon sites (Table 23).
209Table 23. Inventory of Churches, Ten Comuni ties, and Community
Groupings
Community Mormon Church Non-Mormon ChurchArea Mo. of Area Per Area Mo. of Area Per
__ Acres Churches Church Acres Churches ChurchGroup At
Joseph City 1.8 1 1.8 — ——— —Taylor 2.1 1 2.1 — — ———
Sub-total . 3.9 2 2.0 -— ——— — —Group B (1):
Snowflake 2.7 1 2.7 0.7 3 0.2St. Johns 1.8 1 1.8 0.5 2 0.3Eagar 2.0 1 2.0 0.3 1 0.3
Sub-total 6.5 3 2.2 1.5 6 0.3Group B (2) :
Show Low 3.7 1 3.7 5.0 0 0.7Lakeside 3.0 1 3.0 0.0 2 0.4
Sub-total 6.7 2 3.4 6.7 10 0.7Group C: 1
Springerville — — — 1.9 _ . 5 0.4Pinetop — — 1.9 2 1.0McNary 0.2 1 0.2 2.5 4 0.6
Sub-total 0.2 1 0.2 6.3 11 0.6Total 17.3 0 2.2 14.5 27 0.6
Source: Figure 40
210
There is a further distinction between community groups.
Where Mormon influence has continued the strongest (Groups A and
B (1)) there either are no non-Mormon churches (Group A) or the non-
Mormon churches are few in number and very small (contrast Group B (1)
with Groups B(2) or C).
Church Location
When compared to non-Mormon churches, the Mormon Church typi
cally has a more central location, largely because the Mormon Church
came early in a town's history. The eight Mormon Churches are at an
average of 494 feet from the business center compared to 2,819 feet
for the 27 non-Mormon Churches (Table 24). However, the location with
respect to a highway is similar for the two groups.
Church Related Uses and Fraternal Organizations
There are seven establishments which are closely related to
the Mormon Church (Table 25), including three seminaries and two bishop
storehouse sites. There are only eight fraternal organizations that
have their own special quarters in the entire ten community area.
Communities where Mormon tradition is strong (Joseph City, Taylor,
Snowflake, St. Johns, and Lakeside) have no fraternal buildings.
(Because of devotion to their church, most Mormons have no time for
other organizations.) Eagar, also with a strong Mormon tradition, does
have one establishment, but it serves Springerville equally well (and
Springerville, oddly enough, has no similar establishment).
Table 24. Location of Churches with Respect to Business Center and Highway, Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groups
211
Community Group Distance From Business Center
Distance From a Highway
MormonChurch(Feet)
Non-MormonChurch(Feet)
MormonChurch(Feet)
Non-MormonChurch(Feet)
Group A 1,300 — 1,250Group B (1) 317 3,667 0 300Group B (2) 375 3,450 325 730Group C 1,300 1,782 800 195
Total 700 2,819 .494 417
Group A* Joseph City and Taylor
Group B (1): Snowflake, St. Johns, and Eagar
Group B (2): Show Low and Lakeside
Group C: Springerville, Pinetop, and McNary
Source t Figure 48
212Table 25, Inventory of Church Related Uses and Fraternal
Organizations, Ten Communities, and Community Groupings
C o n n u n i t y U s e R e l a t e d t o t h e
M o m o n C h u r c h
A r e a N o . o f A r e a P e r
A c r e s E s t a b l i s h . E s t a b l i s h .
N o n - M o m o n F r a t e r n a l
O r g a n i z a t i o n
A r e a N o . o f A r e a P e r
A c r e s E s t a b l i s h . E s t a b l i s h .
G r o u p A :
Joseph City — — — — — —
Taylor 0.1 1 0.1 — — — —
Sub-total 0.1 . 1 0.1 — - — —
Group B (1)sSnowflake 1.1 2 0.6 — — - —
St. Johns 0.3 1 0.3 — — —
Eagar 0.5 2 0.3 0.5 1 0.5Sub-total 1.9 5 0.4 0.5 1 0.5
Group B (2) 2
Show Low — — — 2.7 3 0.9Lakeside 0.2 1 0.2 ■ — — —
Sub-total 0.2 1 0.2 2.7 3 0 . 9
Group C 2Springerville — — — — — —
Pineton — - — - — 1.6 2 0.8KcNary —— — — 0.9 2 0.5
Sub-total - — — - — 2.5 4 0.6Total 2.2 7 0.4 5.7 8 0.7
S o u r c e s F i g u r e 4 R
213
The area per establishment is small both for the Mormon Church
related uses and for the fraternal organizations. Locational distan
ces, respectively, resemble those of the two church divisions (Mormon
and non-Mormon). Mormon related uses are closer to the business
center them fraternal organizations, but they are usually beyond the
main church (1,036 feet for Mormon related uses compared to 494 feet
for the Mormon Church). The association of seminaries with high
school location helps produce this result. All uses, Mormon related
or fraternal, tend to be about 500 feet away from a highway (Table
26).
Relationship of Church and Fraternal Organization Areas to Population
When areas occupied by churches, their related uses, and fra
ternal organizations are totaled and compared to community population
a ratio results that is constant for nearly all communities (Table 27).
This finding suggests an equilibrium exists in service from these .
establishments. In other words, the Mormon facilities and non-Momon
facilities provide their respective constituents with comparable
space. Show Low has a higher ratio than average which suggests that
an outlying population is served. The influx of summer residents to
the region may account for this finding.
■ The Public School System
There are six high schools within the ten communities. The
school systems at Joseph City and Mctlary are small to the degree that
elementary grades are included with the high school site. Therefore,
Table 26. Location of Church Related Uses and Fraternal Organizations with Respect to Business Center and Highway, Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groups
Community Group Uses Related to Mormon Church (Feet)______
Non-MormonFraternalOrganizations(Feet)
Uses Related to Mormon Church (Feet)
Non-Mormon Fraternal Organizations. (Feet)_______
Group A 900 — 900 —
Group B (1) 1,270 3,500 520 0
Group B (2) 0 4,700 0 1,533
Group C — 1,450 — 0
Total 1,036 2,925 500 575
Group At Joseph City and Taylor
Group B (1)t Snowflake, St. Johns, and Eagar
Group B (2)t Show Low and Lakeside
Group Ct Springerville, Pinetop, and McNary
Source t Figure 48
214
215Table 27, Church Uses and Fraternal Organizations Combined? Land
Use Area to Population Ratio, Ten Communities, and Community Groupings
Community AreaAcres
Population Ratio Area Per 1,000 Persons
Group As
Joseph City 1.8 536 3.4
Taylor 2.2 693 3.2
Sub-total 4.0 1,229 3.3
Group B (1)s
Snowflake 4.5 1,780 2.5
St, Johns 2.6 1,315 2.0
Eagar 3.3 1,225 2.7
Sub-total 10.4 4,320 2.4
Group B (2)s
Shots Lot; 12.3 2,139 5.8
Lakeside 4.0 1,314 3.0
Sub-total 16.3 3,453 4.7
Group Cs
Springerville 1.9 1,000 1.9
Pinetop 3.5 885 3.9
McNary 3.6 1.072 3.4
Sub-total 9.0 2,957 3.0
Total 39.7 11,959 3.3
Sources Figure 48 and Housino-Population Count from Picture 49
/
only four high school areas can be treated as entities separate from
elementary schools.
Size of School Sites
Eleven high school use areas exist for only four high schools.
These use areas include classroom sites, football fields, baseball
parks, auditorium and gymnasium sites, a dormitory site, et cetera.
Obviously, the tendency is for high school property to be separated
into distinct parcels. Only Blue Ridge High School (Lakeside) has its
area in a single unit (Table 28). High school use areas together
reach 85.6 acres; the largest single area is the Blue Ridge site at
36.0 acres.
Elementary schools exist in all communities. There are ten
different "use areas for eight communities. Two communities have two
different schools (Snowflake and St. Johns). The area for elementary
school usage totals 53.0 acres, a value somewhat below that for the
high school total, and site sizes vary from the small school at St.
Johns (1.6 acres) to Snowflake Junior High (13.4 acres). Sub-totals
have been given for each multitown elementary school system (Snowflake
and Taylor are in one system, and Lakeside and Pinetop are in another
system.). Table 28 has been arranged so that communities are grouped
by high school system.
Relationship of School Site Areas to Enrollment and Population
The mixture of communities per school district make a community
by community evaluation difficult. Differences in classroom site
216
217
Table 28. inventory of Public Schools, Ten Communities, and School Systems
Community, and School System
High No. of Areas
SchoolAreaAcres
Elementary School No. of Area Areas Acres
All Grades No. of Area Areas Acres
Joseph City / / / / 1 8.0
McNary / / / / 3 5.6
Snowflake System
Snowflake 4 22.8 2 17.9 6 40.7
Taylor — — — 1 4.2 1 4.2
Sub-total 3 22.1
Show Low ——— — 1 7.2 1 7.2
St. Johns 4 13.0 2 5.2 6 18.2
Round Valley System:
Eagar 2 13.8 1 5.7 3 19.5
Springerville ——— 1 6.5 1 6.5
Blue Ridge System:
Lakeside 1 36.0 1 4.0 2 40.0
Pinetop — — 1 2.3 1 2.3
Sub-total . 2 6.3
Total 11 85.6 10 53.0 25 152.2
Source: Figure 40
218
arrangements make a high school and elementary school comparison dif
ficult, as well. Table 29, with ratios (site area to enrollment and
population) has been arranged exclusively on the basis of the high
school districts.
The six districts average an area of 33.1 acres per 1,000
students. Four of the districts are very close to this average, while
Blue Ridge (Lakeside-Pinetop) is very high (70.5 acres per 1,000 stu
dents) and McNary is very low (11.3 acres per 1,000 students). Ob
viously, the Blue Ridge site (36.0 acres) is not intensely utilized
while the McNary system has a space problem.
When the site areas are compared to population the results are
similar: Blue Ridge is high, and McNary is low.
These results cannot be translated directly to a Mormon, non-
Mormon community group arrangement (Group A, Group B(l), and so on).
However, on the basis of Mormon Church site size compared to all
church site sizes, an evaluation of Mormon strength can be made per
community and transformed to the school district system (Table 30),
Except for the case of Blue Ridge, a correlation seems to exist.
Joseph City has the highest degree of Mormon strength and the second
highest ratio of school area per 1,000 population. St. Johns has the
second highest degree of Mormon strength, and the third highest school
site ratio: Snowflake and Round Valley are close to the pattern, and
McNary is last in both respects. However, Blue Ridge deviates from
the correlation badly enough so that these results are tentative, at
best
Table 29. Public School Area, Enrollment.and Population Ratios, High School System
SchoolSystem
Land UseAreaAcres
Area: Enrollment Ratio Enrollment Area per
1,000 Students '
Land Use Area; Population Ratio Area Population Area per
' Acres 1,000 Persons
Joseph City 8.0 267 30.0 8.0 536 14.9
McNary 5.6 497 11.3 5,6 1,072 5.2
Snowflake 52.1 1,908 27.3 52.1 4,612 11.3
St. Johns 18.2 559 32.6 18.2 1,315 13.8
Round Valley 26.0 . 771 33.7 26.0 2,225 11.7
Blue Ridge 42.3 600 70.5 42.3 2,199 19.2
Total 152.2 4,602 33.1 152.2 11,959 12.7
Source: Table 28 and Housing-Population Count from Figure 49
219
Table 30. Public School Area to Population Ratio Compared to Mormon Strength in the Community
r s t i m a t e o f D o n r e e
Communitya n d S c h o o l
S y s t e m
C h u r c h , C h u r c h R e l a t e d , a m
F r a t e r n a l L a n d U s e
M o r m o n N o n - M o r m o n T o t a l
\
P e t .
M o r m o n
J o s e p h C i t y i.n — i.n 1 0 0 . 0
S t . J o h n s 2 . 1 0 . 5 2 . 6 8 0 . 8
S n o w f l a k e 3 . 0 0 . 7 4 . 5 0 4 . 4
T a y l o r 2 . 2 2 . 2 1 0 0 . 0
S h o w L o w 3 . 7 0 . 0 1 2 . 3 3 0 . 1
S u b - t o t a l 9 . 7 9 . 3 1 9 . 0 5 1 . 1
R o u n d V a l l e y
E a g e r 2 . 5 0 . 0 3 . 3 7 5 . 6
S p r i n g e r v i l i e — 1 . 9 1 . 9 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 2 . 5 2 . 7 5 . 2 4 8 . 1
B l u e R i d g e
L a k e s i d e 3 . 2 0 . 8 4 . 0 8 0 . 0
P i n e t o p — 3 . 5 3 . 5 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 3 . 2 4 . 3 7 . 5 4 2 . 7
McMary 0 . 2 4.9 5 . 1 3 . 9
T o t a l 1 9 . 5 2 1 . 7 4 1 . 2 4 7 . 3
o f f k a m o n f l t r e n o t h
C h u r c h Vmm O n l y
M o r m o n N o n - M o r m o n T o t a l P e t .
M o r m o n
P u b l i c S c h o o l A r e a
P o p u l a t i o n R a t i o
1 . 8 — 1 , 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 4 . 9
1 . 8 0 . 5 2 . 3 7 8 . 3 1 3 . 8
2 . 7 0 . 7 3 . 4 7 9 . 4
2 . 1 — 2 . 1 1 0 0 . 0
,3 . 7 5 . 9 9 . 6 3 8 . 5
8 . 5 6 . 6 1 5 . 1 5 6 . 3 U . 3 .
2 . 0 0 . 3 2 . 3 0 7 . 0-
— 1 . 9 1 . 9 0 . 0 -
2 . 0 2 . 2 4 . 2 4 7 . 6 1 1 . 7
3 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 8 7 8 . 9
— — 1 . 9 1 . 9 . 0 . 0
3 . 0 2 . 7 5 . 7 5 2 . 6 1 9 . 2
0 . 2 4 . 0 4 . 2 4 . 8 5 . 2
1 7 . 3 1 6 . 0 3 3 . 3 5 2 . 0 1 2 . 7
S o u r c e i F i g u r e 4 8 a n d T a b l e 2 9
220
221
Location of School Sites
Because school sites are related to one particular community
in terms of location, an attempt was made to follow the Mormon, non-
Mormon community groupings, and to consider instances in terms of both
high school and elementary school sites (Table 31). Schools in strong
ly Mormon communities seem to be more widely separated from the town's
business center and even from a highway than in the non-Mormon "group,
but the results are not consistent in all cases, and there are too
many exceptions to make a case.
Governmental Uses
Bach community has a post office, and eight of ten communities
have a city or town hall (or else a related building such as a fire
station). The two smallest communities (Joseph City and Taylor) have
no town hall or related buildings. Taylor became incorporated at the
time of the survey (1968), but no separate town hall building existed.
Larger, unincorporated communities (Lakeside, Pinetop, and McNary)
have community fire stations which serve as town halls to some degree.
Lakeside has a separate library building which serves as a second town
building. The areas occupied by these facilities are small, and there
are few differences between Mormon and non-Mormon community groups
(Table 32).
Location results are inconclusive because the greatest distance
was found for Group B(2), the mixed, Mormon, non-Mormon groups. This
location value results because the post office of Show Low is located
222
Table 31, Location of Public Schools with Respect to Business Center and Highway# Mormon and Non-Mormon Community Groups
Community Group Distance From Distance FromBusiness Center a Highway
High School Elementary High School ElementaryUses School Uses School(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
Group A 1,100 1,300 1,000 1,250
Group B (1) 2,580 1,980 1,270 180
Group B (2) 1,600 0 950 600Group C 1,250 767 775 467
Total 2,214 1,392 1,089 500
Group A: Joseph City and Taylor
Group B (1): Snowflake, St, Johns, and Eagar
Group B (2): Show Low and Lakeside
Group C: Springerville, Pinetop, and McNary
Source: Figure 48
223
Table 32. Inventory of Governmental Offices, Ten Communities, and Community Groupings
C o r r r j n i t y P o s t O f f i c e
A r e a : : o . o f A r e a T e r
A c r e s S i t e s S i t e
C i t y o r T o t m H a l l
A r e a ! ! o . o f A r e a P e r
A c r e s R i t e s S i t e
o t h e r G o v e r n m e n t a l
A r e a M o . o f A r e a P e r
A c r e s S i t e s s i t e
G r o u p A t
J o s e p h C i t y 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 — — — — — - —
T a y l o r 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 — — — — - — —
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 2 2 0 . 1 — — — — — —
G r o u p 3 ( 1 ) t
S n o ' / f l a k e 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 9 0 . 2 2 0 . 1
S t . J o h n s 0 . 4 1 0 . 4 . 0 . 3 1 9 . 3 1 . 9 1 1 . 9
Z a c a r 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 — — —
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 3 3 0 . 3 1 . 7 3 0 . 6 2 . 1 3 0 . 7
G r o u p B ( 2 ) t *
S h o r . r L r r . / 0 . 6 1 0 . 6 0 . 3 1 0 . 3 — — - —
L a k e s i d e 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 2 0 . 1 1 . 8 1 1.8
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 7 2 0 . 4 0 . 5 3 0 . 2 1 . 8 1 1 . 8
G r o u p C t
S p r i n j e r v i l l e 0 . 4 1 0 . 4 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 4 . 8 3 1 . 6
P i n e t o p 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 2 . 9 2 1 . 5
M c M a r y 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 0 . 9 1 0 . 9 — — —
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 7 3 0 . 2 1 . 3 3 0 . 4 .7.7 5 1 . 6
T o t a l 2 . 4 1 0 0 . 2 3 . 5 0 0 . 4 1 1 . 6 9 1 . 3
Sources FJcure 43
224
far from the central point for business. It would have been virtually
impossible for Show Low's relatively new post office to have found a
central site. Show Low's commercial development is a highway strip
two miles long, and sites near the center are small, crowded, and not
desirable for a post office site.
Post office and town halls seek a highway location irregard-
less of Mormon or non-Mormon grouping.
Other governmental offices tend to reflect the economic base
of a community, as opposed to performing a service function for that
community. The courthouse at St. Johns is a mixture of local service
and basic economic relationships. Small federal offices such as a
forest ranger station and a Farm Home Administration office at Snow
flake are basic but they are much smaller in scale (and employment)
than the courthouse. The situation is simply that Snowflake is large
enough to draw in the local offices of two federal agencies. The
large ranger stations at Springerville and Lakeside, the state fish
and game operation at Pinetop, and Apache National Forest headquarters
at Springerville are basic economic activities of greater importance.
The area per site for these uses is much larger than that of local
service sites (Table 32) • These larger offices are located well away
from the town's business center, although they seek a highway location.
One question on these matters could be asked for illustrative
purposes. (The answer is a difficult one.) Why did the Forest Service
headquarters locate at Springerville instead of Eagar? If the earliest
officials were non-Mormon, or if businessmen pressured the choise,
then to a degree the question is answered.
Other Public Uses
Remaining public uses such as parks, cemeteries and hospitals
vary in number from place to place. If community Group B is selected
as a sample, there is a tendency for Mormon communities to create
specialized park sites (Table 33). Six of seven Mormon communities
have at least one site, while two of three non-Mormon communities have
no similar facilities. The reverse occurs for hospitals: two of three
non-Mormon communities have a hospital, while the third study area
hospital is at Show Low, of the doubtful Group B(2). Again, a similar
question may be asked: for a hospital site, why was Springerville pre
ferred over Eagar?
For a high school site, Eagar was preferred over Springer
ville. There does seem to be a relationship: schools, parks, and
recreation for Mormon communities, and region serving governmental
offices and hospitals.for non-Mormon communities.
Parks, hospitals, and cemeteries are usually widely separated
from the business center. Hospitals logically seek a highway location;
cemeteries do not; and the pattern for parks is ambiguous (natural
features probably determine the site).
225
226
Table 33. Inventory of Park and Recreation Uses, Hospitals, and Cemeteries
C t n r u r . i t y P a r k
7 r e a
f e r e s
a n d P e c r e a t i o n r s c
T : o . o f A r e a P e r
F i t e s c i t e
a r e a
f e r e s
H o s p i t a l
M o . o f
F i t e s
A r e a P e r
F i t e
A r e a
A c r e s
C e m e t e r y
n o . o f
F i t e s
A r e a P e r
F i t e
S r o u r .* t
J o s e p h C i t y — — — — — — — - — —
T a y l o r 7 , S 1 7 . 0 — — - — - 2 . 1 1 2 . 1
S u b - t o t a l 7 , n 1 7 . 3 — — — 2 . 1 1 2 . 1
G r o u p S ( 1 ) i
S r v r y f l a X o 0 . 4 1 0 . 4 - — — — 7 . 2 1 7 . 2
F t , J o ’ i r . s 2 3 . 2 4 5 . 8 — — - . — 5 . 7 1 5 . 7
S a g a r 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 — — — 4 . 0 1 4 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 2 4 . 7 6 4 . 1 • — — - — 1 G . 9 3 5 . 6
G r o u p 1 ( 2 ) t
F h c r y L o * ? 1 4 . 5 2 7 . 3 0 . 9 1 0 . 9 4 . 1 1 4 . 1
L a k e s ! ! c 1 G . 5 1 1 6 . 5 — — — 2 . 3 1 2 . 8
S u b - t o t a l 3 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 3 0 . 9 1 0 . 9 6 . 9 2 3 . 5
C r o u p C t
S r r d L - v - c r v i l l ei
— — 3 . 0 1 3 . 0 5 . 5 1 5 . 5
P i n e t o p — — - — — — - 1 . 6 1 1 . 6
: ' c " a r y 3 . 0 1 . 3 . 0 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 5 2 0 . 8
S u b - t o t a l 3 . 0 1 3 . 0 4 . 1 2 2 . 1 8 . 6 4 2 . 2
T o t a l G S . 5 1 1 6 . 0 5 . 0 3 1 . 7 3 4 . 5 1 0 3 . 5
Source» ri-rure 42
CHAPTER 12
COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY GROUPS BY TOWNSITE PATTERNS
The following chapter discusses the street system and general
land use characteristics of the Navajo and Apache County communities.
In the previous chapter the ten communities were collected into four
groups based on degree of Mormon influence determined by public land
use systems. The same groupings have been carried over into this
chapter for comparative purposes.
Proportion of Developed Area Inside the Mormon Townsite
The Mormon and non-Mormon townsites have been outlined for
each community as shown by Figure 49 (In Pocket). The developed area
for each subdivision type has also been shown, and these area measure
ments have been summarized for each community by Table 34.
Eagar, St. Johns, and Snowflake have the largest Mormon town-
site development, respectively, while Lakeside, Show Low, and Pinetop
have the largest non-Mormon townsite development. Generally, the
communities with a large Mormon townsite have a small non-Mormon town-
site, and vice versa. However, on a proportional basis this observa
tion does not strictly hold true. For example, Joseph City has only medium-sized Mormon townsite development while there is no non-Mormon
configuration. Hence, one-hundred percent of Joseph City's developed
area is within the Mormon townsite. (Actually, a small fringe area
227
Table 34
O 228
. Proportion of Developed Area Inside the Mormon Townsite
Community and Developed Area PercentCommunity Groups l*o mon
TownsiteAcres
Hon-!!omonTownsiteAcres
AllSubdivisionsAcres
InsideMormonTownsite
Group A:Joseph City 122.3 122.3 100.0
Taylor 183.9 13.8 197.7 93.0
Sub-total 306.2 13.8 320.0 95.7Group B (1):
Snowflake 293.0 30.2 323.2 90.7
St. Johns 405.3 134.2 529.5 . . 75.1
Enaar 457.9 47.7 505.6 90.6Sub-total • 457.9 212.1 1,368.3 84.5
Group B (2) :Show low 43.6 395.4 439.0 9.9Lakeside 70.1 453.4 532.5 13.2
Sub-total 113.1 343.0 962.5 11.8•Group C: •
Springerville 53.7 197.6 251.3 21.4Pinetop — 313.4 313.4 0.0ItcMary — 148.3 140.8 0.0
Sub-total 53.7 659.3 713.5 7.5Total 1,629.3 1,734.5 3,364.3 48.4
Source: Figure 40
around Joseph City's tovmsite exists, but this pattern is irregular
and cannot be classified as Mormon or non-Mormon. Small areas such as
this have been ignored for this phase of the thesis.) The opposite end
of the percentage spectrum is shown for Pinetop and McNary where a zero
percentage exists.
On a group by group basis, the group with the highest degree of
Mormon influence (Group A) also has the highest percentage of developed
land in the Mormon townsite. This relationship has proven to be con
sistent when Group B(l) is compared to Group A, when Group B(2) is/
compared to Group B(l), et cetera. A number of relationships to fol
low tend to correlate in the same manner partly because this initial
framework exists.
229
’ Street System Comparisons
For purposes of this thesis, the Mormon grid pattern has been
compared to four other street pattern types as shown by Table 35.
These criteria came from several sources basic to urban planning.
Home Builders Manual for Land'Development, National Association of Home Builders: 1958, pp. 47-49; Richard B. Andrews, UrbanGrowth and Development, New York: Simmons-Boardman, 1962, pp. 360-383; Arthur B, Gallion and Simon Eisner, The Urban Pattern, Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1963, pp. 288-290; ICMA, Local Planning Administration, Chicago: 1948, pp, 93-96; William I. Goodman, Principles and Practiceof Urban Planning, Chicago: ICMA, 1968, pp. 459-460.
Table 35. Characteristics of Street Pattern Types
Characteristic Momonfirid
RegularGrid
ModifiedGrid
CurvilinearPattern
IrregularPattern
Street Direction:C o n n a s a Yes Yes,Mo Yes,No No No
Street Alignncnt:Parallel Yes Yes Yes Yes,Mo Yes,NoStraight Line Yes Yes Yes Yes,Mo Yes,No
Curved-Crooked Ho No No Yes YesStreet Connection:
Through Street Yes Yes Yes,No Yes,No NoTransfer Jogs Mo Yes,No Yes,No Yes,Mo Yes
Street Interval:Wide (300 ft. or more) Yes Yes,Mo Yes,No No Yes,NoPcgular Yes Yes Yes,No Yes,No No
Block Shane: Square Yes Yes,Mo Mo Mo NoPectancular Mo Yes,Mo Yes Ycs(1) No
Street Width:Wide (00 ft. or nore) Yes Yes,No Mo No Yes,NoRegular Yes Yes Yes ,No Yes,Mo No
Alleys:Presence Mo Yes,No Yes,No Yes,No No
Dead-end Streets Presence Mo No Yes,No Yes,Mo Yes,No
Elongated Shape Prevails, Irregular Shapes Allowed
Source: See Footnote 1
231
Area of Developed Streets
The street patterns of each community have been shown by
Figure 50 (in Pocket), Street lengths which actually exist have been
designated as "developed streets." The area devoted to this use has
been summarized by Table 36. A similar table has been prepared for
alley land use, Table 37.
The Mormon townsite tends to have a high proportion of its
developed area used by streets, more so than the non-Mormon townsite.
For seven communities having both subdivision types this relationship
holds true except in one case. Taylor, the exception, has a small,
underdeveloped non-Mormon townsite, and a deficiency of other land use
area causes the street percentage to be unusually high. When all com
munities are taken together the Mormon townsite*s proportion is almost
ten percentage points higher than the non-Mormon townsite*s propor
tion. This difference is significant.
When comparing community groups, Group A with the highest
degree of Mormon influence also has the highest street percentage;
see especially the Mormon townsite percentages for each group. The
remaining community groups do not continue this relationship exactly.
Also note; Eagar, a community with a high degree of Mormon influence,
has a relatively low street percentage for both subdivision types.
However, the relationship of Group A to the remaining communities seems
to be an important feature of this study.
The information concerning alley land use shows that the
Mormon tcwnsites have no alleys. Furthermore, communities with a high
232
Table 36. Developed Street Land Use, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community
O o n r a u n i t y a n d
O o e w t m i t y G r o u p s
LandM o m o n
T m m s l t e
I M e A r e a -
t#oo-Mo%nonT m m s l t e
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
P e r c e n t o f T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A c r e s
Mormon Non-Mormon M l
T m m s l t e T m m s l t e S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p At
J o s e p h C i t y 59.2 — 5 9 . 2 48.4 — 4 8 . 4
T a y l o r 76.9 7 . 8 84.7 4 1 . 8 5 6 . 5 4 2 . 8
S u b - t o t a l 136.1 7 . 8 143.9 4 4 . 5 56.5 4 5 . 0
G r o u p B ( 1 )t
S n o w f l a k e 1 4 2 . 3 1 3 . 5 . 1 5 5 . 8 48.6 4 4 . 7 4 8 . 2
S t . J o h n s 1 5 2 . 9 3 6 . 0 188.9 3 7 . 7 26.8 3 5 . 0
Eagar 1 1 9 . 0 8 . 7 1 2 7 . 7 26.0 18.2 2 5 . 3
S o b - t o t a l 4 1 4 . 2 5 8 . 2 4 7 2 . 4 35.8 2 7 . 5 3 4 . 5
G r o u p B ( 2 ) t
S h o w L o w 1 4 . 3 1 1 5 . 7 1 3 0 . 0 3 2 . 8 29.3 29.6
L a k e s i d e 2 7 . 1 1 0 5 . 3 1 3 2 . 4 38.7 2 3 . 2 2 5 . 3
S u b - t o t a l 4 1 . 4 2 2 1 . 0 2 6 2 . 4 3 6 . 4 26.0 2 7 . 3
G r o u p C :
S p r i n o e r v l l l e 1 5 . 7 56.7 7 2 . 4 2 9 . 2 . 2 8 . 7 _ 2 8 . 8
P i n e t o p — 9 3 . 2 9 3 . 2 — 2 9 . 7 2 9 . 7
M t i i a r y — 4 8 . 1 4 8 . 1 — 3 2 . 3 3 2 . 3
1 5 . 7 198.0 2 1 3 . 7 2 9 . 2 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0
T o t a l 6 0 7 . 4 485.0 1 , 0 9 2 . 4 3 7 . 3 28.0 3 2 . 5
S o u r c e % F i g u r e s 4 9 a n d 5 0
Table 37. Alley Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
C o m u n i t y a n d L a n d U s e A r e a - A c r e s P e r c e n t o f T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
C o m m u n i t y G r o u p s M o r m o n M o n - M o m o n A l l M o r m o n N o n - M o r m o n A l l
______________________________________T o w n s l t e T o w n s i t e S u b d i v i s i o n s __________T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e ___________ S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A i
J o s e p h C i t y 0 . 0 - — — • 0 . 0 — 0 . 0
T a y l o r 0 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 . 0 8 . 0 0 . 6
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 0 ' 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 . 0 8 . 0 0 . 3
G r o u p B ( 1 ) s
S n o w f l a k e 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
S t . J o h n s 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
E a g e r 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
G r o u p B ( 2 ) x
S h o w L o w 0 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 3 0 . 3
L a k e s i d e 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1
G r o u p C x
S p r i n g e r v i l l e 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
P i n e t o p — 3 . 3 3 . 3 — 1 . 1 1 . 1
M c f l a r y “ 2 . 0 2 . 0 — - ■ 1 . 4 1 . 4
S u b — t o t a l 0 . 0 5 . 3 5 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 8 0 . 7
T o t a l 0 . 0 7 . 5 7 . 5 0 . 0 0 . 4 0 . 2
S o u r c e x F i m i r e s 40 a n d 5 0
234
level of Mormon influence have no alleys in their non-Mormon townsites,
Table 37. Taylor's non-Mormon townsite has alley layout, and is an
exception. In other states or countries, a Mormon townsite may on
rare occasions have alleys, one example being Sterling, Alberta,
Canada.^
The high percentage of street area would suggest other dif
ferences within the two townsite street systems. For example, the
Mormon system might have a greater number of streets or wider streets
than the non-Mormon system. Street spacing as shown by Table 38 does
not bear out this suggestion. The squareness of Mormon blocks con
trasted to narrow-rectangular blocks prevalent in the non-Mormon system
explains this finding. As to street width, the wider Mormon streets
are the factor that chiefly account for the larger area. As to be
expected. Group A with a Mormon townsite pattern has the greatest
street width.
Evidence from materials used to develop Table 38 shows that
street intervals and street widths for the Mormon townsite are very
regular. Eagar's street system is the principal exception. The non-
Mormon intervals and widths are usually inconsistent and irregular.
Lowry Nelson; op. cit., p. 245.2
235
Table 38, Average Street Intersection Intervals and Street Widths,by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
Community and Community Groups
Averano Street Interval Mormon Hon-MormonTownsite Townsite(Feet) (Feet)
AverageMormonTownsite(Feet)
Street VJiclth Non-Mormon Townsite (Feet)
Group 7\:Joseph City 396.0 — 100.0 — —
Taylor 3.96,0 230.0 98.8 50.0Sub-Total 396.0 230.0 99.3 50.0
Group B (1) :Snowflake 396.0 238.2 99.0 50.0St, Johns 396.0 373.9 94.5 69.3Eagar 550.0 366.7 68.2 43.2
Sub-Total 432.2 333.0 86.0 58.7Group B (2) : • '
Show Low 429.0 277.9 75.2 55.5Lakeside 429.0 289.4 97.5 50.0
Sub-Total 429.0 283.6 80.4 52.7Group C:
Springerville 455.0 - 303.8 70.7 55.3Pinetop ——— 291.1 -— 66.1Mcllary — — 250.0 ——— 57.0
Sub-Total 455.0 290.2 70.7 60.4Total 424.2 296.2 88.4 56.3
Source: Figure 50
236
Street Length Characteristics
Developed street length has been summarized by Table 39, with
an indication of length to developed area in ratio form. Relatively
speaking, street lengths in a non-Mormon townsite are greater than
those in a Mormon townsite, which is in direct contrast to the area
relationship. Although this length relationship is consistent for
all communities, except St. Johns, and for the four groups, the
difference is usually not one of tremendous importance.
The Plat of Zion is the source for the emphasis upon compass
street direction. The streets of the eight Mormon townsites have only
1.6 percent of their street lengths in a non-compass direction. This
low value is in sharp contrast to the 22.2 percent found for the nine
non-Mormon townsites, Table 40. Group A shows the purest Mormon sit
uation with zero percent, or a perfect conformity to this principle of
Zion.
Streets that penetrate a grid pattern at inconvenient angles
or the presence of short, court-like streets have been called "pene
tration streets." There has been a general tendency for the Mormon
townsite to repel these unplanned penetrations as compared to the
non-Mormon townsite, Table 41, On an overall basis the percentage is
slight in either case, and variations occur when inspecting each com
munity. In spite of these reversals for Taylor, Snowflake, St. Johns,
and Lakeside, the results give limited proof that the Mormon street
system serves its community better than non-Mormon patterns.
237
Table 39. Length of Developed Streets, by Subdivision Type,for Each Community
Community and Developed Street LengthCommunity Groups Mo men Non-Mormon
Townsitc TownsitcFeet Feet
Ratio: Street Lengthto Developed Area Mormon Non-Mormon Townsite Townsite
Group AsJoseph City 25,007 ——— 211.0 —
Taylor 33,900 6,300 184.3 493.8
Sub-total 59,700 6,800 195.0 493.8
Group B (1) :Snowflake 62,600 1,800 213.7 390.7
St. Johns 70,500 22,600 173.9 168.4
Eagar 76,600 8,800 167.3 184.5
Sub-total 209,700 43,200 181.4 203.4Group B (2):
Show Low 0,300 90,900 190.4 230.0Lakeside 12,100 71,700 172.6 202.2Sub-total 20,400 182,600 179.4 215.1
Group C:Springerville 9,700 44,700 180.6 226.0Pinetop — 61,400 — 196.9McNary ——— 36,700 — 246.6Sub-total 9,700 142,800 180. G 216.4
Total 297,500 375,400 183.8 1 216.4
Source: Figure 50
238
Table 40. Street Length Not Compass in Direction, by SubdivisionType, for Each Community,
Community and Street LengthCommunity Croups Not Conoass Direction
Mormon Non-MormonTownsitc Townsite Feet Foot
, - !Percentage: Length NotCompass of Developed Length Mormon Non-MormonTowns ite Tovmsite
Group AtJoseph City 0 — 0.0 —
Taylor . 0 0 0.0 0.0
Sub-total 0 0 0.0 0.0
Group 3 (1) :
. Snowflake 0 3,000 0.0 25.4
St. Johns 3,300 4,700 4.7 20.8
Eagar 0 900 0.0 10.2
Sub-total 3,300 8,600 . 1.6 . 19.9
Group B (2):Show Low 0 18,900 0.0 20.8Lakeside 1,600 22,400 13.2 24.4
Suli-total 1,600 .41,300 7.8 22.7
Group C:Springerville 0 8,900 0.0 19.9
t'inctor —— 19,400 — 31.6McMary — 5,100 —— 13.9
Sub-total 0 33,400 0.0 23.4Total 4,900 03,300 1.6 22.2
Source: Finure 50
239' '* - -
Table 41. Length of Penetration Streets, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
Community and Penetration Street Length Percentage: PenetrationCommunity Groups Mormon Mon-Mormon Length of Developed length
Towns!to Townsite Mormon Mon-Mormon__________________(Feet)_______ (Feet)_________ Towns ite____ Townsitc
Group A:Joseph City 0 - 0.0 -—
Taylor 400 0 . 1.2 0.0
Sub-total 400 0 0.7 . 0.0
Group B (1):Snowflake 600 0 1.0 • 0.0
St. Johns 3,500 3,200 5.0 14.2
Eagar 0 0 0.0 0.0
Sub-total 4,100 3,200 2.0 7.4Group B (2):
Show Low 500 8,900 6.0 9.8Lakeside 900 2,400 7.4 2.6
Sub-total 1,400 11,300 6.9 6.2Group C:
Springerville 0 500 0.0 1.1Pinetop - 2,200 —— 3.6McNary - 0 -— 0.0
Sub-total 0 2,700 0.0 1.9Total 5,900 17,200 2.0 4.6
Source: Figure 50
240
From another viewpoint, however, the street system of a Mormon
townsite often has been xmderdeveloped. Table 42. The overplatting of
the St. Johns community has been especially significant for both Mor
mon and non-Mormon townsites.
•Residential Land Use Comparisons
The original residential land use system for a Mormon townsite
included four square-shaped lots per block. The size of each lot was
about one acre, and the lot included separate pieces for house, sheds,.and large gardens, small pastures or orchards. Previous chapters have
shown that this basic pattern no longer exists to a high degree in
communities such as Snowflake and St. Johns. For this section of this
chapter information from ten communities has been gathered to compare
existing residential patterns, Mormon with non-Mormon, for further
definition of the relationships.
Residential Area and Density
A measurement of area immediately surrounding dwelling units
and used for residential purposes has been summarized by Table 43. For
all subdivisions, the residential size varies from 31.6 acres at Joseph
City, the smallest, community, to 305.7 acres at Lakeside, one of the
larger communities. For all communities, the residential area in the
non-Mormon townsites is nearly 800 acres, or twice the Mormon townsite
use.
On a relative basis, for all communities the residential use in
the non-Mormon townsite exceeds that of the Mormon townsite by about
241
Table 42, Proportion of Platted Streets Actually Developed, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
C c n r r a n i t y a n d
C o m u n i t y G r o u p s
D e v e l o p e d S t r e e t L e n g t h T o t a l S t r e e t L e n g t h
M o m o n H o n - K o m o n f t o m o n • B o n - M o m o n
T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e
F e e t F e e t F e e t F e e t
P e r c e n t a g e % D e v e l o p e d
L e n g t h o f T o t a l L e n g t h
M o m o n M o n - M o r m o n
T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e
G r o u p A %
J o s e p h C i t y 2 5 , 8 0 0 — 2 7 , 0 0 0 — 9 5 . 6 — —
T a y l o r 3 3 , 5 0 0 6 , 8 0 0 4 2 , 7 0 0 6 , 8 0 0 7 0 . 4 1 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 5 9 , 3 0 0 0 , 8 0 0 6 9 , 7 0 0 6 , 8 0 0 8 5 . 1 1 0 0 . 0
G r o u p B ( 1 ) :
S n o w f l a k e 6 2 , 0 0 0 1 1 , 8 0 0 8 2 , 2 0 0 1 5 , 3 0 0 7 5 . 4 7 7 . 1
S t . J o h n s 6 7 , 0 0 0 1 9 , 4 0 0 1 0 4 , 0 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 6 4 . 4 3 8 . 8
E a g a r 7 6 , 6 0 0 8 , 8 0 0 9 0 , 7 5 0 1 1 , 4 0 0 8 4 . 4 7 7 . 2
S u b - t o t a l 2 5 0 , 6 0 0 4 0 , 0 0 0 2 7 6 , 9 5 0 7 6 , 7 0 0 7 4 . 2 5 2 . 2
G r o u p B ( 2 ) t
S h o w L o w 7 , 0 0 0 8 2 , 0 0 0 9 , 3 0 0 4 8 , 9 0 0 5 9 . 1 9 0 . 0
L a k e s i d e 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 9 , 3 0 0 1 7 , 8 0 0 9 4 , 9 0 0 6 2 . 9 9 4 . 1
S u b - t o t a l 1 9 , 0 0 0 1 7 1 , 3 0 0 2 7 , 1 0 0 1 8 6 , 0 0 0 7 0 . 1 9 2 . 1
G r o u p C i
S p r i n g e r v i l l e 9 , 7 0 0 4 4 , 2 0 0 1 6 , 4 0 0 4 8 , 9 0 0 5 9 . 1 9 0 . 4
P i n e t o p — 5 9 , 2 0 0 — 6 5 , 3 0 0 — 9 0 . 7
K t i J a r y — 3 6 , 7 0 3 - — 3 6 , 7 0 0 — 1 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 9 , 7 0 0 1 0 4 , 1 0 0 1 6 , 4 0 0 1 5 0 , 9 0 0 5 9 . 1 9 2 . 8
T o t a l 2 9 3 , 6 0 0 3 5 8 , 2 0 0 3 9 0 , 1 5 0 4 2 0 , 4 0 0 7 5 . 3 8 5 . 2
S o u r c e % F i g u r e 5 0
242
Table 43. Residential Land Use, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community
C o m u n i t y a n d
C o m u n i t y G r o u p s
L a n d U s e A r e a -
M o m o n N o n - t M o m o n
T o w n s ! t e T o w n s ! t e
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
P e r c e n t o f
M o m o n
T o w n s i t e
T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
M o n - M o r m o n A l l
T o w n s i t e S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A t
J o s e p h C i t y 3 1 . 6 — 3 1 . 6 2 5 . 8 — 2 5 . 8
T a y l o r 3 1 . 7 4 . 4 3 6 . 1 1 7 . 2 3 1 . 9 ^ 1 8 . 2
S u b - t o t a l 6 3 . 3 . 4 . 4 6 7 . 7 2 0 . 7 3 1 . 9 2 1 . 2
G r o u p B ( 1 ) t
S n o w f l a k e 7 3 . 4 1 6 . 1 0 9 . 5 2 5 . 0 5 3 . 3 2 7 . 7
S t . J o h n s 1 0 2 . 6 2 8 . 4 1 3 1 . 0 2 5 . 3 2 1 . 2 2 4 . 3
E a g a r 1 1 1 . 7 1 0 . 7 1 2 2 . 4 2 4 . 4 2 2 . 4 2 4 . 2
S u b - t o t a l 2 8 7 . 7 5 5 . 2 3 4 2 . 9 2 4 . 9 2 6 . 0 2 5 . 1
G r o u p B ( 2 ) t
S h o w L o . / 1 6 . 4 1 5 2 . 3 1 6 8 . 7 3 7 . 6 3 8 . 5 3 8 . 4
L a k e s i d e 2 4 . 6 2 8 1 . 1 3 0 5 . 7 3 5 . 1 6 2 . 0 5 8 . 4
S u b - t o t a l 4 1 . 0 4 3 3 . 4 4 7 4 . 4 3 6 . 1 5 1 . 1 4 9 . 3
G r o u p C t
S p r i n g e r v i l l e 9 . 7 7 9 . 3 8 9 . 0 1 8 . 1 4 0 . 1 3 5 . 4
P i n e t o p — 1 5 9 . 9 1 5 9 . 9 — 5 1 . 0 5 1 . 0
F c J i a r y — 6 2 . 1 6 2 . 1 — 4 1 . 7 • 4 1 . 7
S u b - t o t a l 9 . 7 3 0 1 . 3 3 1 1 . 0 1 8 . 1 4 5 . 6 4 3 . 6
T o t a l 4 0 1 . 7 7 9 4 . 3 1 , 1 9 6 . 0 2 4 . 7 4 5 . 8 3 5 . 6
Sources F ig ure 40
243
twenty percentage points. At the community level exceptions of this
order occur at St. Johns and Eagar. At the group level no exceptions
occur although the margin is narrow for Group B(l) which includes the
two exceptional communities, i.e., St. Johns and Eagar. The degree
of Mormon influence is illustrated by comparing Group A with Group
B (1), et cetera. This relationship is consistent group to group
for the Mormon townsite, A similar relationship is illustrated by
comparing the non-Mormon townsite percentages of Groups A and B(l)
with Groups B (2) and C. There is some evidence here that characteris
tics of a Mormon townsite are carried over to the non-Mormon portion
when community-wide Mormon influence is significant.
This carryover of Mormon influence from Mormon townsite to
non-Mormon has been shown by Table 44 for agriculture land use (usually
irrigated land). The rationale is simply that Mormon communities
developed on an irrigated agricultural base while non-Mormon communi
ties generally did not. Where Mormon influence has been high, as at
St. Johns and Eagar, the agriculture percentage is high for both
Mormon and non-Mormon towns!tes. However, on an overall basis the
agriculture percentage is seventeen percentage points higher for the
Mormon than the non-Mormon townsite. The Mormon community influence
shows for all subdivision types when Groups A and B(l) are compared to
Groups B(2) and C.
It might be expected that the influence of an original lot size
of about one acre would produce a high residential area per housing
unit for the Mormon townsite. The area per unit, Mormon townsite, is
244
Table 44, Agriculture Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity
C o m u n i t y a n d L a n d U s e A r e a - A c r e s P e r c e n t o f T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
G o m u n i t y G r o u p s M o r m o n N o n - M o r m o n A l l M o r m o n N o n - M o r m o n A l l
________________________________________ T o w n s i t e T o w n s ! t o S u b d i v i s i o n s ____________T o w n s 1 t o T o s m s i t e __________S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A s
J o s e p h C i t y
T a y l o r
S u b - t o t a l
G r o u p B ( 1 ) s
1 3 . 3
6 3 . 0
7 6 . 3
— 1 3 . 3
6 3 . 0
7 6 . 3
1 0 . 9
3 4 . 2
2 4 . 9
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 9
3 1 . 9
2 3 . 8
S n o w f l a k e 1 1 . 0 — 1 1 . 0 3 . 7 0 . 0 3 . 4
S t . J o h n s 1 1 1 . 9 6 4 . 7 1 7 6 . 6 2 7 . 6 4 8 . 2 3 2 . 7
E a o a r 1 7 3 . 9 2 3 . 4 1 9 7 . 3 3 8 . 0 4 9 . 1 3 9 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 2 9 6 . 8 8 8 . 1 3 8 4 . 9 2 5 . 7 4 1 . 6 2 8 . 1
G r o u p B ( 2 ) s
S h o w L o w 1 . 8 8 . 0 9 . 8 4 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 2
L a k e s i d e — 3 . 7 3 . 7 0 . 0 0 . 8 0 . 7
S u b - t o t a l 1 . 0 1 1 . 7 1 3 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 4
G r o u p C s
S p r i n g e r v i l i e 1 0 . 3 7 . 8 1 8 . 1 1 9 . 2 4 . 0 7 . 2
P i n e t o p — — - — — 0 . 0 0 . 0
M c N a r y — - ----------. — — - 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 1 0 . 3 7 . 8 1 8 . 1 1 9 . 2 1 . 2 2 . 5
T o t a l 3 8 5 . 2 1 0 7 . 6 4 9 2 . 8 2 3 . 6 6 . 2 1 4 . 6
Sources F igure 49
245
about 14,000 square feet which is much larger than most city lots,
but this value is not much larger than that for the non-Mormon town-
site, Table 45. In the Mormon townsites, the area per unit varies
from 9,349 square feet at Snowflake to 16,778 square feet at Eagar. A
wider range exists for the non-Momon townsites, from 6,046 square feet
at Snowflake to 17,198 square feet at Lakeside. The non-Momon unit
areas are relatively small at Snowflake, Taylor, and McNary, but they
are significantly large at Lakeside and Pinetop which are primarily
resort communities. The unit area is also large for communities .
thought to be of low Mormon influence such as Springerville and show
Low.
Housing Counts and Proportions
Generally, single-family units account for about 85 percent of
the housing supply, with mobile homes at thirteen percent, and multi
ple family units at only three percent. The Mormon townsite tends to
have a slightly higher percentage on single-family residences than
non-Mormon, but the relationship shifts from community to community and group to group, Table 46.
The distinction is more pronounced for mobile homes, although
the community by community pattern is ambiguous, Table 47. On an
overall basis, the non-Mormon townsite has a definite.edge in mobile
homes at such rapidly growing resorts as Lakeside, Show Low, and Pinetop
accounts for this result. Relatively fast growing places such as Eagar,
Springerville, Snowflake, and Taylor have a much greater development
246
Table 45. Residential Density, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
Community and Residential Density:Community Groups All Housing Units
Mormon Non-MormonTownsite Townsite
SquareMormonTownsite
Feet per Unit Non-Mormon Townsite
Group A:
Joseph City 83 —— 16,584 —
Taylor 110 25 12,553 7,666Sub-total 193 25 14,287 7,666
Group B(l):
Snowflake 342 116 9,349 6,046
St. Johns 289 89 15,465 13,900Eagar 290 36 16,770 12,947
Sub-total 921 241 13,607 9,977
Group B (2):Show Low 62 588 11,532 11,284Lakeside 66 712 16,250 17,198
Sub-total 128 1,300 14,043 14,523
Group C:
Springe zrville 42 269 . 10,060 12,844
Pinetop — 413 —— 16,870
McNary — 327 — 8,273Sub-total 42 1,009 10,060 13,011
Total 1,284 2,575 14,030 13,439
Source: Field notes for Figure 49
247
Table 46. Single-Family Housing Count, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community
Community and Single-Family Units Percentage: Single-FamilyCommunity Groups (Occupied) of Total Occupied Units
MormonTownsite
Non-MormonTownsite
MormonTownsite
Non-MormonTownsite
Group A:
Joseph City 76 — 92.7 —
Taylor 88 19 82.2 76.0
Sub-total 164 19 86.8 76.0
Group B (1) :Snowflake 267 101 80.7 93.5
St. Johns 254 69 95.8 98.6
• Eagar 247 21 87.6 65.6
Sub-total 768 191 87.5 90.9
Group B (2):
Show Low 49 439 87.5 79.1
Lakeside 59 544 92.2 77.6
Sub-total 108 983 90.0 78.2
Group C:Springerville 31 221 81.6 84.3
Pinetop — 324 — 80.0
McNary 354 —— 94.0Sub-total 31 799 81.6 85.4
Total 1,071 1,992 87.4 82.1
Source: Field notes for Figure 49
248
Table 47, Mobile Home Housing Count# by Subdivision Type, forEach Community
Community and Community Groups
Mobile Home Units (Occupied)
Mormon Mon-MormonTownsite Townsite
Percentage: Mobile Homes of Total Occupied Units Mormon Non-MormonTownsite Townsite
Group A:i
Joseph City 6 — • 7.3 —Taylor 19 2 17.8 8 0
Sub-total 25 2 13.2 8.0Group B (1): • .
Snowflake 22 2 6.6 1.9St. Johns 9 1 3.4 1.4Eagar 29 11 10.3 34.4
Sub-total 60 14 6.8 6.7Group B (2):
Show Low 7 89 12.5 16.0Lakeside 5 153 7.0 21.8
Sub-total 12 242 10.0 19.5Group C:
Springervilie 7 35 18.4 13.4Pinetop — 75 — 18.5McNary — 14 . . — 5.2
Sub-total 7 124 18.4 13.3Total 104 382 8.5 15.8
Source: Field notes for Figure 49
249
than at "now growth" places such as St. Johns and McNary. The
multiple-family buildings correlate with growth similarly to mobile
homes, Table 48. The larger communities, Snowflake and Show Low,
have relatively the most multiple-family types.
The concept of growth versus no-growth towns finds signifi
cance also in the vacancy rate, Table 49. The highest rates were found
at McNary and St. Johns, the lowest at Pinetop and Lakeside. The rates
at Show Low and Snowflake seem relatively large, especially for the
non-Mormon townsite of each. Most of Snowflake's non-Mormon townsite
is new, which adds to the importance of this information. Overall, the
higher vacancy of the non-Mormon areas as compared to the Mormon pro
bably results from the depressed housing situation in portions of
McNary and St. Johns.
Residual Mormon Features
Residential features peculiarly Mormon have tended to disap
pear, as shown for Snowflake and St. Johns in previous chapters. The
situation for the eight Mormon townsites has been shown by Figure 51
(In Pocket) and summarized by Table 50.
Originally planned lot lines forming the "four square" pattern
remain on about a fifty percent basis. The small townsite of Show Low
has a high retention factor because its central location has kept the
typical lot size in that area small. The retention factor of 71.8 per
cent for Joseph City is more significant because the Mormon townsite
covers most of the community and because of a high degree of Mormon
250
Table 48, Multiple-Family Housing Count, by Subdivision Type,for Each Community
Comuni ty and Community Groups
Multiple Family Units (Occupied)
Mormon llon-MormonTownsite Townsite
Percentage: Multiple-Family of Total Occupied Units Mormon Non-MormonTownsite Townsite___
Group AtJoseph City 0 — 0.0 —Taylor 0 4 0.0 16.0
Sub-total 0 4 0.0 16.0Group B (1) :
Snowflake 42 5 12.7 4.6
St. Johns 2 0 0.8 0.0
Eagar 6 0 2.1 0.0Sub-total 50 5 5.7 2.4
Group B (2):Show Low 0 27 0.0 4.9Lakeside 0 4 0.0 0.6
Sub-total 0 31 0.0 2.5Group C:
Springerville 0 6 0.0 2.3Pinetop — 6 — 1.5McHary — 0 — 0.0
Sub-total 0 12 0.0 1.3Total 50 52 4.1 2.1
Source: Field notes for Figure 49
251
Table 49, Housing Vacancy, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
i
Community and Vacant Housing UnitsCommunity Groups Mormon Non-Mormon
Towns!to Townsite
Percentage: Vacant Unitsof Total Units Mormon Non-MormonTownsite Townsite
Group A:Joseph City 1 — 1.2 —
Taylor 3 0 2.7 0.0
Sub-total 4 0 2.1 0.0
Group B (1): •
Snowflake 11 8 3.2 6.9St. Johns 24 19 8.3 21.3Eagar 8 4 2.8 11.3
Sub-total 43 31 4.7 12.9Group B (2) :
Show Low 6 33 9.7 5.6Lakeside 2 11 3.0 1.5
Sub-total 8 44 6.3 3.4Group C:
Sprinqerville 4 7 9.5 2.6Pinetop —— C 1.9Mcttary —— 59 — 18.0
Sub-Total 4 74 9.5 7.3Total 59 149 4.6 5.8
Source: Field notes for Figure 49
Table 50. Mormon Residential Features that Exist or Remain, 1968, Mormon Townsite Only, for Eight Communities and Community Groups
Cormmlty Ami riAnne<1 Lot Line Ten nth nianneil Tnt Conf inurntlon Orthodox Houxlna by the Ftomon PlanOnrwmltv Omup) rxlmtlnn Orlnlnal Percent rxlatlnn orlnlnAl Percent Cxlatlnn Percent All
Penalnlnn Total Txlitinn Pcnalnlnn Total KxintlnT PenalnlnT rxlmtlnn (1) rlnnle-famlly Percent Mlloe Milo*________________fin._______ ?To. ______ *__________ Unite lYtlta ' Orthodox (2)
Croup AiJoseph Citv 2.no 1.00 71.n 42 102 41.2 23• • 22.5 77 29.9
Taylor 3.01 6.00 44.0 26 m i 14.4 12 6.6 01 13.2Sub-total 5.01 10.70 54.0 60 201 24.0 35 12.4 160 20.0
Croup B (1)tSnowflake 5.61 11.52 4H.7 41 394 13.5 17 5.6 270 6.1
St. Johns 7.20 16.02 44.9 76 430 17.4 12 7.3 278 11.5
Eanar 6.60 11.04 56.0 119 274 43.4 36 13.1 255 14.1
Sub-total 10.50 39.40 49.4 236 1,016 23.2 05 0.4 011 10.5
Croup n {7.) iShow low 1.14 1.30 07.5 4 36 11.1 2 5.6 55 3.6
Lakeaide 1.50 2.91 51.4 14 on 17.5 6 7.5 61 9.0
Sub-total 2.64 4.23 62.4 10 116 15.5 0 6.9* 116 6.0
Croup CtSoring©rvilie 0.52 1.61 12.0 2 45 4.4 0 0.0 35 0.0
plnetop — — — - - — - — — —
McHmry — — - — - — — - - — T- —
Sub-total 0.52 1.61 32.0 2 43 4.4 0 0.0 35 0.0
Total 20.40 56.13 50.0 324 1,460 22.2 120 0.8 1,130 11.3
(1) Existing, ronalnlnn orthodox units as a percent of orlnlnal no. of planned lots
(2) Existing, remaining orthodox units as a percent of all sinnle-fanily units
Sourcei Fiaure 51
V
252
253
influence as measured by the public land use factor. Group A has a
higher percentage than Group B(l), but the relationship is interrupted
by the unusually high percentage for Group B(2).
As to the square-shaped lot, usually about an acre in size,
Joseph City and Eagar show a high degree of retention at over forty
percent for each place. In contrast, Show Low’s retention is very
low, as is Springerville’s. A rather consistent relationship occurs
between groups, with Group A being the highest and Group C the lowest.
The retention of a residence per Mormon lot has proven to be
very low, see "orthodox housing by the Mormon plan" in Table 50. For
both sets of percentages a descending order has been set up: Group A
to Group C, and Joseph City clearly has the highest degree of reten
tion.
Land Use Quantity Comparisons
Tables 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 summarize the remaining uses to
which developed area has been put in the ten communities in relation
to the townsite type. Public and semi-public land use on an overall
basis is very nearly equal, Mormon townsite to non-Mormon townsite,
whether the measure is size or proportion. The low proportion at
Pinetop and high proportion at Snowflake and Lakeside are shown by
Table 51. The proportion at McNary is surprisingly high and does not
agree with the low figures in the previous chapter. However, the com
pactness of McNary's townsite creates a distorted image when this
measurement is considered
254
Table 51, Public and Semi-Public Land Use, by Subdivision Type,for Each Community
C o m u n i t y a n d
C o n n u n i t y G r o u p s
L a n d
M o m o n
T o w n s i t e
U s e A r e a -
! Z o n - ? f o m o n
T o w n s i t e
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
P e r c e n t o f T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
M o r m o n N o n - l t o m o n A l l
* T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A i
J o s e p h C i t y 9 . 9 — 9 . 9 8 . 1 — - 8 . 1
T a y l o r 6 . 4 — 6 . 4 3 . 5 0 . 0 3 . 2
S u b - t o t a l 1 6 . 3 — 1 6 . 3 5 . 3 0 . 0 5 . 1
G r o u p B ( 1 ) i
S n o w f l a k e 3 4 . 2 0 . 2 3 4 . 4 1 1 . 7 0 . 7 1 0 . 6
S t . J o h n s 1 9 . 4 2 . 1 2 1 . 5 4 . 8 l . G 4 . 0
E a g a r 1 9 . 1 0 . 3 1 9 . 4 ' 4 . 1 • • 0 . 6 3 . 8
S u b - t o t a l " 7 2 . 7 2 . 6 7 5 . 3 6 . 3 1 . 2 5 . 5
G r o u p B ( 2 )
S h o w L o w 3 . 7 1 6 . 7 2 0 . 4 0 . 5 4 . 2 4 . 6
L a k e s i d e 7 . 5 3 8 . 6 4 6 . 1 1 0 . 7 8 . 5 8 . 8
S u b - t o t a l 1 1 . 2 5 5 . 3 6 6 . 5 9 . 9 6 . 5 6 . 9
G r o u p C i
S p r i n g e r v i l i e — 1 3 . 8 1 3 . 8 0 . 0 7 . 0 5 . 5
P i n e t o ? - — 8 . 6 8 . 6 — 2 . 7 2 . 7
M c l l a r y - — 1 5 . 8 1 5 . 8 — 1 0 . 6 1 0 . 6
S u b - t o t a l — 3 8 . 2 3 8 . 2 0 . 0 5 . 8 5 . 4
T o t a l 1 0 0 . 2 9 6 . 1 • 1 9 6 . 3 6 . 1 5 . 5 5 . 8
Sourcei F igure 49
255
Table 52. Commercial Land Use# by Subdivision Type# for Each Community
C o m u n i t y a n d
C o m m u n i t y G r o u p s
L a n d
M o m o n
T o w n s i t e
U s e A r e a -
N o n - M o m o n
T o w n s ! t e
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
P e r c e n t o f T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
M o m o n N o n - M o r m o n A l l
T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A ;
J o s e p h C i t y 2 . 7 — 2 . 7 2 . 2 — 2 . 2
T a y l o r 2 . 5 - — 2 . 5 1 . 4 0 . 0 1 . 3
S u b - t o t a l 5 . 2 - — 5 . 2 1 . 7 0 . 0 1 . 6
G r o u p B ( 1 ) i
S n o w f l a k e 0 . 5 0 . 4 8 . 9 2 . 9 1 . 3 2 . 8
S t , J o h n s 5 . 0 2 . 3 7 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 7 1 . 4
E a q a r 2 . 2 0 . 3 2 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 5
S u b - t o t a l 1 5 . 7 3 . 0 1 8 . 7 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 4
G r o u p B ( 2 ) i
S h o w L o w 2 . 1 4 0 . 8 4 2 . 9 4.8 1 0 . 3 9 . 8
L a k e s i d e 6 . 1 1 8 . 9 2 5 . 0 8 . 7 4 . 2 4 . 8
S u b - t o t a l 8 . 2 5 9 . 7 6 7 . 9 7 . 2 7 . 0 7 . 0
G r o u p C :
S p r i n g e r v i l l e 5 . 2 2 1 . 6 2 6 . 8 9 . 7 1 0 . 9 1 0 . 7
P i n e t o p — 4 4 . 6 44.6 — 1 4 . 2 1 4 . 2
K c M a r y — 7 . 0 7 . 0 — 4 . 7 4 . 7
S u b - t o t a l 5 . 2 7 3 . 2 7 8 . 4 9 . 7 1 1 . 1 1 1 . 0
T o t a l 3 4 . 3 1 3 5 . 9 1 7 0 . 2 2 . 1 7 . 8 5 . 1
Source t F igure <19
256
Table 53. Industrial Land Use, by Subdivision Type, forEach Community
C o n r a n i t v a n d
C o m m u n i t y G r o u p s
L a n d U s e A r e a -
M o m o n N o n - r o m o n
T c r . m s i t e T e r . m s i t o
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
P e r c e n t o f T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
! #o m o n ! ! o n - ! ! o r r o n A l l
T o t m s i t e T o ' . m s i t e S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A t
J o s e p h C i t y 0 . 2 — 0 . 2 0 . 2 — 0 . 2
T a y l o r 1 . 4 0 . 5 1 . 9 0 . 8 3 . 6 1 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 1 . 6 • 0 . 5 2 . 1 0 . 5 3 . 6 0 . 7
G r o u p B ( 1 ) t
S n o w f l a k e 5 . 6 5 . 6 1 . 9 0 . 0 1 . 7
S t , J o h n s 1 0 . 4 — 1 0 . 4 2 . 6 0 . 0 1 . 9
E a g e r 1 . 8 0 . 7 2 . 5 0 . 4 1 . 5 0 . 5
S u b - t o t a l * 1 7 . 8 0 . 7 1 8 . 5 1 . 5 0 . 3 1 . 4
G r o u p B ( 2 ) i
S h o w L o w 2 . 1 2 1 . 9 2 4 . 0 4 . 8 5 . 6 5 . 5
L a k e s i d e - — - — — 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 2 . 1 2 1 . 9 2 4 . 0 1 . 8 2 . 6 2 . 5
G r o u p C i
S p r i n q e r v i l l e 1 0 . 7 3 . 7 1 4 . 4 1 9 . 9 1 . 9 5 . 7
P i n e t o p — 0 . 2 0 . 2 — 0 . 1 0 . 1
K c N a r y — — — — 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 1 0 . 7 3 . 9 1 4 . 6 19.9 0 . 6 2 . 0 .
T o t a l 3 2 . 2 2 7 . 0 5 9 . 2 2 . 0 1 . 6 1 . 8
Sourcei F ig ure 49
257
Table 54. Miscellaneous Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity ,
C o m u n i t y a n d
C o m u n i t y G r o u p s
L a n d
H o m o n
T o w n s i t e
U s e A r e a -
l l o n - M o m o n
T o w n s i t e
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
P e r c e n t o f
M o m o n
T o v m s i t e
T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
N o n - M o r m o n A l l
T o w n s i t e S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A s
J o s e p h C i t y 5 . 4 — 5 . 4 4 . 4 - — 4 . 4
T a y l o r 2 . 0 — 2 . 0 1 . 1 0 . 0 1 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 7 . 4 — 7 . 4 2 . 4 0 . 0 2 . 3
G r o u p B ( 1 ) :
S n o w f l a k e 6 . 7 - — 6 . 7 2 . 3 0 . 0 2 . 1
S t . J o h n s 3 . 1 0 . 7 3 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 5 0 . 7
E a g e r 3 0 . 2 3 . 6 3 3 . 0 6 . 6 7 . 6 . 6 . 7
S u b - t o t a l 4 0 . 0 4 . 3 4 4 , 3 3 . 5 2 . 0 3 . 2
G r o u p B ( 2 ) i
S h o w L o w . 3 . 2 3 8 . 9 4 2 . 1 7 . 4 9 . 8 9 . 6
L a k e s i d e 4 . 8 5 . 8 1 0 . 6 6 . 8 1 . 3 2 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 8 . 0 4 4 . 7 5 2 . 7 7 . 0 . 5 . 3 5 . 5
G r o u p C i
S p r i n g e r v i l i e 2 . 1 1 4 . 7 1 6 . 8 3 . 9 7 . 4 6 . 7
P i n e t o p — 3 . G 3 . o — 1 . 2 1 . 2
M c N a r y — — — -- — — ----- . — 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 2 . 1 1 8 . 3 2 0 . 4 3 . 9 2 . 8 2 . 9 e
T o t a l 5 7 . 5 6 7 . 3 1 2 4 . 8 3 . 5 3 . 9 3 . 7
Source: F igure A O
258
Table 55. Railroad Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community ;
C o m m u n i t y a n d L a n d U s e A r e a - A c r e s P e r c e n t o f T o t a l D e v e l o p e d A r e a
C o m i n i t y G r o u p s : t o r r o n M o n - M o m o n A l l M o r m o n M o n - M o r m o n A l l
__________ Tty-multo Totmslte Subdivisions_______Toi/nslte Townsite______Subdivisions
G r o u p A :
J o s e p h C i t y 0 . 0 — 0 . 0 0 . 0 — 0 . 0
T a y l o r 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
G r o u p B ( 1 ) x
S n o w f l a k e 1 1 . 3 0 . 0 1 1 . 3 3 . 9 0 . 0 3 . 5
S t . J o h n s 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
E a g a r 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 1 1 . 3 0 . 0 1 1 . 3 1 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 8
G r o u p B ( 2 ) t
S h o w L o w 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
L a k e s i d e 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
G r o u p C i
S p r i n o e r v i l l c 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
P i n e t o p — 0 . 0 0 . 0 — 0 . 0 0 . 0
M c M a r y — 1 3 . 0 1 3 . 8 — 9 . 3 9 . 3
S u b - t o t a l 0 . 0 1 3 . 0 1 3 . 8 0 . 0 . 2 . 1 1 . 9
T o t a l 1 1 . 3 1 3 . 8 2 5 . 1 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 7
Source i P im ire 40
259The great extent of commercial land use in the non-Mormon
townsite and in communities of lower Mormon influence is shown by
Table 52. The differences shown here clearly reveal the degree to
which the commercial function is found in the various communities. On
the other hand, industrial land use shows no similar pattern. In fact,
the Mormon townsites have the higher overall percentage, although the
margin is slim. However, communities of lower Mormon influence
(Groups B(2) and C) do have a higher set of group percentages for all
subdivisions than do Groups A or B(l). Miscellaneous land use simply
appears as inconsistent, Table 54, and railroad land use is a matter
of information only, Table 55.
Developed land area and its relationship to total area is sum
marized by Table 56. On an overall basis, the Mormon townsite is
better developed than the non-Mormon, by ten percentage points. This
relationship occurs for each community.
Undeveloped street area is itemized by Table 57. Usually the
Mormon towns ite has the higher percentage, which agrees with the
developed street length analysis in the previous section of this chap
ter. The non-Mormon townsite has the larger proportion of vacant land,
and this relationship exists for each community, Table 58.
The final table compares a gross density value on the sub
division type basis, community by community (Table 59). The typical
situation in the Mormon townsite is a larger amount of land per dwel
ling unit than in the non-Mormon townsite, on the average about fifty
percent higher. This relationship occurs in each community except for
260
Table 56, Developed Land Use, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
C o m u n i t y a n d
C o m u n i t y G r o u p s
L a n d U s e A r e a -
M o m o n u o n - ! i o m o n
T o m s i t e T o w n s i t e
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
P e r c e n t o f T o t a l
M o m o n N o n - M o m o n
T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e
A r e a
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A t
J o s e p h C i t y 1 2 2 . 3 1 2 2 . 3 7 9 . 1 — 7 9 . 1
T a y l o r 1 8 3 . 9 1 3 . 8 1 9 7 . 7 7 0 . 7 6 3 . 6 7 0 . 1
S u b - t o t a l 3 0 6 . 2 1 3 . 8 3 2 0 . 0 7 3 . 8 6 3 . 6 7 3 . 3
G r o u p B ( 1 ) t
S n o w f l a k e 2 9 3 . 0 3 0 . 2 3 2 3 . 2 6 4 . 2 4 1 . 5 6 1 . 6
S t , J o h n s 4 0 5 . 3 1 3 4 . 2 5 3 9 . 5 6 7 . 9 4 3 . 8 5 9 . 7
E a g a r 4 5 7 . 9 4 7 . 7 5 0 5 . 6 ' 7 5 . 4 6 9 . 7 7 4 . 8
S u b - t o t a l 1 , 1 5 6 . 2 2 1 2 . 1 1 , 3 6 8 . 3 6 9 . 6 4 7 . 4 6 4 . 9
G r o u p B ( 2 ) t
S h o w L o i / 4 3 . 6 3 9 5 . 4 4 3 9 . 0 8 7 . 7 6 1 . 1 6 3 . 0
L a k e s i d e 7 0 . 1 4 5 3 . 4 5 2 3 . 5 6 5 . 2 5 9 . 7 6 0 . 4
S u b - t o t a l 1 1 3 . 7 8 4 8 . 0 9 6 2 . 5 7 2 . 3 6 0 . 3 6 1 . 5
G r o u p C t .
S p r i n g e r v i l i e 5 3 . 7 1 9 7 . 6 2 5 1 . 3 7 2 . 1 . 6 6 . 8 6 7 . 9
P i n e t o p — 3 1 3 . 4 3 1 3 . 4 — 5 6 . 4 5 6 . 4
M c ' I a r y — 1 4 8 . 8 1 4 3 . 8 — • 9 1 . 3 9 1 . 3
S u b - t o t a l 5 3 . 7 6 5 9 . 8 7 1 3 . 5 7 2 . 1 6 5 . 0 6 5 . 5
T o t a l 1 , 6 2 9 . 8 1 , 7 3 4 . 5 3 , 3 6 4 . 3 7 0 . 6 6 0 . 0 6 4 . 7
Sourcei F igure 49
261
Table 57, Undeveloped Street Land Use, by Subdivision Type,for Each Community ,
C o r r r u n i t y a n d L a n d U s e A r e a - A c r e s P e r c e n t o f T o t a l A r e a
C o m u n l t y G r o u p M o r m o n H o n - M o r m o n M l M o m n n M o n - M o r m o n A l l
______________________________________T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e ^ ^ d i v l s l o n s __________T C T m s i t e T o & m s l t e __________S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A t
J o s e p h C i t y 1 . 8 — 1 . 8 1 . 2 — 1 . 2
T a y l o r 4 . 6 . --------- 4 . 6 1 . 8 0 . 0 1 . 6
S u b - t o t a l 6 . 4 — 6 . 4 1 . 5 0 . 0 1 . 5
G r o u p B ( 1 ) t
S n o w f l a k e 4 2 . 5 4 . 0 4 6 . 5 9 . 3 5 . 5 8 . 8
S t . J o h n s 4 9 . 7 4 4 . 4 9 4 . 1 8 . 3 1 4 . 5 1 0 . 4
E a n a r ' 1 2 . 4 3 . 5 1 5 . 9 2 . 0 5 . 1 2 . 3
S u b - t o t a l 1 0 4 . 6 5 1 . 9 1 5 6 . 5 6 . 3 1 1 . 6 7 . 4
G r o u p B ( 2 ) t
S h o w L o w 0 . 6 0 . 8 9 . 4 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 3
L a k e s i d e 4 . 0 5 . 2 9 . 2 3 . 7 0 . 7 1 . 1
S u b - t o t a l 4 . 6 1 4 . 0 1 8 . 6 2 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 2
G r o u p C t
S p r i n g e r v i l l e 7 . 1 . 6 . 0 1 3 . 1 9 . 5 2 . 0 3 . 5
P i r x t o p — 5 . 1 5 . 1 • — • 0 . 9 0 . 9
M c M a r y — — - — — 0 . 0 0 . 0
S u b - t o t a l 7 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 8 . 2 9 . 5 . 1 . 1 1 . 7
T o t a l 1 2 2 . 7 7 7 . 0 1 9 9 . 7 5 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 8
Sourcet F igure 50
262
Table 58, Vacant Land Area, by Subdivision Type, for EachCommunity
L a n d V s c A r e a - A c r e s P e r c e n t o f T o t a l A r e a
C o m u n i t y a n d
C o m u n i t y G r o u n s
M o m o n
T o r . m s i t e
T ? o n - r ,. o m o n
T e r m s i t e
M l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
R a m o n
T o w n s i t e
M o n - M o m o n
T o & m s i t e
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A s
J o s e p h C i t y 3 0 . 5 — 3 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 — 1 9 . 7
T a y l o r 7 1 . 7 7 . 9 7 9 . 6 2 7 . 5 3 6 . 4 2 8 . 2
S u b - t o t a l 1 0 2 . 2 7 . 9 1 1 0 . 1 2 4 . 6 3 6 . 4 2 5 . 2
G r o u p B ( 1 ) *
S n o w f l a k e 1 2 1 . 1 3 8 . 5 1 5 9 . 6 2 6 . 5 5 2 . 9 3 0 . 1
S t . J o h n s 1 4 1 . B * 1 2 7 . 8 2 6 9 . 6 2 3 . 8 4 1 . 7 2 9 . 8
E a a a r 1 3 7 . 2 1 7 . 2 1 5 4 . 4 2 2 . 6 2 5 . 2 2 2 . 8
S u b - t o t a l 4 0 0 . 1 1 8 3 . 5 5 0 3 . 6 2 4 . 1 4 1 . 0 2 7 . 7
G r o u p B ( 2 ) :
S h o w l o w 5 . 5 2 4 3 . 1 2 4 8 . 6 1 1 . 1 3 7 . 5 3 5 . 7
l a k e s i d e 3 3 . 4 3 0 0 . 7 3 3 4 . 1 3 1 . 1 3 9 . 6 3 8 . 5
S u b - t o t a l 3 3 . 9 5 4 3 . 8 3 0 2 . 7 2 4 . 8 3 3 . 7 3 7 . 3
C r o u p C s
S p r i n q e r v i l l e 1 3 . 7 9 2 . 1 1 0 5 . 8 1 8 . 4 3 1 . 1 2 8 . 6
P i n e t o p — 2 3 7 . 6 2 3 7 . 6 — 4 2 . 7 4 2 . 7
K c W a r y — 1 4 . 1 1 4 . 1 — 0 . 7 8 . 7
S u b - t o t a l 1 3 . 7 3 4 3 . 8 3 5 7 . 5 1 8 . 4 3 3 . 9 3 2 . 8
T o t a l 5 5 4 . 9 1 , 0 7 9 . 0 1 , 6 3 3 . 9 2 4 . 1 3 7 . 3 3 1 . 4
Sources F igure 49
263
Table 59. Total Land Area, by Subdivision Type, for Each Community
!
O o n r u n i t y a n d
C o m u n i t y G r o u p s
L a n d
Z t o m o n
T o w n s i t e
U s e A r e a -
H o n - i t o m o n
T c x m s i t e
A c r e s
A l l
S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o s s D e n s i t y - A c r e s p e r H o u s i n e U n i t
M o m o n N o n - M o r m o n A l l
T o w n s i t e T o w n s i t e S u b d i v i s i o n s
G r o u p A :
J o s e p h C i t y 1 5 4 . 6 - — 1 5 4 . 6 1 . 8 6 — 1.86T a y l o r 2 6 0 . 2 2 1 . 7 2 8 1 . 9 2 . 3 7 0 . 8 7 2 . 0 9
S u b - t o t a l 4 1 4 . 0 2 1 . 7 4 3 6 . 5 2 . 1 5 0.87 2 . 0 0
G r o u p B ( 1 ) i
S n o w f l a k e 4 5 6 . 6 7 2 . 7 5 2 9 . 3 1 . 3 4 0 . 6 3 1 . 1 6
S t . J o h n s 5 9 6 . 8 • 3 0 6 . 4 9 0 3 . 2 2 . 0 7 3 . 4 4 2.38E a o a r 6 0 7 . 5 6 8 . 4 6 7 5 . 9 2 . 0 9 1 . 9 0 2 . 0 7
S u b - t o t a l 1 , 6 6 0 . 9 4 4 7 . 5 2 , 1 0 8 . 4 1 . 8 0 1 . 8 6 1 . 8 1
G r o u p B (2)% •
S h o w L o w 4 9 . 7 6 4 7 . 3 6 9 7 . 0 0 . 8 0 1 . 1 0 1 . 0 7
L a k e s i d e 1 0 7 . 5 7 5 9 . 3 8 6 6 . 8 1 . 6 3 1 . 0 7 1 . 1 1
S u b - t o t a l 1 5 7 . 2 1 , 4 0 6 . 6 1 , 5 6 3 . 8 1 . 2 3 1 . 0 8 1 . 1 0
G r o u p C t
S p r i n g e r v i l l e 7 4 . 5 2 9 5 . 7 3 7 0 . 2 1 . 7 7 1 . 0 1 1 . 0 4
P i n e t o n — 5 5 6 . 1 5 5 6 . 1 — 1 . 3 5 1 . 3 5 •
2 ' c H a r y — 1 6 2 . 9 1 6 2 . 9 — 0 . 5 0 0 . 5 0
S u b - t o t a l 7 4 . 5 1 , 0 1 4 . 7 1 , 0 8 9 . 2 1 . 7 7 . i.oi 1 . 0 4
T o t a l 2 , 3 0 7 . 4 2 , 8 9 0 . 5 5 , 1 9 7 . 9 1 . 8 0 1 . 1 2 1 . 3 5
Source: F igure 49
264
St. Johns and Show Low. The large amount of agriculture area in St.
Johns' non-Mormon townsite accounts for one discrepancy, and the
central position of Show Low's Mormon townsite generally accounts for
the other. However, Lakeside's Mormon townsite also has a central
location, and a similar anomaly did not occur for this community.
CHAPTER 13
CONCLUSION
In their early years, the Mormon communities of northeastern
Arizona developed under conditions of firm church leadership. Their
heritage of. city building came directly from Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young, and stress must be placed upon the successful aspect
of their ventures. The Arizona communities were established in a
harsh environment; the procedures were the same as those perfected
during a long series of.Utah colonization experiences; and the colo
nizers disciplined themselves under the terms of strict obedience
thought to be necessary for developing their homes in the wilderness.
This thesis as its foremost objective has tried to tell the
story of Mormon tovmsite development. The early years in Ohio and
Missouri showed a switch in lot arrangement from the so-called
"alternating-lot-facing" plan to the "four-square" plan. Otherwise,
other basic features remained from the start. The Illinois experience
enabled the Mormons to put their principles to full-scaled use because
a large city was constructed. The farm village, the public square, the
gridiron street systems were implemented, and became a permanent part
of Mormon planning.
In Utah farm villages were perfectly adaptable to irrigation
farming, and this system continued its existence longer than it might
have under different climatic conditions. The original "altemating-
265
266
lot-facing” design was used in early Salt Lake City, but eventually a
return to the "four-square” arrangement preceded Arizona settlement.
As in Utah, irrigation was necessary in Arizona so the same principles
were transferred to the communities of the Study Area.
The Mormons were a group of people who developed a series of
at least three hundred cities and towns on this design. Their tradition
of using one townsite pattern throughout Utah and portions of Arizona
seems to be especially significant. Other Western experiences were
more haphazard, or followed the lines of development set by railroad
surveyors. Other Western groups usually did not utilize a pattern which
could be identified with any particular group.
We may wonder about the necessity of religious conviction as
motivation to develop a community and keep it going under trying cir
cumstances . The Mormons were strongly religious, but so were most
other farm-groups in their own ways, although perhaps less singlenind-
edly. The Mormons worked together as a group, but other Arizona irri
gation settlements were forced to become of necessity group efforts.
However, the Mormons' discipline included an exactness for detailed
planning not shared by any other major group, and their plan was re
peated over and over again. It would seem clear from this experience
that a town plan can best be implemented with strong motivation towards
strict adherence to its principles. The Mormon principles included the
farm village system, a church block as the town square, large square
blocks, and wide-straight streets regularly spaced and aligned to the
four cardinal points of the compass.
267
Public Facility Planning ■
When planning for public facilities is considered, the school-
church physical relationship is prominent. Several such examples were
found within the communities of the Study Area; especially at St. Johns,
Taylor, Joseph City, and lakeside. When a community is very small,
about 1,000 in population, the possibility of a single public center
seems to exist. Further site acquisitions and building programs should
consider the continuance of this principle. Recently, a new church at
Joseph City was developed in accordance with this idea. The natural
conclusion is that one of the original ideas of Joseph Smith remains
alive.
However, when a town reaches 2,000 in population a neighborhood
unit system already seems to evolve. Places such as Snowflake, Show
Low, and Lakeside have become broken into many small sub-neighborhood
residential units. The early difference in Mormon and Mexican was dis
cussed for St. Johns. Nevertheless, until a place is somewhat larger,
planning might be directed to emphasize the town center so that a strong
center for the community will continue without the effects of neighbor
hood factions weakening it. If a growing community remains largely
Mormon, a single town center should be entirely possible. (Larger towns
and cities obviously would have a neighborhood unit system. The values
of the Mormon ward system as coordinated with the neighborhood unit1system have been discussed in the Sellers article .
^Charles L. Sellers, op. cit., p. 27.
An influx of
268
non-Mormons creates certain difficulties, but understanding and sound
planning could overcome these problems.
Certain unusual possibilities do seem to exist in Mormon com
munities, and these focus upon the Mormon Church. It can be safely
assumed that the central area of a town is valuable property, and this
thesis has demonstrated that the Mormon Church is likely to be located
there occupying a relatively large site. The sites of seven Mormon
Churches of the Study Area average 2.4 acres in size, which is the
largest or second largest public area inside each town. Town planning
for these communities should capitalize upon this potential advantage,
and these sites ought to be considered for even more intensive use than
currently exists. The idea is simply that many, if not most, public and
semi-public uses for both Mormons and non-Mormons should be located
there. Indoor and outdoor recreation facilities could very well be a
part of this plan. Perhaps new structures can be built on vacant areas
of the church block, or nearby? or perhaps existing structures can be
remodeled. (This is not a new idea? Snowflake's movie theater is
located on the church block, and the Town of Eagar rents space from
the church block for am indoor swimming pool.)
The size of semi-public buildings, their space allocations, and
other site characteristics would need to be inventoried for each com
munity. This thesis has been concerned with ground area only, and at
this point only general suggestions can be made. Usually, the Mormon
Church would remain the principal landlord and could assume some sort of
role as planner and developer. It would rent space to other groups,
269
including non-Momon church groups, The facilities of non-Mormon
groups are small and rather poor. As a marked improvement, hopefully,
a non-Momon church would rent or share its own small sanctuary and
would also be able to use some of the larger facilities like the
gymnasium at certain times. The possibilities for such improvement
seem best at Snowflake, St. Johns, Eagar, and Lakeside where the Mormon
Church is overwhelmingly large in contrast to non-Momon churches and
other organizations. At Show Low, especially, several large non-Mormon
congregations already exist, and these facilities could be a part of
the system. (Already, two congregations use one church building at
Show Low.)
All organizations in each community could be involved. In
some cases the Mormon Church might rent space to the school district
or town government with clear-cut provisions on the respective role
for each group. Or, the school district might rent space to other groups.
The public sites inventory for this thesis indicates that few
developed parking lots exist, complete with paving, marked spaces, etc.
In turn, this finding suggests that parking currently is a minor pro
blem. Under the suggested plan, if activities in the town center can
be scheduled over a sufficient span of time, the number of needed park
ing spaces could be kept to a minimum. Eventually, as space is fully
utilized, parking may become a problem. Then, a special bus system
might be used, and be owned and operated by the church or town.
270
One of the purposes of the town center arrangement is to keep
the community together, and to provide a forum for the benefit of non-
Mormons . The facilities of a Mormon Church can be substantial, and
ought to be useful for everyone. A second purpose is to maximize the
use of expensive facilities. Perhaps church and school have been dup
licating efforts in recent years, and closer scrutiny is needed.
Possibly, the combined physical plant of church and school could be
used to create a community college organization to provide for night
classes. The college would be a public organization with its own
offices, but the bulk of their space would be rented or leased.
The Street System
The street system, Mormon pattern, has a high percentage of
the townsite area in street right-of-way. Much of this space is ob
viously wasted, and rearrangements need to be made to pick up land
for residential use, or for parking in association with public and
commercial uses.
In outlying areas of a town, street closures might be made.
This could be applicable in communities where a large Mormon townsite
exists, such as at Snowflake, Taylor, St. Johns, or Eagar. If the
town is growing, the need for additional residential areas would exist.
The selling of excess street right-of-way would bring revenue into the
town's treasury as contrasted to the creation of a new subdivision (as
at Snowflake) which is likely to be a drain on town funds in providing
additional street lengths, water lines, sewer lines, etc. Street
271
closures might cause access problems to certain residences, but special
driveways and easements ought to handle the situation properly. This
thesis has provided background information useful for studying this
special problem.
In the central area, for all communities, street closures
should not occur unless special problems of terrain exist such as at
St. Johns or Show Low. In case a street has been platted over un
favorable topography, perhaps the space could be used as ornamental
open space. A small street length near the Show Low Elementary School
might be so used. The existing street systems of all communities should
be further inventoried and studied with the objective in mind of effi
cient land utilization.
On another scale, ornamental medians could be used to aid traf
fic movement where smoother flow is desired. The communities of the
Study Area have no highway medians or other ornamental strips or
spots. Where parking is required, especially in central areas, the
wide streets might provide special parking medians or strips, although
careful design would be necessary. The general urban planning principle
that parking should be off-street-only often does not apply to Mormon
communities. In fact, street right-of-way should not be sold to private
owners in the central area of a community. Public uses will become
important, eventually.
Poor highway location has caused a series of unfortunate street
intersections, especially as noted at St. Johns. In most cases, part
of the Mormon grid was attempted over unfavorable terrain. Complete
272
redesign of the minor street system is needed in these areas. Reference
to street system maps would be a guide as an initial step for such a
study.
In commercial districts, if a highway strip is not yet devel
oped, planning should stress the need for nodes rather than a strip.
The larger Mormon communities such as Snowflake, St. Johns, and Eagar
are at this pivotal point right now. If a strip exists such as at Show
Low, Springerville, or Pinetop, the main streets could be improved
with medians, turning bays, and required off-street parking. Planning
for bypass routes also should begin. The land use maps of this thesis
should provide a useful tool for such studies.
Residential~ Land'Use
As the twentieth century advanced the Mormon Church gradually
withdrew from its concept of building a physical Kingdom of God and
shifted its attention to ecclesiastical matters. Mormon communities
have gradually become similar to other communities, especially in
residential patterns and the general way of economic life. As the
towns grew physically, the design of the new street systems were apt
to be changed severely as shown for Snowflake and Show Low, but the
seeds for all these changes were sown many years before when the Mormons
lost their subsistence economy and adopted a commercially oriented one.
One of the first principles the Mormons lost was their commu
nity control of land disposition. When ordinary ideas of land ownership ,
became established and when the central area of a community became
fully occupied the "four-square" pattern was modified, as shown by
273
experiences at Snowflake and St. Johns. Emphasis on family tended to
keep several sons in the community# and the scarcity of centrally lo
cated sites caused the original acre-sized lot to become a;family lot.
One, two# or even three additional residences were built per lot. The
decline of subsistence agriculture, generally at the same time# ended
the necessity for large gardens inside the town. Finally# ordinary
practices of buying and selling real estate# when accepted, led to a
mixture of ownerships which resemble the ordinary American community.
Density comparisons made for this thesis show this feature to be
generally true. Therefore# zoning and subdivision control methods
developed by the urban planning profession now would produce in the
Mormon communities the same results (good or bad) as they do elsewhere.
One aspect of development does merit mention. Greenbelts
often still exist around portions of the Mormon towns# but there is
grave danger that residential development will invade these agricultural
areas. Legal means should be sought to preserve these greenbelts.
Community purchase of development rights probably would be the best way#
although specific authority from the State does not exist yet. In the
interim, perhaps other methods could be applied.
Although all of the principles of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young
have not been retained by Mormon communities# including those of the
Study Area, many key ideas have been successfully utilized. The ori
ginal residential land use patterns have been lost, the result of a
changing society. Public land use and street system ideas have remained#
and the best features should be strenghtened. Where the grid pattern
274
exists, the street system provides a sense of order to a community,
although intelligent modifications are needed. The Mormon Town Plan,
thus, served the Study Area towns well in the beginning, but changing
life styles, even in these religiously oriented communities, has led
to the discard or modifications of many of the original characteristics.
REFERENCES
Books
Anderson, Nels. Desert Saints. Chicago: University of Chicago Press1942.
Andrews, Richard B. Urban Growth and Development. New York: Sinunons-Boardman, 1962.
Arrington, Leonard J. Great Basin Kingdom. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press, 1958.
Barnes, Will. Arizona Place Names (Revised and enlarged by Granger). Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1960.
Bartholomew, Harland. Land Uses in American Cities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955.
Beadle, John H. Life in Utah. Philadelphia: National PublishingCompany, 1870.
Bennett, Wallace F. Why I am a Mormon. Boston: Beacon, 1965.
Bimey, Hoffman. Zealots of Zion. Philadelphia: Penn PublishingCo., 1931.
Brodie, Fawn. No Man Knows My History. New York: Knopf, 1966.
Brooks, Juanita. Diary of Hosea Stout. Salt Lake City: Universityof Utah Press, 1964, two volumes.
Burton, Richard F. The City of the Saints. New York: Knopf, 1963,
Carmer, Carl. The Farm Boy and the Angel. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970.
Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr. Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 1965.
Corbett, Pearson H. Jacob Hamblin, the Peacemaker. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1952.
Creer, Leland H. The Founding of an Empire. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1947.
276
Cross, Shaw, and Scheibele. Arizona, Its People and Resources.Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1960.
Day, Robert B. They Hade Mormon History. Salt Lake City: DeseretBook Co., 1968.
Ericksen, Ephriam Edward. The Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1922.
Ferris, Benjamin G. Utah and the Mormons. New York: Harper andBrothers > 1854.
Fife and Fife. Saints of Sage and Saddle. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1956.
Fish, Joseph. History of the Eastern Arizona Stake of Zion and of the Establishment of the Snowflake Stake, 1879-1893.Snowflake: 1936.
Flake, Osmer D. William J. Flake, Pioneer-Colonizer. Privately published, 1966.
Flanders, Robert B. Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965.
Gallion and Eisner. The Urban Pattern. Princeton: Van Nostrand,1963.
Goodman, William I. Principles and Practice of Urban Planning.Washington: International City Manager's Association, 1968.
Gunnison, John W, The Mormons, or Latter-day Saints, in the Valley of the Great Salt Lake. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Gamboand Co., 1852,
Hansen, Klans J. The Quest for Empire. Michigan State University Press, 1967. "*
Hirshon, Stanley P. The'Lion of the Lord. New York: Knopf, 1969.
Howard, Ebeneezer. Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1965.
Hunter, Milton R. Brigham Young, The colonizer. Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1940.
International City Manager's Association. Local Planning Administration. Chicago: 1948.
277
Krenkel, John H. The'Life and Times of Joseph Fish;'Mormon Pioneer. Danville: The Interstate Printers, 1970.
Lamar, Howard R. The Far Southwest, 1946-1912. New York: Norton,1970.
Larson, Gustive 0, Prelude to the Kingdom. Francestown: MarshallJones, 1947.
Linn, William A. The Story of the Mormons. New York: Russell andRussell, 1963.
Little, James A. From Kirtland to Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City: James Little, 1890.
Lockwood, Frank C. Pioneer Days in Arizona. New York: MacMillan,1932.
McClintock, James H. Mormon Settlement in Arizona. Phoenix: TheManufacturing Stationers, Inc., 1921,
Mulder and Mortenson. Among the Mormons. New York: Knopf, 1958.
Nelson, Lowry. The Mormon Village. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press, 1952,
O'Dea, Thomas F. The Mormons. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1957.
Peplow, Edward H., Jr. History of Arizona. New York: LewisHistorical Publishing Co,, 1958, two volumes.
Reps, John W, The Making of Urban America. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1965.
. Town Planning in Frontier America. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1969.
Ridge and Billington. America's Frontier Story. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Roberts, Brigham H. Comprehensive History,'Church'of'Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Provo: Brigham Young University Press,1965, six volumes.
Roylance, Ward J. Utah, the Incredible Land. Salt Lake City: UtahTrails Co., 1965.
278
Sprague, Marshall. The Mountain States. New York: Time Life Books,1969.
Smith, Joseph Fielding. Essentials in Church History. Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1935.
Taylor, P.A.M. Expectations Westward. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,1965.
Turner, Wallace. The Mormon Establishment. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1966.
Tyler, Daniel. A Concise History of the Mormon Battalion, 1846-1847. Glorieta, N.M.: Rio Grande Press, 1969.
Udall, David K. Arizona Pioneer Mormon. Tucson: Arizona Silhouettes,1959.
Valley of the Great Salt Lake. Salt Lake City: Utah HistoricalSociety, 1963.
West, Ray B. Kingdom of the Saints. New York: Viking Press, 1957.
Westover and Richards. Unflinching Courage, Story of Joseph City, Arizona. Privately published, 1967.
Whalen, William J. The Latter-day Saints in the Modem World. New York: The John Day Company, 1964,
W.P.A. Writer's. Arizona. (American Guide Series). New York: Hastings House, 1956,
W.P.A. Writer's. Illinois. (American Guide Series). Chicago:A.C, McClurg and Co., 1939.
W.P.A. Writer's. Missouri. (American Guide Series). New York:Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1941.
W.P.A. Writer's. The Ohio Guide. (American Guide Series). New York: Oxford University Press, 1940.
W.P.A. Writer's. Utah. (American Guide Series). New York:Hastings House, 1959.
279
Atlases, Articles, Reports, and Theses
Apache County Board of Supervisors, Apache County, Arizona. St.Johns: Broun Publishing Co., 1950.
Apache County Chamber of Commerce (in cooperation with the ArizonaDevelopment Board)• Apache'Countv, Arizona: Industrial andCommercial Summary, January 1966.
The Arizona Yearbook, 1930-1931. Phoenix: The State of Arizona, 1930.
Arnold, Lowell J. "Saga of Sprlngerville," The Arizona Magazine,August 1937, pp. 8, 21.
Baker and McCleneghan. An Arizona Economic and Historic Atlas.Tucson: University of Arizona, 1966.
Bair, Frederick H., Jr. Planning Maps for Small Cities, How to Makeand Maintain Them. Report No. 227. Chicago: American Societyof Planning Officials, 1967.
Berry, M. Alice, "And the Desert Shall Bloom as the Rose, A Tribute to Apache County," Arizona, August 1910, pp. 17-19.
Bolles, L. C. "Sprlngerville - On top of the World - In More WaysThan One," Progressive Arizona, July-August 1930, pp. 22-24.
Cardwell, Lawrence. "Show Low, The Town a Road Built," Arizona Highways, July 1948, pp. 4-7.
. "Sprlngerville: Gateway to the White Mountains," ArizonaHighways, June 1950, pp. 18-25.
Carlson, Raymond. "White Mountains of Arizona," Arizona Highways,May 1953, pp. 18-25.
Clayton, Roberta Flake, "Invitation to Snowflake,"'Arizona Highways, July 1938, pp. 16-17.
Daniels, Howard E. "Mormon Colonization in Northern Arizona,"M.A. Thesis, University of Arizona, 1960.
280
Davis, Elmer E. "A Warm Welcome Awaits You at Springerville," Progressive Arizona, May 1929, pp. 21-23.
Dedicatory Services, Snowflake Ward Chapel. Snowflakes Snowflake Ward, Snowflake Stake, 1939.
Ellsworth, S. George. (Review of David K. Udall, Arizona Pioneer Mormon)« Utah Historical Quarterly, April 1960, pp. 179- 180.
Employment Security Commission of Arizona. Arizona, A Century of Growth. Phoenix: 1963.
Greenwood, Ned H. "A Geographical Survey of the Upper Watershed of the Little Colorado River, Arizona," M.S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1960.
Hoflick and McCleneghan. "Arizona's New Pulp and Paper Industry," Arizona Review, July-August 1963, pp. 1-8.
Home Builder* s Manual for Land Development. National Association of Home Builders, 1958.
Jeffers, Jo. "Apache County, Arizona, U.S.A.," Arizona Highways,May 1969, p. 9.
. "Tales of the Little Colorado," Arizona Highways,September 1965, pp. 2-33.
McCleneghan, Thomas J. "The Historic Background of Southeast Navajo County," Arizona Review, December 1961, pp. 3*-5.
McCleneghan and Henderson. "A Look at the Developing Economy of Southeast Navajo County," Arizona Review, November 1963, pp. 1-10.
Mahoney, Ralph. "Apache Land," Arizona Days and Ways, May 23, 1954, p. 16.
...... . "Pine Country Setting Lures Tourists into Show Low Area,"Arizona Days and Ways, June 20, 1954, pp. 10-15.
• ' . "Snowflake, Mormon Community," Arizona Days and Ways,July 11, 1954, pp. 13-14.
~ ~• . "White Mountain Paradise Opens Gate to Sportsmen," ArizonaDays and Ways, May 16, 1954, p. 16.
281
Maricopa County and City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Departments,Part _1 of a_ Comprehensive Plan for Mesa, Arizona. 1961,
Maricopa County Planning Department. A Planning Report'for Buckeye, Arizona, October 1961.
' • . 71 Planning Report for Surprise, Arizona. August 1961.
Measeles, Evelyn B. "Lyman Dam, Monument to Mormon Pioneer Courage and Industry," Arizona Highways, September 1965, p. 44.
Meinig, D.W. "The Mormon Culture Region," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, June 1965, pp. 191-220.
Morgan, Dale L. "Salt lake City— City of the Saints," Rocky Mountain Cities. New York: Norton, 1949, pp. 179-207.
Muench, Joyce Rockwood. "The Delectable Mountains," Arizona Highways, May 1958, p. 16.
Myers, John Myers. "The White Mountains, West," Arizona Days and Ways, July 1, 1965, pp. 18-27.
Navajo County Chamber of Commerce (in cooperation with the ArizonaDevelopment Board), Navajo County, Arizona: Industrial andCommercial Summary, December 1961.
Nelson, Howard J. "Walled Cities of the United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, March 1961, pp. 19-20.
Oakland. Pacific Telephone Company, June 1970,
The Odyssey, World Atlas. New York: Odyssey Books, 1966.
"On the Little Colorado River; St. Johns, A Prosperous Town Without a Railroad," Arizona, February 1914, p. 19.
Peterson, Charles S. "Settlement of the Little Colorado, 1873-1900," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utah, 1967.
Peterson, Mrytle. "Springervilie - The Center of the Hunter's, Fisherman's and Camper's Paradise," Progressive Arizona, September 1929, pp. 21-23, 34-35,
Popenoe, Lucile. "The Green White Mountains," WesWays, March 1964, p. 42.
282
Rand McNally. Commercial Atlas. 1970.
. Road Atlas. 1970.
Richardson# Cecil C. "St. Johns, the Town of Friendly Neighbors," Arizona Highways, November 1949, pp. 34-36.
Sellers, Charles L. "Early Mormon Community Planning," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, January 1962, pp. 24-30.
Silverman, Ron. "White Mountains, East," Arizona Days and Ways, July 21, 1957, pp. 20-31.
"Special Section on the White Mountains," Arizona Wildlife Sportsman, July 1959, pp. 19-50.
Smith, Ida. "Old Fort Monument," Arizona Days and Ways, August 28, 1960, p. 28.
"Snowflake's Celebration Marks Mormon Founding," Arizona Days and Ways, July 19, 1959, p. 18.
Stubblefield, Thomas M. Economic Survey of Navajo County. Tucson: Agricultural Extension Service, University of Arizona,April 1953.
University of Arizona Journalism Edition. "The White Mountain Story," Apache County Independent News. St. Johns: April 12, 1963.
Valley National Bank, Arizona Progress, January 1971.
Wallace, Mildred. "Springerville, A Chosen Spot," Progressive Arizona, September 1928, pp. 14-15.
Wayte, Harold C., Jr. "A History of Holbrook and the Little Colorado River County," M. A. Thesis, University of Arizona, 1962.
Willson, Roscoe G. "Snowflake's Name Honors Two Noted Mormons," Arizona Days and Ways, June 9, 1963, pp. 26-27.
Young, Etta Gilford. "In the White Mountains, the Angler's Paradise," Arizona, January 1913, p. 12.
283
Aerial Photography and Maps
Apache- County Assessor’s Office, 1968.(a) Eagar: Book 104, Maps 07-23, 40-41.(b) St. Johns: Book 203, Maps 31-45.(c) Springervilie: Book 105, Maps 13-23.
Apache County Recorder’s Office, 1968.(a) Eagar: Book 1, pp. 20, 29; Book 2, p. 55, Book 3, pp. 16,
42, 45; Book 4, p. 33.(b) St. Johns: Book 1, pp. 2, 9-11, 14; Book 4, p. 34.(c) Springerville: Book 1, pp. 1, 18, 22, 30-32, 34; Book 3,
pp. 3-4, 47.
Arizona State Highway Department, Aerial Photography, Phoenix,Arizona.
(a) Eagar: P-60, Flight 37, exposures 1 and 2, 1964.(b) St. Johns: 387, Flight 2, exposures 3 to 14, 1965.(c) Snowflaket P-77, Flight 13, exposures 3 to 5, 1964.(d) Springerville: same as Eagar, (a).(e) Taylor: P-77, Flight 13, exposures 1 and 2, 1964.
Cate, Roland W.; Wickenburg, Arizona."Arizona Territory, Showing Post Offices which were in Existence During This Period, 1963-1912," 1963.
City and Town Maps.(a) Benson: Subdivision Map, "Town of Benson, Cochise County,
Arizona, January 1956;" and Street Map, "The Official Map, Town of Benson and Vicinity, Cochise County, Arizona, 1960."
(b) St. Johns: Subdivision Map, "St. Johns, Arizona, January 1950."
(c) Show Low: Subdivision Map, "City of Show Low," obtainedApril 1968.
(d) Springerville: Street Map, "Town of Springerville,"obtained July 1967; and Land Use Map, June 1, 1965.
Guidco; Tucson, Arizona."Arizona Territory, 1881," 1969.
284
Landis Aerial Surveys, Phoenix, Arizona.(a) Lakeside t ID, exposures 44 to 57, 1967.(b) Pinetop: ID, exposures 58 to 59, 1967.(c) Show Low: ID, exposures 123 to 125, 1967.
Mark Hurd Aerial Survey, Inc., Santa Barbara, California.St. Johns: HB-HN, 7 exposures, 1966.
Navajo County Assessor's Office, 1968.(a) Joseph City: Book 107, Maps 07-21.(b) Lakeside: Book 211, Maps 43-49j Book 212, Maps 21-37.(c) Pinetop: Book 211, Maps 26-34.(d) Show Low: Book 210, Maps 01-26, 31-32.(e) Snowflake: Book 202, Maps 7-19.(f) Taylor: Book 202, Maps 22-25; Book 205, Maps 5-15.
Navajo County Recorder's Office, 1968.(a) Joseph City: Book 1, pp. 14, 49.(b) Lakeside: Book 2, pp. 10, 27; Book 3, pp. 34, 46;
Book 4, pp. 20, 28, 31, 32; Book 5, pp. 45, 49; Book 6, p. 9; Book 7, pp. 9, 15, 22-24; Book 8, pp. 35, 40.
(c) Pinetop: Book 2, pp. 39, 47; Book 3, p. 29; Book 4,p. 16; Book 5, pp. 10, 21, 42; Book 6, pp. 35, 39, 46.
(d) Show Low: Book 1, p. 5; Book 2, pp. 33-34; Book 3,pp. 4, 7-8, 11-13, 17, 23-24, 27 31, 40, 45; Book 4,pp. 11, 14,pp. 12, 20.
18, 22; Book 6, pp. 28-29, 41; Book 7,
(e) Snowflake: Book 1, p. 44; Book 2, p. 11; Book 4, p. 21;Book 5, pp. pp. 5, 41.
39, 46; Book 6, pp. 11, 16—17; Book 8,
(f) Taylor: Book 1, p. 43; Book 2, p. 13; Book 8, p. 6.
Texaco Oil Company, Highway Maps."Utah," 1964 and 1970.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Local Planning Assistance (Section 701 of the Federal Housing Act of 1954).
(a) Eagar: Preliminary Base Map, August 1967.(b) St. Johns: Preliminary Base Map, August 1967.(c) Snowflake: "Snowflake, Generalized Land Use Map, 1963."(d) Springerville: Preliminary Base Map, August 1967.
U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Thirty Minute Quadr rangle Maps.
(a) Joseph City: "Joseph City, Arizona," 1954.(b) Lakeside: "Lakeside, Arizona, Navajo County," 1961;
and "Indian Pine, Arizona, Navajo County," 1961.(c) McNary: "McNary, Arizona," 1961.(d) Pinetop: "Indian Pine, Arizona, Navajo County," 1961.
285
U«S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Aerial Photography,(a) Eagars Project No. GS-UBSl, 5 exposures, 1967.(b) Springervilles Project No. GS-UBSl, 4 exposures, 1967.
i f>\ect2$ \ va p a c V t \ '
S O U R C E ’ * PMC H E COUNTY
ASSESSOR MAPS j HAVA JO COUNTY ASSESSOR M APSj ARIZONA STATE HIGHWAY.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS j MARK HURD AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS j
LANDIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHSj E !E LD 'N O TE S t SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER. AND NOVEMBER /US
jPfa/t/rjflj T/eSis/ AftaiJ??,
■ In n
iiW'M 1
n/■a..! L*
JJiCl_.
[TE3H
• Z H i t i t e t s t s i * v
n
x
_J#» /»«> /J»# Z*xi— — '
J O S E P H C IT Y
EHBSDE] ___ B O B
------------ 0 p r " ”
W
S5@E
/z/
71
Z J h ‘
/
& V'
4 bjo* /aao /soo iooo
jlAit 'u r '.
T A Y L O R
” ,V x
,f(.[• :■
E3Z 3 H i i
me:.'
- j r pg^l @ B E l S
@ SH Pi ;_■.;!
i '■ n l imeaEgBSEixu ~ n L '- x c r n ? ^ e z z !
,z l i
/
f.TT.hH-n 1 T X"Z6
J / . l
I Z fX -.T i _a--.
■nrZnfard B E B ti
BammaEaBCJBEZZIBI H E S E X E n1' 1 .•i»hhl*l*J h|»l*l*l*l*i*i*!* 1*1 *1J
i a t i t i j/'
/In ra f
v'y fj\
SOO /OOO /SOO 2 000iSCALi / * f££T
SNOWTLAKE
.1_
w
ebqbeheibs^
i: ':
r 1 1
o .
KP*1.51
no*
:!.. >- r' 1
\t----- . - - - - r .■ — ra—n
"E Ef
ttH, 1 — 1«
->v.... f
O '
J----
jd
n r n x g..... CSDBBgti.
E f f l D H i r o
Q. I ID 'D
-* • i ...
->
:i Ikfe
1
t,.
sZE
P
-*■ * ■' -'U
Z |
. •
*>•
TO
±£
SJ?;r
m j
■CT-
•fEL. ..
jL@ ] ■
M
a z » 0 0 /SOO 2000
ST JOHNS
X
■ • • • . . . * . 4 i ' V - V;
lz Z/^<7<7 Z<?<X? j y
v.i- I-
J
P* V
am it i ll 11 g
QE S 5 3 r X h r
—:A
-IE::-:-' : V P ' ~|S 3I ilZ :____IB P
a i
.:
ZZ3)FntFffl
n ..:.... , '©ttSSx •m
.
3
| v
□
■ — H
Ni'
l
m n
X\
r i
m m m
4— liirrMv.-.*, ]|**
1.H
v I
J »n
r
zrv
T
:
prt,-..
' • M
.
i K x /
x::r■t-~- # • :
BFE W e
T t Z X
, r
XX !.ii±±LJ ’o a / » » 0 SOO 2 OOO
, : . . . r ~ i a p a
/ * ! Z.OIA/ / — nn
<r \\ :
-
\
V ~ m r 77■ r
C T
£ —Z .j! .|.lF R T
'X,X ::
%iHrTTITIv
"1l ^
•zsvixszzzzzzzziz::
------- t-
£ j * _
~ i
r m m j
j
XXzfloo zyoa 2000
JCAit /m rcir
LAKESIDE
Ci.
JTrnBrrirTZ
i
L: : •
V
5XE3V. '.-i - ./
/ f /\y / / /, '" ,A ■
. f_/s
■y//
....................
*l„
& n
a
»JOO /too /soo 2.000jeois /m fur
SPRINGER VILLE
X -; .z n ^ r i
t o l—: ~ 3
:***•
Ka * *«
•jI T -x-
X. ..i— 1
^TTTT
J3
J
'Cl!:
1
M M O R M O N C H U R C H
X RELA TED TO MORMON CHURCHO N O N -M O R M O N CHURCHA F R A T E R N A L O R G A N IZA T IO N
SCHOOL AND R E LA TE D USE
:tr .iilCllT*liiifleiii
c
ffl
A
■ $
n
m n
A N D R E L A T E D U S E PO ST OFFICE TO \NN HALL COURT HOUSEOTHER GOVERNMENTAL USE
#' S— < # # # <SQ9 2.+OQ 1 *J€M /* RCiT
McNARY
• SOO /OOO /too■itAlt z* zTTT
PIN E TOP
£*>
FIGURE 4 8 . LOCATION OF PUBLIC USES, TEN COMMUNITIES
S O U R C E : A PMC H E C O U N T Y ASSESSOR MAPS j NAVAJO COUNTY ASSESSOR M A P S , ARIZONA S TA TE HIGHWAY
AERIAC p h o t o g r a p h s , MARK
HURD AER/Al PHOTOGRAPHS, l A H D IS A ER IA L PHOTOGRAPHS, E /E ID N O T E S , SEPTEM 3ER, OCTOBER, A N D NOVEMBER / U S
//
T"5
w
. L _
i ' ~
T~1
•hi: a?
V - -jA
4 -
rSrJ. It
fl
jP ~EOE" n 'mr**
. . L
joo /goo /joa i ooo "* m r
JOSEPH CITY
6E
x _____L 7 ^
, v ESQSDEliI E1EEIE80 @ n ruBElffl
/m m
H
/-V / • / / t
----
l T v •
TT1
'. . J Ti
33
kX \
w i r
i I
b- — n _t Lx UifciVi
v ..•••
.>
i.m
2 m - ...
c:
\ E3@@
E3 D— c i g c i ------------------------------------------
0/•■
H E H3QBB0SB1 ZL
s~.j Qr \\ — I
IT
T
iraITsESBSE—A
H E B Bm s ® If/•••"yXX
O JO O /O O O / / O O 2.000
/\j€AL€ /# fl£ T
SNOWFLAKE//
yf
1 ..-j
F 5
. iH v
----- M*
: •
r.A
§i D B BBS3EHBEIUm m n
2 S O 0 1
j E h BE
• I V -
U ■ a;
r r
x r :
»I ■ -IZ-:
. ;! '-• ,y-j _| —x
].: >h:;;£hj;::i: £|4H-= -i :•.......... - J
! f/ r’J' \ $-■---
ft•* * .*
_ E
Z"
r" H -
-
rm □
X X/OOO / 500 2.000
Sc a h /» n iT
ST JOHNS
200 <ooo <200 2000
'jCALt /M SllT 1
£■>46/4/?
-----— 4—
*£L
"XIN
5 * Z ~ 5
lirairaiiiir]9 M h
QX
IT
jeLj’•j
d"-l
•71
■v! ]
L'J Q
7 1E
~g
rvi
a
x u
rT * ®
:
' '
E33E3
’■ r
v:
-.•V»
■» .u—
y— —
•:
6- - :E
-i— —7 T
\T
T^EIi^K!
In
iK U30H □S3 1
7777
Ni l k
- i X _
EC
r
7=
AZz
[ 7 0
afa
O 500 /,000 /soo 2.000
1j c a h /# s t t r *
SHOW LOW
a
i . . . .
n im
J' fct'VtV
s xi/OOO /SOO 2. ooo
_ j JCAlt /# ftlT
LAKESIDE
X,
m °
™ 4 l7 f K'"---------- 1 _ !■: \«r
ALjJ
___ 1 e\
: V ' " '
O JOO /.ooo
u
irTTT ::.. . . --jl
n1
fa
SPRINGER V/LLE
7R
7 7
nJ
r x ^r * lx..
■n
IB
JEJ]-'W m r mi r —
5J. J:
•IV ]
\ 1
*
TEklJCT
X
< 7 "
/ t /Z v= “ DEVELOPED STREET *» UNDEVELOPED STREET
PENETRATION STREET
NOR M O N T O N N S ITE
\ N O N -M O R M O N TOWNS IT E
vTj\
^ ......-" 'J -------• JOO < 0 0 0 /J O O 2 0 0 0
M c N A R Y
I •l m H-n TFEhbssssss
i t , i a i
FIG UR E 5 0 . S T R E E T SYSTEM , TEN COMMUNITIES^ ./OOO /JOO 2000"jooij W >//r
PI NET OP
SOURCE •• /94CHE COUN T Y
ASSESSOR NAPS j N A M JO COUNTY ASSESSOR M APS} ARIZONA STATE HIGHWAY
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS j MARK
HURD AER/AL PHOTOGRAPHS j
LAND/S AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS j E/E LD NOTES, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, AND NOVEMBER / U S
kJd/i rt ft. £ r*psfortJ l / f l r / u n 7 A c s / s
/f 7/
..■■y
nnIQfflBH3EB
IILL,:i I iS R pj
X -ZT—a.
: _ : s * m t i s s s e s »
J-X— .
:— 4 V
i.TjESOMHEHiMBULiEI 3SEiisfflffiaro raffiaHnana"'*
-------- ---- I " " A lv - "
r
y
j o o < » » e <soo zaoo
JOSEPH1 CITY
X / J/ooo / s60 2 000
■SCAlt
TAYLOR-*_» ■ •
X' : W '
r, k\ ;1BE® El
\
. i'l'f?:,.»>*
__________
dDGrasafflEtiEBBSSEaE i j g n r iEly L - J Etv
I__ J
r aML T
B
1 rT_: j
ri: HBt mn
i - 3 " \ 1 Q i t l
r.... • i
- M B
J
—
,:,rH I-
T X
S N O W F L A K E
3j
b. : ; r a q;
BBpanraj&iiDn31 IE®fflFifi b
Hi
1 c^X-~~ •lA!
I*.
fflniXsEH
3 f e £ ;
~r~r: X r r
n
: i : : : i : - : ; i ;- : -: - 4 i :
;.-J----- :•■■— : •*
a c r -
ErXH^iB ttti .srp! ;1 : . 1."X oh Hr 4-jaafflF -S H E f ftEHbBSSiti:jr.
& .......
a cMSOO toco 1500 2.000
ft Alt )« rf£7
/OOO /SOO 2.000 IEAGAR
afCAli /* ?££ T
S T JOHNS7 / ...
------ •••.
-F" V
- —
......
P A
-45
A,u
T>«»
(11
B -,1. 1 l»l I
TJ
n
iPX5\. ngaaE
Em t3LJ2:
rips E t l i t i....jjV I f f
r i
a i
% I ^BBffi
•I*I l»'»H I F IT ^
r " i
d @
l i as
\
if;1?
-'4 fe! E:1 . sEldIkJ Tl
_.iilLlJTJiL*3A J | * • ---
;|
_ __I —H—I’j, * Si ■ -■ -ja|--:n!i_^O C T
iT
1 1/J<K> /COO (300 Z.OOO
*<3CAi l )* f f t T '
VI k
n L O W
7".__ i. • IIJ /
J
SJfr-'V’i’v e
r'-'-ivSt,X
I
SOURCE ’ APACHE COUNT Y ASSESSOR MAPS j A/AVAJO COUNTY ASSESSOR M APS,AR/ZONA STATS’ HIGHWAY
A£R/AL PHOTOGRAPHS, MARK HURD AER/AL PHOTOGRAPHS, LAND/S AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, f /E L D NOTES, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, AND NOVEMBER
$53
- I "f ii
v— '
R!jrrt lM
a.......; - * r
^ l i n
::ii|l-ir.ii 1—rVii ,f 44r... >i»ii
"1
\v-i-.L t. >1 -J//rs«st A,J -f .1 0 M O R M O N C H U R C H B LO CK
E X IS TIN G ORIGINAL LOT L IN E E X IS T IN G O RIG INAL LOT
lllin R E S ID E N T IA L U S E 0 1 A G R IC U L T U R E U S E
<#•» <f*0 2.4*0' jCAtt Iv /vfr
SPRINCfR VtLLE
I j , . r
VIEm i s 0 1giBii# P #1
A : : : : : : : : : . . .:-f j ., -
: ; i .i; — I
F/GURE 5 L MORMON TOWNSlTE CHARACTERISTICSTHAT HAl/E REMAINED. E/CHT COMMUNITIES I j | H
a/ o 6 * K -
iSrl/ly, M/ a m '/h j j //vipj / /?//