Historic Structure Report
for the
J. Robert Oppenheimer House
Los Alamos, New Mexico
August 2011
Dedication
This Historic Structure Report is dedicated to the memory of Laurence (Larry) Joseph
Campbell (1937–2011). Larry was a champion of historic preservation and a strong
promoter of the history of Los Alamos and Northern New Mexico. As a member of the
board of the Los Alamos Historical Society and its former president, he negotiated the
purchase of the Oppenheimer House for the society and oversaw repairs described in this
report. He also worked tirelessly for the restoration of the Romero Cabin, which dates from
the Homestead Era. He recently initiated and funded a program to publish historical essays
about Los Alamos and the area. We will surely miss him and the many ways he supported
the society.
ii
Table of Contents
Project Data
iv
Introduction
1
Part 1 - Developmental History
2
Historical Background and Context
2
Chronology of Development and Use
8
Physical Description
13
Evaluation of Significance
15
Condition Assessment
17
Part 2 - Treatment and Work Recommendations
20
Historic Preservation Objectives
20
Requirements for Work
21
Work Recommendations and Alternatives
22
Bibliography
26
iii
Project Data
A summary of project administrative data (e.g., location, ownership, and landmark status of
property) and the methodology and project participants.
This Historic Structure Report (HSR) is about the J. Robert Oppenheimer House, 1967 Peach
Street (Corner of Peach and Bathtub Row), Los Alamos, New Mexico. The House is owned by the
Los Alamos Historical Society (LAHS), P.O. Box 43, 1050 Bathtub Row, Los Alamos, NM 87544
[email protected].
This report follows the format recommended by the National Park Service in its publication
Preservation Brief 43: The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports, http://www.nps.gov/
hps/tps/briefs/brief43.htm. The text in the shaded boxes is taken from that publication to guide the
reader regarding the purpose and content of each section. This Historic Structure Report contains
our best knowledge to date and will be revised as new research becomes available.
This report was written by John Ruminer, Chair of the LAHS Historic Properties Committee, with
editing and layout by Jeannette Mortensen, LAHS Publications Committee. Photographs that are
not credited are from the LAHS archives and are used with permission. Many of the recent
photographs were taken by Larry Campbell.
Contributors
Tom Sandford, LAHS Historic Properties Committee
Gerry Strickfadden, LAHS Historic Properties Committee and Chair of Los Alamos
County Fuller Lodge/Historic District Advisory Board
Steven G. Shaw, LAHS Historic Properties Committee
Frank Pabian, LAHS Volunteer, computer renderings
Helene and Jerry Suydam, residents of the house for more than fifty years
Barbara Judy, National Park Service, Bandelier National Monument
Candace Matelic, CTM Professional Services
Cindy Kelly, Atomic Heritage Foundation
Heather McClenahan, LAHS Executive Director
Hedy Dunn, LAHS Director Emeritus
Rebecca Collinsworth, LAHS Archivist
Sharon Snyder, LAHS Publications Director
Larry Campbell, LAHS Former President
Denny Erickson, LAHS Past President
Ron Wilkins, LAHS President
Supporting Organizations
National Trust for Historic Preservation, New Mexico Humanities Council, Los Alamos
Historical Society, and Atomic Heritage Foundation
iv
Introduction
A historic structure report provides documentary, graphic, and physical information about a property’s
history and existing condition. Broadly recognized as an effective part of the preservation planning, a
historic structure report also addresses management or owner goals for the use or re-use of the
property. It provides a thoughtfully considered argument for selecting the most appropriate approach to
treatment, prior to the commencement of work, and outlines a scope of recommended work. The report
serves as an important guide for all changes made to a historic property during a project repair,
rehabilitation, or restoration and can also provide information for maintenance procedures. Finally, it
records the findings of research and investigation, as well as the processes of physical work for
future researchers.
T
he Oppenheimer House on Bathtub Row in Los Alamos is an exceptional asset for our nation as
well as for our community. Built in 1929 for the art and music teacher of the Los Alamos Ranch
School, it became the wartime home of J. Robert Oppenheimer and his family during the time he was
scientific leader of the top secret atom bomb project that brought an abrupt end to World War II. Today
it still retains much of the character and appearance that it had during the Oppenheimer occupancy.
In 2003, the Los Alamos Historical Society acquired the house through a life trust from the current
residents, Helene and Bergen (Jerry) Suydam. That same year the Atomic Heritage Foundation helped
the historical society acquire a $50,000 grant from the National Park Service’s Save America’s
Treasures, which was used for restoration work on the house. Workers stabilized the house’s
foundation and chimney and conducted some much needed repairs to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom
tiles. A sprinkler system was installed to help maintain the attractive grounds, which will become an
important element of the visitor experience.
In 2010, the historical society hosted a symposium to explore future uses of the Oppenheimer House.
Based on the recommendations of scholars, historic preservationists, and historic house museum
experts who attended (as well as local community participants), the period of significance for the
house should be the years, 1943–1945. Furthermore, the house should be used to tell the story of
Oppenheimer and his colleagues in the broad context of the social and political times. Exactly how we
tell that story will be the subject of an Interpretive Plan that will be a companion document to this
Historic Structure Report.
Mindful of the fact that the Suydams will continue to live in the house until they choose otherwise, it
is appropriate that we plan ahead for the eventual sharing of this historic house with the public. We
have identified a number of tasks that will need attention when taking occupancy. They include
improved measures for fire protection and security and new provisions for parking. Some additional
lighting may be needed for the displays, and outside signage and walkways will be provided. Interior
modifications will be made to improve heating during the winter and airflow during the summer, as
well as to accommodate visitor movement through the house. These modifications will return the
house closer to its condition during the period of interest.
Funding for maintenance and upkeep will be a challenge for the historical society. At this time we
anticipate that groundskeeping, preventive maintenance, and housekeeping services will cost $25,000
to $40,000 per year. Utilities, taxes, and insurance will be $8,000 to $10,000 per year. We hope,
however, that interpretive programs will be provided by volunteers of the historical society.
1
Part 1 - Developmental History
This section consists of a narrative report based on historical research and physical examination
documenting the evolution of the building, its current condition and causes of deterioration, and
its significance.
Historical Background and Context
One of the most prominent geologic features in northern New Mexico is the Valles Caldera,
created by a spectacular series of volcanic eruptions that occurred about a million years ago. The
flow from the eruptions left a layer of welded ash four hundred to six hundred feet deep over an
area thirty miles wide. Over the millennia, wind and water erosion created a dramatic vista of
deep canyons with vertical cliffs and flat mesa tops (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. View of the Pajarito Plateau and the Jemez Mountains. Photo by Don Taylor.
2
The Pajarito Plateau refers to the eastern quadrant of this geologic wonderland. Set between the
Jemez Mountains, which form the rim of the caldera, and the Rio Grande Valley, the plateau
comprises a long series of isolated mesas separated by steep, narrow canyons.
The earliest visitors to the plateau were Paleo-Indians who hunted in the area 8,000–9,500 years
ago. The first signs of permanent settlement appeared in the twelfth century when small, singlefamily dwellings were built by the ancestors of the present-day Pueblo Indians. Gradually,
multifamily houses were built, and, by the year 1350, large pueblos of several hundred rooms were
built in the canyon bottoms and on the mesa tops of the plateau. One such dwelling of more
modest size (about thirty rooms) was built two hundred yards south of the property where the J.
Robert Oppenheimer House now stands. However, it was abandoned by the time the Spanish
explorers arrived in the mid-sixteenth century.
In August 1908, H. H. Brook applied for a homestead on the part of the plateau known as Los
Alamos Mesa. In partnership with W. M. Hopper, through a series of land purchases, Brook
eventually owned all of the area now considered to be the Los Alamos Historic District, in which
the Oppenheimer House and the other Bathtub Row properties now reside.
In 1917, Brook sold his property to Ashley Pond, who wanted to fulfill a lifelong dream of
establishing a small school for boys. The students, ages twelve to eighteen, were exposed to a
rigorous academic curriculum and experienced an active and robust outdoor environment. Pond
called it the Los Alamos Ranch School, and under the direction of headmaster A. J. Connell, it
prospered for the next twenty-five years (from 1917 to 1943). Buildings for the school included
dormitories (Big House and Spruce Cottage), dining hall and social center (Fuller Lodge),
classrooms (Arts and Crafts Building), Guest House (current home of the Los Alamos Historical
Museum), and individual homes for the masters and their families. Several of the log and stone
buildings of the Ranch School were designed by renowned architect John Gaw Meem.
The house that J. Robert
Oppenheimer would live in during
his scientific leadership of the
Manhattan Project was one of the
early Ranch School buildings
called Master Cottage #2 (Fig. 2).
It was designed by the Ranch
School’s headmaster, A. J.
Connell. He had it built for his
sister, Mary K. (May) Connell,
who was hired to be the music and
art teacher (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2. Left to right: Los Alamos Ranch School cottages
#1, 2, and 3 built for the masters (teachers).
3
Because she also earned her living
as an artist, she had a strong
influence on the design of the living
room and studio. She and A. J. made
sure the house had an open, bright
living room/studio with a high ceiling
and large north-facing windows. All
of the walls and fireplaces, with the
exception of the screened-in sleeping
porch and wall of the study, were
constructed of local volcanic stone.
A local stone mason named Marcos
Gomez (Fig. 4) from the small village
of Alcalde, New Mexico, spent more
Fig. 3. May Connell, the Ranch School’s art and music
than a year building the stone walls.
teacher, was the first resident of Master Cottage #2.
A natural artist who worked without
benefit of a level, Marcos was the
mason for many Ranch School projects.
Eventually other masters who were married and had families moved into Master Cottage #2.
Master Tom and Anita Rose Waring occupied the house during the late 1930s, followed by master
Cecil Worth and his family until 1941, and master Henry Walen and his family until 1943.
Early in 1943, Robert Oppenheimer; his wife, Kitty (Fig. 5); and son, Peter, moved into Master
Cottage #2, where they resided until the end of the war in August 1945. (Their daughter, Katherine,
called Toni, was born in Los Alamos in December 1944.) During the years 1943–1945,
Fig. 5. Kitty Oppenheimer, wife
of Robert.
Fig. 4. Marcos Gomez, stone mason, built walls
at the Los Alamos Ranch School.
4
Oppenheimer was scientific leader of the top
secret Manhattan Project and director of the
Los Alamos Laboratory tasked to design,
fabricate, and test the world’s first atomic
bombs. He recruited many of the top
theoretical and experimental physicists,
chemists, metallurgists, and engineers from
universities around the nation and the world to
work on the crash program to develop an
atomic bomb on a time scale to affect the
outcome of the war.
Despite a relentless work schedule and the
Fig. 6. Robert Oppenheimer in his home,
difficulties of wartime travel, Oppenheimer,
entertaining I. I. Rabi, Dorothy McKibbin, and
like many other Los Alamos residents,
Victor Weisskopf.
relieved the pressures of work with frequent
social gatherings. He and Kitty hosted many
parties in their home (which by then had the official army designation T-111). Within the ambiance
of May Connell’s studio, he entertained the luminaries of the scientific world (Fig. 6). To better
facilitate this social role of the director, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers turned the old kitchen
into a dining room and added a new kitchen. Both of these rooms retain most of their original
character today.
Living conditions for most
residents were spartan, with
army-style barracks and
prefabricated housing units. Of
all the housing in town, only
the original Ranch School
masters' cottages had bathtubs,
hence the name Bathtub Row.
The Oppenheimer House is one
of nine original Ranch School
buildings remaining on Bathtub
Row in the center of the Los
Alamos Historic District (Fig.
7). During the war,
Oppenheimer’s neighbor to the
south was Hans Bethe, Nobel
Laureate and head of the Los
Alamos Laboratory's
Theoretical Division. To the
Oppenheimer
House
Fig. 7. Bathtub Row showing the houses and dining hall where
many prominent scientists lived and socialized during the war.
5
north lived Capt. Deak Parsons, leader of the
Ordnance Division and responsible for the final
weapon assembly aboard the Enola Gay on its
mission to Hiroshima. Other wartime residents on
that famous block were George Kistiakowsky,
James Chadwick, Kenneth Bainbridge, Richard
Feynman, and Ed McMillan. Enrico Fermi, Eric
Jette, and Edward Teller all lived nearby and were
frequent guests at social gatherings.
After the end of the war, the Oppenheimers
returned to Caltech and then moved to Princeton,
where he became Director of the Institute for
Advanced Studies, which was the home and
intellectual refuge of Albert Einstein.
The Jettes moved into the house
during the winter of 1945–1946. Eric
was a well-known metallurgist who
was leader of a group in the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Division
during the war. His wife, Eleanor,
wrote one of the most popular
publications of the Los Alamos
Historical Society. Titled Inside Box
1663, it describes the everyday lives
of those scientists and their families
who were assigned to the remote
outpost of Los Alamos during the
war. Their house, which was still
owned by the government, received a
significant remodel at the request of
the Jettes. A bedroom and bathroom
were added between the two westfacing wings, and the original
bathroom was converted into a large
closet. These rooms still exist in that
configuration.
Fig. 8. Jerry and Helene Suydam entertaining
their neighbor, Stan Ulam, during the winter of
1971.Ulam, along with Edward Teller, is
known as the father of the hydrogen bomb.
Fig. 9. The deed to the Oppenheimer House when it was
purchased by the Suydams in 1969.
After the Jettes moved to the Pojoaque Valley in 1947, the house was occupied by Frank and Betty
Hoyt. Then in 1956, Helene and Jerry Suydam moved into the house where they have lived for the
past fifty-five years (Fig. 8). Suydam was recruited by Oppenheimer’s successor, Norris Bradbury,
who knew him from their work together at the Naval Proving Grounds in Virginia. For most of his
career, he worked as a theoretical physicist at the Laboratory.
When the government-owned housing in Los Alamos was sold to the public, the Suydams did not
hesitate to purchase their historic home. As seen in the Special Warranty Deed (Fig. 9), they purchased
the house and property on January 15, 1969, for the attractive sum of $9,575.
6
In October 2003, the Suydams signed a living
trust agreement with the society, selling title of
the home to the Los Alamos Historical Society
with the provision that they may live in the home
as long as they choose (Fig. 10). Subsequently,
they made the largest and most generous donation
ever received by the historical society by
forgiving the purchase price.
Ever since the end of 1945, Master Cottage #2 has
been known informally as the Oppenheimer
House. Eventually, however, that became its
official name after completion of restoration work
performed under a grant from the National Park
Service’s Save America’s Treasures. The
restoration work is described in some detail in the
Condition Assessment section of this report. A
photo of a plaque that was unveiled during a
dedication ceremony in 2004 is shown in Fig.
11. The historical society continues to plan for
the eventual opening of the house as a museum
that commemorates and shares with visitors the
lives of the Oppenheimers and the other
scientists and their families who changed the
course of the war and world history.
Fig. 10. Helene Suydam entertaining Dr.
Hugh Robinson, grandson of Gen. Leslie
Groves (May 2011).
Fig. 11. Plaque for the Oppenheimer house
unveiled during the 2004 dedication ceremony.
7
Chronology of Development and Use
A description of original construction, modifications, and uses, based on historical documentation
and physical evidence.
We have searched for original house drawings of Master Cottage #2 in the Los Alamos Historical
Society archives, the John Gaw Meem archives at the University of New Mexico (UNM), the
Kruger repository at UNM, the Los Alamos National Laboratory archives, and the National
Archives. We found none. We suspect that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers collected drawings
of all the Ranch SchoolRanch School buildings in December 1942, but we have yet to locate them.
However, we know from photographic evidence and historical documents how the house evolved
from 1929 to today. Figures 12 and 13 show the house as it appeared in its early years when it was
occupied by the Ranch School masters and their families (Connell, Wirth, Waring, and Walen).
Figure 14 shows the house in December 1942, just as the Ranch School was being taken over by
the army. Figure 15 is a computer rendering of how the house looked during that period, and Fig.
16 shows the floor plan of the original Ranch School house.
Master Cottage #2 comprised a studio/living
room, kitchen, study, and a sleeping porch for
a total of 1,200 square feet. A partial basement
located under the kitchen held the steam boiler
for the single-pipe radiator heating system and
a water heater. The walls, fireplaces, and
foundations are made of volcanic tuff quarried
from local sites. The main room of the house
is clearly its centerpiece and showcase. It has a
high pitched ceiling with exposed hand-hewn
wood trusses. Light from two modest windows
in the east wall and two large windows in the
north wall provided the lighting desired by the
Fig. 13.The house when the Connell, Wirth,
and Waring families lived there.
Fig. 12. The cottage in the 1930s, during the era
of the Los Alamos Ranch School.
Fig. 14. The house in 1942, when the Walens lived
there, shortly before the Ranch School was taken
over by the army for the Manhattan Project.
8
Fig. 15. Computer renderings of Master Cottage
#2 as it appeared in 1929
from the northeast (top) and
the southwest (right).
Fig. 16. Floor plan of Master Cottage #2, showing the
appearance of the house from 1929 to 1943, including the
locations of its rock walls.
9
Fig. 17. May Connell’s living room/studio with its north-facing windows. Note the easel
with a painting in the northwest corner of the room and the unpainted stone walls.
artist and initial resident, May Connell (Fig. 17). The open, high-ceiling room also provided a
sense of space desired by the Oppenheimers for their many social gatherings.
In 1943, the dining room, shown in Fig. 18, replaced the original kitchen space, and a new kitchen
(Fig. 19) was added to the northwest wing of the house. A west-facing window was closed off, and
the outside door was replaced with an open entryway between the two rooms (Fig. 20).
Fig. 18. The current dining room was built for
the Oppenheimers where the original kitchen
was located.
Fig. 19. A new kitchen was added in 1943.
10
During the Jette period (1945–1947), an
additional bedroom was added and the
bathroom was moved, resulting in a
substantial change to the western side of
the house. The two western wings were
enclosed; the space between was
converted into the bedroom and
bathroom. The original bathroom was
converted into a large closet (Fig. 21).
The final modification to the house
occurred during the Suydam occupancy
(1956–present). During a time when the
government still owned the house, the
Suydams had a small utility room added
to the northwest corner of the house as a
laundry room and storage area. The utility
room has windows to the north and west,
a doorway to the Jette bedroom, and a
door leading to the side of the house, which
is connected by a pathway to a small
carport. We have the complete set of
drawings for this 1960 modification in the
Los Alamos Historical Society’s archives.
W. C. Kruger and Associates was the
architect. The carport was built before
1956. Although the exact date is unknown,
the carport was built at the same time that
carports were built for the other houses on
Bathtub Row. Figures 22 and 23 show
computer renderings of the house and a
floor plan as it exists today.
Fig. 20. Floor plan of the house from 1943 to 1945,
showing changes (shaded).
Fig. 21. Floor plan of the house from 1945 to 1956,
showing changes (shaded).
11
Fig. 22. Computer
renderings from the northeast (top) and southwest
(right), showing modifications made to the house.
Fig. 23. Floor plan for the current house, showing the most
recent additions and modifications (shaded).
12
Physical Description
A description of elements, materials, and spaces of the building, including significant and nonsignificant features of the building.
Designed by A. J. Connell, Master Cottage #2 was built in the rustic National Park Service style
that was popular in the 1920s and 1930s. Construction materials were stone, wood frame, and
stucco with half-timbered post and beam detailing on the north, south, and west sides of the house.
Today the west side of the house is board and batten around the utility room and sawn logs and
stucco over the remaining (older) west side.
The roof line of the house is pitched at about 120 degrees over the stone living room and studio,
and it connects at a shallower angle over the kitchen, study, and sleeping porch. The covered porch
at the main (south) entrance to the house has roof lines that match the living room roof (Fig. 24).
The foundation is concrete and stone. The house also has a partial basement with stone walls and
concrete floor. Entrance to the basement is from an outside stairwell on the north side of the house.
The basement serves as a mechanical room for the steam heating system and the water heater.
Fig. 24. The main entrance with its covered porch.
13
The house today retains much of the character of the original Ranch School cottage, and it still
appears much as it did during the occupancy of the Oppenheimer family. Master Cottage #2 was
about 1,200 square feet on the ground floor. The additions made for the Oppenheimers (dining
room), Jettes (bedroom, bath, and closet), and the Suydams (utility room) added only an
additional four hundred square feet to the ground floor. These additions did, however, change the
western profile of the house.
May Connell’s house featured a living room/studio, kitchen, bedroom/study, bathroom, and
covered front porch. Except for the modifications to the kitchen and bathroom, and a doorway
leading from the living room to the study, these rooms remain almost unchanged from the
original construction. At some point the interior stone walls were painted white. It is not clear
when that was done, but we know from photographs that the walls were white during the
Oppenheimer occupancy.
14
Evaluation of Significance
A discussion of significant features, original and non-original materials and elements, and
identification of the period(s) of significance (if appropriate).
In 2008, Los Alamos County commissioned an architectural survey of the Fuller Lodge Historic
District. The information in the survey was to be used in support of a county ordinance that would
help protect the integrity of the historic area in the center of town. MOSAIC Architectural
Solutions, P.A. performed a survey of all the contiguous buildings remaining from the Los Alamos
Ranch School, all of which played prominent roles during the Manhattan Project.
The primary periods of interest for the Oppenheimer House, from a historical standpoint, are the
Ranch School occupation (1929–1942) and the Manhattan Project era (1943–1945). The important
features identified in the architectural survey for those two periods are listed below.
Prominent Features—those that visually define the Historic District, such as tuff stonework and
sawn-log siding
• Configuration of the roof line
• Exterior stone walls
• Fireplaces and vents grouped together in one long chimney with clay pot chimney tops
• Wood detailing mimicking Colonial English half-timbers with stucco walls
• Original windows, especially large north windows
• Wooden French doors
• Original front porch and roof
• Dog-shaped boot scraper near front porch
• Front porch lantern
• Sleeping porch
• Stone walls in the basement
• Original boiler and radiators that still work
Distinguishing Features —prominent features that distinguish each building from others in
the district
• Roof line
• Details referencing Colonial English half-timbered homes
• Two large windows facing north for resident artist’s studio
• Exterior stone walls
• Fireplaces and vents in one long chimney with clay pot chimney tops
• Sleeping porch
Significant Historic Features—historic events or personalities that relate to each building
• Built for May Connell, headmaster’s sister, an artist
• Home of J. Robert Oppenheimer during the war
• Site of many social gatherings of prominent scientists during the Manhattan Project
15
Fig. 25. Left to right: Betty Brixner, Eric and
Eleanor Jette (back toward camera), Frank and
Irma Walters, and Robert Oppenheimer.
Of all the features of the house, the living
room/studio best captures the interior
character of the building and conveys a
sense of the history that took place in Los
Alamos during World War II (Fig. 25). The
stone walls, oak flooring, fireplace, singlepane windows, and high ceiling with exposed
timber trusses are all original. This room will
become the primary showcase for whatever
approach the historical society uses to tell the
story of the Oppenheimers and the everyday
lives of the scientists and their families
during the war.
The kitchen area that was added for the
Oppenheimers has the original cabinets,
broom closet, and plumbing. The floor,
ceiling, stove, and refrigerator have been
replaced, and a dishwasher and bookshelves
have been added. Skylights were built into
the kitchen ceiling during the Suydam period.
Fig. 26. The kiva (beehive) fireplace.
Fig. 27. The original boiler still works.
The study/screened sleeping porch area of the house retains its original appearance, including the
hardwood floors, single-glazed windows, and a very attractive kiva (beehive) fireplace in the
northeast corner of the room (Fig. 26).
The partial basement has an eighty-year old boiler that still provides the primary source of heating for
the entire house. Over the years the boiler has been converted from wood to coal, to oil, and finally to
natural gas (Fig. 27).
16
Condition Assessment
A description of the condition of building materials, elements, and systems and causes of
deterioration, and discussion of materials testing and analysis (if performed as part of this study).
The overall condition of the eighty-plus yearold house is good. The current residents,
Helene and Jerry Suydam, have lived there
for the past fifty-five years. They have
appreciated the historical significance of the
house and have beautifully maintained the
house and grounds over the years.
However, as with any building of this age,
there has been some deterioration of its
external and internal structural features. So
in 2004, the Atomic Heritage Foundation
helped the Los Alamos Historical Society
apply for and receive a $50,000 grant from
the National Park Service’s Save America’s
Treasures program to conduct rehabilitation
and stabilization work on the house. A condition assessment was performed by A & L
Inspections LLC, Jemez Springs, New
Mexico. A Scope of Work (SOW) was
prepared by historic architect Thomas E.
Cordova based on the condition assessment,
and the work was distributed to five different
contractors.
Fig. 28. Cracks in the exterior wall.
The most urgent of the rehabilitation work
was to arrest the settling of the northeast
corner of the house, which had already caused
cracks in the exterior and interior stone wall.
This required changing the surface grade
adjacent to the house to divert water flow
away from the foundation and repairing
cracks in the wall. All stabilization and repair
activities were performed by Caspersen
Builders in accordance with Secretary of
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and in
communication with the New Mexico Historic
Preservation Office.
Figures 28 and 29 show the cracks in the wall
caused by settling of the foundation. The
Fig. 29. Cracks in the interior wall.
17
Fig.30. (Left) Installation of piers to support the
corner wall.
Fig. 31. This close-up of the helical pier and steel
foundation plate shows the final condition of the
northeast wall after completion of the exterior work.
Fig. 32. Damages to the chimney and clay
pots were repaired.
Fig. 33. The stucco on the side of the house
was replaced.
settling was arrested by stabilizing the foundation with helical piers and steel foundation plates
(Figs. 30 and 31). The top span of the northeast foundation vent window was also strengthened.
Cracks in the living room wall and around a doorway and bookcase were filled and painted to
match existing walls.
Other exterior items addressed in the SOW were repair and sealing of cracks in the caps of both
chimneys (Fig. 32) and replacement of the stucco color coat on the south portico (Fig. 33).
Window trim and log sidings were sealed to prevent deterioration.
Interior repairs were focused mainly in the kitchen and bathroom areas of the house. The kitchen
ceiling had experienced severe water damage but was restored to its original form of construction,
18
Fig. 34. Water-damaged kitchen ceiling (left)and after repairs (right).
metal lath and plaster (Fig. 34). The floor covering in the kitchen and utility rooms were also replaced
with new linoleum.
The bathroom tub and shower enclosure had loose tile and backing material. The deteriorated backing
material was replaced, and the original tiles, which were removed without damage, were replaced
(Fig. 35).
Minor repairs were made to the interior doors, light fixtures, molding, electrical wiring, and storm
window panes. Also installed with funding from the grant was a sprinkler system to maintain a healthy
lawn and water the trees.
Other than general cleanup, no repairs were needed in the basement. After a recent inspection of the
boiler by a local plumber, he concluded that the flame was a heathy blue and that “these things last
forever.” The boiler does, however, require monthly maintenance. The boiler itself, and pipes leading
to it, are covered by asbestos for insulation. Original steam radiators are still in use throughout the
house. The radiator that was once located under the north window is missing, causing the living room
to be persistently cooler than the rest of the house during the winter. It needs to be replaced with a
radiator from the appropriate period.
Fig. 35. Bathroom tiles before (left) and after (right) repair work.
19
Part 2 - Treatment and Work Recommendations
This section presents the historic preservation objective and selected treatment (preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction), requirements for work, and recommended work
that corresponds with the defined treatment goal.
Historic Preservation Objectives
A description and rationale for the recommended treatment and how it meets the project goals for
use of the building, e.g., rehabilitation for a new use, restoration for interpretive purposes, etc.
In September 2010, the Los Alamos Historical Society convened a two-day symposium to plan
for the eventual public use of Oppenheimer’s wartime home. Participants included historians,
preservationists, and historic house museum experts, as well as members of the Los Alamos
community. This symposium was sponsored by the New Mexico Humanities Council, the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Los Alamos Historical Society.
The summary from the Symposium Final Report states:
The consensus of symposium participants is that the period of significance for
the house is Manhattan Project years, 1943–1945, and that it should be used to
tell the story of Oppenheimer in the broad context of his social and political
times. The house should be a place where Oppenheimer’s own words are used
to capture his spirit of leadership and intellectualism. While the thrust of the
conversations focused on developing a historic house museum, more
entrepreneurial options such as the creation of a retreat center, a residence for
visiting scholars, or a combination of uses should be considered.
Mindful of the fact that the Suydams will continue to live in the house until they choose otherwise,
we believe it is appropriate to plan ahead for the eventual sharing of this historic house with the
public. This Historic Structure Report was identified during the symposium as a short-term
deliverable of the highest priority, as it is an indicator of serious stewardship of a historic building.
It is an important companion piece for the development of an Interpretive Plan. The Interpretive
Plan will identify the stories that should be told, how they will be conveyed, and what appropriate
public uses and activities should be considered.
Although we have identified 1943–1945 as the period of significance, we do not envision removal
of the additions made for the Jettes and the Suydams. Those modifications were built during
important post-war and cold-war years that are historic in their own right. The modifications
represent only about 15 percent of the floor space, but they are integrated structurally with the rest
20
of the house. We anticipate using the modifications as a valuable staging area for historical society
staff and restroom accommodations for visitors. However, it is likely that the areas of most interest
to the public will be the original living room, kitchen, dining room, study, and sleeping porch.
It will be important also to maintain the grounds around the house. They are an attractive setting
for the house and will be an essential part of the experience we hope to provide visitors.
We anticipate that some of the public access areas may be furnished with period furniture, dishes,
artifacts, books, bedding, curtains, and possibly area floor coverings. Appropriate paintings and
photographs may be attached to the walls. But space must also be allowed for telling the story of a
complicated man like Oppenheimer, as well as the everyday lives of the scientists and their
families. These stories, and how they are told, will be described in the Interpretive Plan, which will
be developed as a companion to this Historic Structure Report.
Requirements for Work
An outline of the laws, regulations, and functional requirements that are applicable to the
recommended work areas (e.g., life safety, fire protection, energy, conservation, hazardous
materials abatement, and handicapped accessibility).
It is our goal that all work on the Oppenheimer House be planned and completed in compliance
with the Department of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties. General
guidance requires the preservation and maintenance of historic materials and features. For all
construction work we will acquire building permits from Los Alamos County and follow local
building codes. We will comply with health and safety codes for workers and visitors. Maintenance
personnel will be provided appropriate protective equipment for hazards found at the worksite.
Docents and maintenance personnel will be trained in the use of safety equipment and on the
proper disposal of hazardous materials. Emergency call lists will be posted and kept up to date.
We will use good landscaping practices to reduce water usage while retaining the historic
appearance of the grounds. Similarly, we will encourage energy conservation within the constraints
of using historic materials and preserving the 1930s and 1940s features of the house (e.g., singlepane windows, steam heating, uninsulated stone walls).
21
Work Recommendations and Alternatives
A presentation of tasks recommended to realize the proposed treatment approach; evaluation of
proposed solutions; and description of specific recommendations for work, including alternate
solutions, if appropriate.
It should be the goal of the historical society to open the Oppenheimer House to the public within
about a year of taking occupancy. We have identified a number of tasks that will need immediate
attention upon occupancy in order to meet that goal.
1. Fire Protection
Historical society member Tom Sandford developed a fire safety and security plan that is
referenced in the bibliography. Based on National Fire Protection Association and National Park
Service guidance, Sandford concludes that an active fire suppression system (sprinklers) will not
be recommended for the Oppenheimer House. Instead, an aggressive fire protection program will
be implemented. The Historic Properties Committee, supplemented by fire safety and security
experts, will conduct a thorough hazard/tolerability assessment of the house and property. At a
minimum, we expect to recommend certain common sense measures for fire prevention purposes.
The grounds, roof, gutters, and carport will be maintained and kept free of unnecessary
combustibles. Corridors and exits inside the house will be free of obstructions, and storage of
flammable cleaning materials will be kept to a minimum. Fire extinguishers will be placed
throughout the house, and docents and staff will be trained in their use. A policy will be established
regarding any type of open-flame devices within the house, including candles and fireplace fires.
For fire detection, smoke alarms that communicate with a base unit will be placed throughout the
house. The base unit will be connected to the electrical system for power and to the telephone line
for contacting a commercial alarm company.
2. Security
Security improvements will include rugged dead bolt locks on each of the exterior doors. Magnetic
sensors that have radio-frequency communications with a base unit (likely combined with the fire
protection communication system) will also be installed on exterior doors.
3. Parking and Driveway
Bathtub Row is a narrow street, and it has a moderate amount of local traffic. Visitor parking along
the street is possible, but designated parking spaces off the street are much more desirable. At least
four spaces should be provided for normal visitor parking. An agreement with the County for siting
the parking spaces on county property west of the house should be explored. Otherwise the
driveway, which dates back to the Ranch School, will have to be used for parking.
When the government houses were sold in the 1960s, the driveway in front of the Suydam’s house
was parceled between the Suydam’s property and their neighbor’s property to the south. Figure 36
is a survey showing that the southern entrance of the driveway does not belong to the historical
22
society. For now, the Suydams
have permission to use the full
driveway. The historical society
may want to construct a new
southern entrance, entirely on the
Oppenheimer property once public
use is anticipated so as not to
impose on the neighbor’s good
will. Alternatively, we can explore
purchasing that corner of the
neighboring lot.
4. Heating Upgrades
Despite being more than eighty
years old, the steam boiler is safe
and functional. Even if it is
eventually replaced, the original
boiler should remain in place as an
example of heating systems of that
era. Removing the asbestos from
the pipes and furnace would be
costly and not necessary if a new
boiler is simply plumbed into the
existing pipes.
Fig. 36. Survey plat of the property showing how the
location of the driveway encroaches on neighboring
property (red circle).
The missing radiator in the living room will be replaced with a steam radiator of similar period,
closely matching the other radiators in the house. This restoration is desired for historical reasons
as well as for visitor and docent comfort during the winter. (Figure 17 shows the radiator below
the large north-facing windows in the studio.)
The plexiglass storm window over the large north-facing windows of the living room is not
original, and it prevents the windows from opening. At one time there was a wooden box frame
with screens over the window. It was deep enough (about six inches) to permit the windows to
open, as is evident in Fig. 25. The historical society will reconstruct that screened box to facilitate
airflow through the living room during the summer.
5. Interior Modifications
Very little is needed in the way of structural changes to the interior because the historical character
of the house has been preserved by the Suydams over the past fifty years. The hardwood floors in
the living room, dining room, study, and bedrooms are in generally good condition. However, the
historical society will take the opportunity to refinish the floors and make any repairs before the
house is open to the public. At the same time, we will do a thorough cleaning and painting around
window sills, baseboards, and possibly some of the walls. Inspection of all light switches, light
23
fixtures, door hardware, and similar
electrical/mechanical hardware may
suggest maintenance requirements. Every
effort will be made to match existing
hardware. A candelabra-type light fixture
was once prominently hanging from the
high ceiling in the living room, and we
should find an appropriate replacement.
During the occupancy by the Ranch School
masters and by the Oppenheimers, there
was an interior doorway from the living
room to the study. That doorway was
closed off by the Suydams and converted to
a bookcase (Fig. 37). It is likely that we
will want to reestablish the doorway
because it will encourage a natural flow of
visitor traffic through the house.
Fig. 37. The doorway from the living room to the
study became a bookcase.
6. Outside Features
Visitors may arrive either by automobile (by way of Bathtub Row on the west side of the house) or
by foot from the walking tour of the Historic District on either the east or west side of the house.
Attractive signs that guide the visitors and give the hours of operation will be placed at both
entrances. Flagstone or concrete pathways will guide foot and wheelchair traffic to the front porch.
Even during off-hour periods, visitors will likely access the grounds (Fig. 38) to take photos and
simply look at the exterior of this famous house. Interpretive signs will be placed for the benefit of
those visitors.
7. Maintenance and Upkeep
As with any private home or public
building, the Oppenheimer house will
require regular housekeeping and
maintenance. The grounds will need
year-round maintenance that will
include lawn care, pruning, and upkeep
of flower beds, trees, and bushes. Snow
removal will be needed during the
winter. Simple preventive maintenance
to both the interior and exterior will be
an ongoing task. Occasionally, major
maintenance items will be needed. For
example, water heater or boiler
replacement will someday be needed.
Fig. 38. The attractive, landscaped front yard will be a
photo spot for visitors.
24
The roof and sidings are in good condition at this time. But the plumbing to the kitchen is
susceptible to freezing during periods of extreme cold. The historical society should consider foam
insulating or electrically heating the pipes inside the north wall.
8. Upkeep Expenses
Expenses will vary depending on the hours of operation and the type of use. Regular monthly
expenses will include utilities (gas, electric, phone, water, and refuse) and fire and security
services. Groundskeeping, maintenance, and housekeeping services will also be major monthly
expenses. Annual costs include taxes and insurance and occasional major repairs.
We can estimate the upkeep costs based on current expenses, but this estimate is strictly ballpark
and will have to be revised as we take occupancy. We know, for example, that utility costs
currently run about $5,000 per year. Taxes and insurance are about $2,500 per year, but insurance
cost may increase when we open the house to the public. Grounds, maintenance, and housekeeping
services will cost $25,000 to $40,000 per year, depending on the level of services required.
We anticipate that docent services will be volunteer, drawing from the very active and generous
membership of the historical society.
One-time move-in costs will also be substantial. We will estimate the costs of signs, photos,
posters, and handouts once the Interpretive Plan is complete. Much of the design work may be
done by historical society staff, but we will want to keep the option of contracting that work out.
Similarly, expenses for furnishings, dishes, and artifacts will be much better known once the
Interpretive Plan is completed.
The projects defined in the Work Recommendations and Alternatives section of this report, such as
painting, lighting enhancements, shelving, walkways, locks, floor refurbishment, and parking
accommodation, can begin upon occupancy by the historical society. This work will be contracted
out, and we can expect to invest $100,000 or more in these improvements.
25
Bibliography
Arbogast , David. How to Write a Historic Structure Report, W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.
Brode, Bernice. Tales of Los Alamos: Life on the Mesa 1943–1945, Los Alamos Historical Society,
1997.
Cordova, Thomas E. letter to Laurence J. Campbell, “Final Report of the Oppenheimer House Repair,
Save America’s Treasures Grant, administered by Los Alamos National Laboratory,” 2004.
http://www.losalamoshistory.org/houserepair.pdf
Hoard, Dorothy. Historic Roads of Los Alamos, Los Alamos Historical Society Publications, 2009.
Jette, Eleanor. Inside Box 1663, Los Alamos Historical Society, 1977.
Martin, Craig, and Heather McClenahan. Of Logs and Stone: The Buildings of the Los Alamos Ranch
School and Bathtub Row, All Seasons Publishing, 2008.
McClenahan, Heather. “Final Report of the Programming for the Oppenheimer House Planning
Symposium, Sept. 23-24, 2010, National Trust for Historic Preservation,” Los Alamos Historical
Society, 2010.
http://www.losalamoshistory.org/oppiehousereport.2.pdf
MOSAIC Architectural Solutions, P.A., Steven G. Shaw, architect, and Nancy Halvorson, intern.
“Architectural Survey of Fuller Lodge Historic District: Then & Now,” 2008.
http://www.losalamosnm.us/gov/bcc/fullerboard/Documents/MosaicSolutionsArchSurvey.pdf
National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 43: The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure
Reports,” U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004.
http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief43.htm
Sandford, Tom. letter to John Ruminer, “A Protection Plan Document for Fire and Security,” 2011.
http://www.losalamoshistory.org/fireandsecurity.pdf
Wilson, Jane, and Charlotte Serber, eds. Standing By and Making Do: The Women of Wartime Los
Alamos, Los Alamos Historical Society, 1988.
26