Remarks by Edmund J. Bennett to Carderock Springs residents

March 7, 2004 on The history of Carderock design and architectural planning concepts 1960-1964

It is gratifying for my old associates and me to be remembered by professors Isabelle Gournay and Mary Corbin Sies, members of the historic preservation faculty at the University of Maryland, in their report tracing the history of contemporary architecture in Maryland. Some of my former aides and collaborators in the planning and development of Carderock Springs are here today: They all contributed in varying degrees to our conceptual programs as well as the land development, construction and marketing of my several projects in Maryland and Virginia, in Columbia, Reston and Alexandria. They all aspired to form their own development enterprises and have done so, perhaps with greater success than in our formative years.

In the conceptual and planning stage of each project, we planned primarily for homeowners who would appreciate a community that looked forward and not back for its planning and design precepts. We hoped owners would appreciate:

1. That homes should be "of' the land and not just "on" it.

2. That old checkerboard street and lotting schemes were sterile in appearance, and destruction of trees and terrain was usually less cost effective.

3. That leaving the natural terrain and vegetation, along with the avoidance of overhead utility lines, makes for an aesthetically pleasing community.

4. That a genuine "community" in the best sense, needs a social activities and recreation center for all ages of residents

5. That car parking must be provided off the streets so traffic can move freely and views from the homes are not marred by parked automobiles.

6. That there should be variety and design interest in house and lot sizes, shapes, functions, materials and colors.

7. That industry advances in materials and construction technology should be incorporated.

8. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, that the homes should be affordable to many families.

Today, many of these concepts are incorporated in the planning and development ordinances and in the architectural vocabulary of many urban communities. but in the late 1950s and early 60s, when Carderock Springs was being planned, they existed mostly in the minds and hopes and aspirations of some of us in the building and architectural realm.

Since communities like Carderock don't just "happen", it may be of interest to recall some of its formative steps, and the dreamers, thinkers and "do-ers" who were responsible for it.

As you may already know, Carderock was preceded by earlier endeavors in Montgomery County, notably Potomac Overlook and Flint Hill and a group of homes overlooking the north side of Kenwood Country Club, all in Bethesda, Md. Later communities of contemporary design by our firm included:

1. New Mark Commons in Rockville, featuring a man-made lake and clubhouse. This community was comprised of about 40% townhouses and 60% single family homes.

2. Townhouse, apartment and condominium communities in Columbia, Reston and Alexandria.

I believe Carderock does have the distinction of being the first community in Montgomery County to put nearly all of the power and phone lines underground—an effort requiring much persuasion of Pepco engineers as to its advantages to Pepco as well as to the homeowners who would not have to endure so many power outages.

Carderock Springs has another distinction: It was one of the earliest communities in the Washington, D.C. area to be designed for and built with wall panels prefabricated in a factory in Pennsylvania and erected with a small crane in one day. This was followed by subsequent construction work days devoted to mechanical systems, dry-wall, roofing painting, etc., all with a view to greater efficiency, productivity and lower cost to the buyer.

Since much of Carderock's terrain was steeply sloping, a "kinder-gentler" approach to land planning was achieved by the use of several innovative means:

1. Houses were clustered on the most buildable, friendly terrain, avoiding the steep slopes that others might have flattened.

2. Flexible cluster planning schemes were used: streets followed the topography rather than fighting the slopes; checkerboard and gridiron lot schemes were avoided as sterile; triad and quad-court schemes provided friendlier clustering and separation from traffic.

3. House plans were designed to relate to the several typical lot slopes: uphill, downhill, sideways and pancake. Optimal orientation of glass areas in relation to the sun was another important planning objective.

4. Materials were selected to relate to the landscape, most notably the cedar roofs. Even though their life was not as long or as economical as other roof materials, we felt this was an important, but expensive indulgence for aesthetic reasons.

It is gratifying that now, forty five years after the original conceptual thinking, the joint efforts of the talented staff of Edmund J. Bennet Associates with architects Keyes, Lethbridge & Condon, as well as the engineering firm of Greenhorne and O'Mara, are being acknowledged as being a landmark contribution to innovative architecture and residential community planning.