**[CHAPTER THREE]{.underline}: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND EARLY
OPERATIONS**

Once the Ford Motor Company decided to build a new plant in San
Francisco Bay area as part of its expanded system of branch assembly
plants described in the previous chapter, several other contexts
converged to yield the plant as it exists today. There was the effort on
the part the City of Richmond, California, to develop its industrial
infrastructure and more particularly the effort by Fred Parr to lure the
Ford Motor Company to Richmond as part of that development plant. Once
Ford decided to build at Richmond, two other streams of development
converged along Richmond\'s waterfront: the experience of Ford\'s
engineers in laying out automobile assembly lines and the masterful
expertise of Albert Kahn and his architectural firm in designing factory
buildings to house automobile assembly lines. This chapter describes
those contexts and then provides a brief overview of the first decade of
the Richmond plants operation. The chapter also features a description
of the building as it was built and as it stands today. The physical
description focuses in particular on stages in the process of assembling
automobiles at Richmond, linking the present empty building to historic
photographs drawings depicting features of those stages of production.

**A. Industrial Development in Richmond**

Richmond, California, is located in Contra Costa County, on the east
side of San Francisco Bay. In the nineteenth century, San Francisco
developed on the peninsula that forms the south end of the Golden Gate,
the entrance into the Bay. Cities like Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda
grew up on the east side of the Bay, becoming especially prominent with
the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. They are in
Alameda County. Contra Costa County is located north of Alameda County
and south of the arm of the Bay that is the mouth of the San Joaquin
River. Prior to 1900, most of Contra Costa County was agricultural or
undeveloped land. Much of the area that would become Richmond was
farmland that had been Mexican land-grants prior to 1848. There were a
few small landings along the shoreline where farmers could ship their
produce and where miners or merchants heading into the gold country
could procure provisions. One of the most important of these was Ellis
Landing, located at the north end of what is now Richmond\'s Harbor
Channel.[^1]

In 1895, A.S. Macdonald acquired much of the Mexican land grant that is
now Richmond. He began negotiating with the Santa Fe Railroad to
establish a railroad and ferry terminal at Point Richmond to provide a
railroad link to San Francisco, arguing that it was closer than the
terminals at Oakland or Alameda. The Santa Fe\'s new facility went into
service in July 1900, spurring commercial growth near Point Richmond.
Macdonald, however, intended the commercial center for the town he was
developing to be few miles inland. He platted commercial lots along his
city\'s main east-west thoroughfare, named Macdonald Avenue, and platted
residential lots around the core. Macdonald and other developers offered
businesses and workers incentives like housing and transportation to
locate near the area he intended to be the city\'s center. The City of
Richmond incorporated in 1905. Municipal government was first located at
Point Richmond, but it moved to new quarters in downtown Richmond in
1917.[^2]

At about the same, developers began to more intensively develop harbor
improvements for Richmond. In 1905, H.C. Cutting purchased 400 acres of
marshy land around the old Ellis Landing. He then formed the Point
Richmond Canal and Land Company to cut a channel through the swamp
toward the northwest, using material excavated from the channel to begin
filling swamp. That dredge cut has been improved over the years and is
now known as the Santa Fe Channel. In 1910, the City of Richmond began
working to help improve the harbor, securing the assistance of the
federal Rivers and Harbors Committee to study the harbor while at the
same time contracting with a San Francisco engineering firm to do so.
Both studies were completed in 1912, and both recommended similar
improvements, which formed the basis for the Inner Harbor as it exists
today. There were to be three components that required dredging: 1) an
entrance channel extending from deep water in the San Francisco Bay
eastward along the south side of the Richmond peninsula to the north
side of Brooks Island, 2) a rectangular basin running along the Richmond
waterfront from Brooks Island to Point Isabel, and 3) a 600-foot-wide
channel extending from the entrance channel, adjacent to Brooks Island
and Point Portrero, roughly northward to the vicinity of Ellis Landing.
The latter channel is now called Ellis Channel or the Harbor
Channel.[^3]

Congress did not authorize federal construction of the improvements
until 1917. During the intervening five years, the municipal government
and other local parties began paying for dredging to improve the Harbor
Channel and for construction of bulkheads along the channel behind which
to place the dredged fill. Federal dredging and filling lasted from 1917
to 1933, with new fill expanding the areas of improved ground on both
sides of the channel during that period. By the early 1930s, there were
several manufacturing and transportation facilities along the Inner
Harbor, including two municipal shipping terminals (one equipped for
handling sugar and one for handling general cargo), a few private docks,
the Filice and Perrelli cannery, and the Ford Motor Company\'s Richmond
assembly plant. The latter two facilities began operating in the early
1930s. They were in part the fruits of Fred Parr\'s efforts to promote
the development of new land, created by dredge fill, for industrial
development along the Inner Harbor\'s waterfront.[^4]

Fred Parr was born in 1885 on a ranch near Visalia, California. His
father died when he was still a teen, so before he had completed high
school his mother sent him to business school in San Francisco. After
completing a course in business administration, he went to work as a
bookkeeper in the San Francisco business, E.J. Dodge Company, of which
former California governor J.N. Gillett was president. Noticing that
most steam schooners delivering lumber to San Francisco from the Pacific
Northwest returned empty, Parr started a business predicated on the
improved rates he could obtain for cargo shipped on the schooners\'
return trips. He built his business during World War I into the
Parr-McCormick Steamship Line, of which the E.J. Dodge Company was a
major investor. At the same time, Parr got involved in developments on
Oakland\'s inner harbor, working with the Corps of Engineers to
accomplish some dredging for a deep-water channel, building a terminal
to provide Oakland with steamship service, and participating in the
political moves that led to the Port of Oakland and it governing
commission being independent of the Oakland City Council.[^5]

Seeing what an effective operator Parr was, the Richmond Chamber of
Commerce asked him to speak in Richmond about that city\'s potential for
expanded harbor facilities. In response to his remarks, Richmond\'s
mayor asked Parr to manage and operate the city\'s municipal docks,
which were small and received little business. Parr proposed instead
that he head the implementation of a comprehensive plan to expand
Richmond\'s harbor facilities. Among the features of Parr\'s plan were
his commitment to acquire 100 acres on the Richmond harbor, to
coordinate efforts by the City to get the Corps of Engineers, finally,
to dredge the channel to the Richmond harbor and make it suitable for
ocean vessels, to fill waterfront areas and make them suitable for
industrial development, to expand railroads, streets, and utilities into
the harbor area, to lobby the legislature to allow cities to make lease
agreements with fifty-year terms, and to bring industries of national
scope to Richmond. In implementing the plan, he formed the Parr-Richmond
Terminal Company, which built a large terminal facility in cooperation
with the City of Richmond.[^6]

Parr secured the first of the promised national developments in 1926,
when he read a notice in a newspaper that Ford was looking for a site on
which to build a new assembly plant in the Bay Area. He first contacted
Charles Bulwinkel, Ford\'s assistant manager in San Francisco to learn
the company\'s site requirements, which were:

1\. approximately 50 acres of land

2\. entire lot in one parcel with no intervening streets

3\. location on the waterfront with service by deep-water channel

4\. service by both the Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe railroads

5\. streets, sewers, a public utilities serving entire lot

Ford wanted to have all of those improvements made to the site without
cost to the company. Parr and Richmond mayor W.W. Scott travelled to
Detroit to meet with company officials to assure them that the proposed
site in Richmond would meet Ford\'s specifications. Parr had paid
\$90,000 for the land, which included about 50 acres of dry land plus
some property extending into the bay and channel. After convincing the
Ford officials of the suitability of the site he proposed a sale
agreement. He asked for Ford to pay \$2,500 as a down payment. He would
then make all the improvements necessary at no cost to Ford. When the
Ford company was satisfied that the site was ready, it would pay Parr
the balance of what he had paid. He asked that Ford pay interest on the
balance until the transaction was completed, but he was informed by
company officials that Henry Ford never paid interest. According to
Parr\'s account, he tried to secure some other means of payment from the
company for the time during which he was carrying the price of the land,
but Ford would not compromise. Wanting to secure the deal, Parr agreed
to Ford\'s terms.[^7]

Even though Parr had sold land on the east side of the Ellis Channel to
Ford in 1926, that company had not yet built its new plant in 1929, when
Parr sold another parcel of reclaimed land to the Filice and Perrelli
Canning Company. Gennaro Filice and John Perrelli had emigrated to
California from Italy in 1908. They and members of their families worked
in canneries near San Jose and Gilroy until 1914, when they formed their
own business to grow and can tomatoes. The next year, they leased a
small cannery at Gilroy, and they incorporated the Filice and Perrelli
Canning Company in 1918. They leased another cannery in San Jose in the
1920s. Toward the end of the decade, they bought land in Oakland on
which to build their own facility, but then Fred Parr contacted them,
offering to trade land in Richmond for the Oakland property. Filice and
Perrelli made the swap early in 1929 and began building their new fruit
cannery. It was ready to begin canning that year\'s crop. Filice and
Perrelli canned cherries, peaches, apricots, plums, and figs, as well as
fruit cocktail, a product developed by the University of California in
the 1930s. Filice and Perrelli operated the cannery until they sold it
to California Canners and Growers (Cal-Can), a growers cooperative.
Cal-Can closed the cannery about 1970 and sold the building to the City
of Richmond, which used it for offices and warehousing.[^8]

**B. Design & Construction of Richmond Plant**

The Ford Motor Company\'s 1930 plans for expanding its system of branch
assembly plants around North America and the elsewhere in the world
would cost an estimated \$60,000,000. The plan included the construction
of a new facility on the waterfront of San Francisco Bay. A tide water
location would allow delivery of parts to the assembly plant and the
delivery of finished autos to Pacific Coast ports, Hawaii, and foreign
countries by ocean-going ship. As describe above, the Ford Motor Company
signed an agreement with Fred Parr in 1926 to purchase 72 acres on
Richmond\'s Inner Harbor, giving the company access to shipment both by
rail (the Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe) and by water. Ford did not
begin construction, however, until 1930. The new plant would be capable
of producing up to 400 cars per eight-hour shift, twice what Ford\'s
existing San Francisco plant could assemble in a full day. To maintain
that full production at the Richmond plant, though, an additional shift
was necessary in the body shop. Employment at full production would be
2,600.[^9]

The Ford awarded the contract to build the new Richmond plant in July
1930. Clinton Construction Company of San Francisco was the successful
bidder for the \$3,500,000 contract. According to B.R. Brown, who had
charge of awarding contracts, the Ford Motor Company usually tried to
rely on local contractors. He also recalled that Ford did not always
award contracts to the low bidder. Brown was confident enough in his
ability to estimate costs that if he received a bid that was too low, he
would award the contract to another bidder whose bid was more in line
with his estimates. The Ford Motor Company always insisted on including
a clause in the construction contract that assured the construction
project would be an open shop, i.e., that the contractor would not
discriminate between union and non-union workers.[^10] City officials,
delegates from neighboring cities, and many of Richmond\'s citizens
celebrated the beginning of construction on July 30.

Albert Kahn Associates of Detroit designed the shell of the building,
but Ford\'s Power and Construction Department designed the layout of the
automobile assembly equipment for the plant. Power & Construction and
Kahn will be described in turn.

**1. Ford\'s Department of Power & Construction**

Although Albert Kahn has garnered much deserved attention for his
designs of Ford Motor Company and other factory buildings, it is
important to recognize that he designed envelopes around an assembly
layout that took precedence over the building, and the layout was
designed by Ford officials who were in charge of factory layout. These
various tasks\--plant layout, architectural design, as well as site
selection and construction supervision\--were the responsibility of an
organization called Power & Construction. In the 1920s and the period
during which the Richmond plant was designed and built, B.R. Brown was
its head. Brown recalled:

I always conferred with them \[the Manufacturing Department\] before we
began the plant plans. I insisted that the Layout Department give me a
layout so the column spacings would be correct and so there would be no
interference with the assembly lines, drying ovens and other
installations. In other words, we built the buildings around their
layouts rather building the buildings and then putting the equipment in.
We did that because I remember in one plant we built before I had seen
the layout, we had trouble fitting the paint ovens into the plant.[^11]

Like so many of Ford\'s top officials at the time, Brown was not college
educated. In fact, he did not even finish high school. Born in 1880 at
Battle Creek, Michigan, he went to school there through the eleventh
grade, after which he went to work in a local bicycle shop. Thereafter,
he held a variety of jobs with employers who familiarized him with
aspects of the construction business, including a plumber, a
manufacturer of plumbing fixtures, a manufacturer of closet
combinations, a lumber company, an electrical contractor, and a general
contractor. In 1912, he took a job as clerk of the works for the W.E.
Wood Company, which had a contract to build an addition to the Ford
Motor Company\'s Highland Park plant. Among his duties was the
accounting of all materials and labor used on the project. At the end of
the project, Ford officials were so impressed that his figures on the
\$1,500,000 contract coincided exactly with theirs that they offered him
the job supervising the Ford Motor Company\'s construction program.
Initially his work was limited to maintenance and expansion of Ford\'s
existing Highland Park plant, but by 1922, when Ford embarked on a major
expansion program, he had charge of the company\'s site selection, the
preparation of plans and specifications, and awarding of construction
contracts. During more than 21 years of service with Ford, he was
responsible for the construction of nearly 13,000,000 square feet of
space in the U.S. and abroad at a cost of about \$65,000,000. The
519,000 square feet of assembly plant at Richmond costing \$1,845,000
was a fraction of his aggregate accomplishment.[^12]

During the period when the Richmond branch was designed, the Ford
organization in charge of designing the physical layout within plants or
within departments was called the Factory Layout Department, of which
M.L. Wiesmyer was a prominent designer. Born in 1899 at Whitmore Lake,
Michigan, Wiesmyer grew up working for his father, a carpenter and
contractor who built houses in the vicinities of Detroit and Ann Arbor.
In 1918, shortly after graduating high school, Wiesmyer took a job as a
machine hand at the Ford Motor Company\'s Highland Park plant. The
following year, the Factory Layout Department selected Wiesmyer to work
on plant design. Despite his lack of drafting experience, he was
selected to make small templates representing pieces of equipment and
then try various arrangements of the equipment on floor plans in a
effort to find an efficient layout. Initially, Wiesmyer worked on
reconfiguring existing departments at various Ford plants around Detroit
(but not the branches) either to make more room or because the
department was moving to a new location. In preparation for a particular
redesign job he would visit the department in question and interview the
foreman. He would also investigate the possibility of installing
conveyors or other labor-saving equipment. When he first started in
factory layout, configuring equipment with an eye to efficient
connection to overhead line shafts was still an important parameter
shaping design. Wiesmyer was transferred to the Upholstery Department in
1921.[^13]

In 1922, about the time that the Factory Layout Department took charge
of designing the layouts of branch assembly plants, Max Wiesmyer was
transferred back to Factory Layout. At the same time, the Ford Motor
Company embarked on a major expansion of its branch assembly system, and
corporate officials decided the company would switch from building
multi-story assembly plants to single-story structures. This was
intended to make the assembly lines more efficient and also to
facilitate alterations to the process necessitated by car-model changes.
Whenever possible, plants were also to be built along navigable
waterways. Wiesmyer and the Factory Layout Department developed several
standard features for the new plants, eventually built in places like
Chicago, Louisville, Chester, Edgewater, Charlotte, Dallas, and Memphis.
Ford management gave the department a production target (e.g. 300 cars
per day), and then they allocated 700 square feet of floor space per car
per day. They also set 300 feet as the standard width of a new Ford
branch assembly plant. Various volumes of production were therefore
accommodated by varying the length of the design for a particular
branch. Once the size and layout of the branch plant had been
determined, the Layout Department passed the design on to the Power and
Construction Department, headed by B.R. Brown. Power and Construction in
turn passed the design project to the Albert Kahn firm, who designed the
structure that would serve as the envelope for the plant layout. Actual
construction of the building and installation of the assembly-line
equipment was under the authority of the Power and Construction
Department. Throughout the process of site selection, layout, and
construction, Charles Sorensen played a prominent supervisory role.[^14]

The Richmond plant differed from the typical Ford plants of the 1920s.
It was a two-story structure rather than one-story, and it had about
1,000 square feet per car per day rather than 700. In these aspects,
Richmond was like the Buffalo and Seattle branch plants, designed and
built at the same time (1930-1931). Each of the plants had its body
department on the second floor. The Buffalo, Richmond, and Seattle group
was the last major expansion built under B.R. Brown\'s supervision
before he left the company in 1933. During construction of the Richmond
plant, Brown made numerous trips to the Bay Area to check on
construction. As was typical, Wiesmyer was responsible for the layout of
the Richmond plant.[^15]

In his oral history, Wiesmyer tells an interesting story that reflects
Sorensen\'s unquestioned authority within the Ford organization and in
particular in the process of plant design. Wiesmyer, Brown, and others
had been working on the layout of the Richmond design for some time,
experimenting with various configurations that would address the site
variables presented by waterfront, railroad track locations, etc. They
were anxious to get Sorensen\'s approval of their proposed design before
he left for a vacation in Florida. At a meeting in his office, they
presented several design options, none of which he liked, so he sketched
the configuration he wanted. Wiesmyer, who had been studying the problem
for some time, interjected, \"Mr. Sorensen, I think\....\" Sorensen cut
Wiesmyer off, saying, \"Well, who in the hell ever told you were
supposed to think.\" Sorensen then left for his vacation, and Brown sent
a re-oriented plant design, based on Sorensen\'s sketch, to Kahn\'s
architects so they could design a building. When Sorensen returned from
two weeks\' vacation, however, he called for Wiesmyer and said, \"You
know, the more I get to thinking about the Richmond plant, the more I
think maybe we ought to turn that building around and set it the other
way.\" Contemplating the matter, Sorensen had come to realize that
Wiesmyer and the others had recommended a configuration more appropriate
to the site, so the Ford staff had to send a new layout to Kahn
Associates and have the architects begin their design anew.[^16]

**2. Albert Kahn**

Kahn designed most of Ford\'s buildings during the first half of the
twentieth century, including the expansion of the Highland Park plant,
the River Rouge plant, and most of the branch assembly plants throughout
the U.S. and abroad. There was a brief period in the 1910s when the Ford
Motor Company hired John Graham, a Seattle architect, brought him to
Detroit, and installed him in an architecture department at Highland
Park to design several branch plants, including Seattle, Cambridge,
Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Cincinnati, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh. Kahn was
responsible for nearly all of the 1920s generation of branch assembly
plants, including Richmond.[^17]

Born in Germany in 1869, Albert Kahn was the oldest of eight children in
the family of Rosalie and Joseph Kahn, an itinerant rabbi. By the time
Albert Kahn was old enough for school, his family had moved to
Luxembourg, where they lived until 1880, when they emigrated to the
United States. The Kahns settled in Detroit. Rather than attend school,
young Albert took a variety of jobs to help support the family. But he
also had a knack for drawing, so his parents encouraged him by buying
him drawing materials and helping him find a job doing menial work,
without pay, in a Detroit architectural office. That led at the age of
15 to drawing lessons and another non-paying job with the firm Mason &
Rice. This time he was actually able to put his drawing skills to work.
Kahn\'s skill at rendering and working drawings helped him garner paid
responsibilities with the firm, and in 1888, at the age of 19, he was
put in charge of designing and supervising construction for the firm\'s
residential work. Two years later, the *American Architect and Building
News* awarded him a travelling scholarship, which afforded him the
opportunity to travel to Europe for a year of visiting architectural
landmarks and meeting architects. When Kahn returned to Detroit in late
1891, Mason & Rice appointed him chief designer. He remained with the
firm until 1896, during which time he became enamored of the work of
McKim, Meade and White. In 1896, Kahn and two Cornell graduates left
Mason & Rice to form their own firm: Nettleton, Kahn and
Trowbridge.[^18]

As Grant Hildebrand observes in his biography of Albert Kahn, nothing in
Kahn\'s early career suggested that he would eventually design buildings
that were to become some of the icons of the Modern Era. Kahn\'s early,
non-industrial work was conventionally derivative of historical European
styles.[^19]

In 1897, Alexander Trowbridge left the year-old firm to become the head
of the Department of Architecture at Cornell University. Kahn and George
Nettleton continued their firm until 1900, when Nettleton died. That
same year, Kahn designed his first industrial building for Joseph Boyer,
a manufacturer of pneumatic hammers. With Nettleton and Trowbridge gone,
Kahn remained the sole principle in the firm. To supplement his own
skills, Kahn hired Ernest Wilby as chief designer in 1902 and made him
an associate, and Kahn began to collaborate with his brother, Julius, a
civil engineer who had graduated from the University of Michigan. The
two brothers designed a new Engineering Building for the University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor in 1902. In its construction, they used reinforced
concrete, a new building material they were both interested in
exploring. Julius also established the Trussed Concrete Steel Company in
Detroit to produce steel reinforcing bars according to his own design. A
third important event of 1902 occurred with Joseph Boyer introduced Kahn
to Henry Joy, soon to head the Packard Motor Car Company. When Joy
assumed Packard\'s presidency in 1903, he appointed Kahn its architect.
Through Joy, Kahn\'s firm received several non-industrial commissions,
but the most important work stemming from the connection with Joy was
the design of factory buildings for the expanding Packard company.[^20]

During the years 1903-1905, the Kahn firm designed nine factory
buildings for Packard, all of conventional mill construction. In 1905,
though, Albert and Julius Kahn made an important breakthrough when they
designed Packard Plant Building No. 10 of reinforced concrete. The new
structural system allowed them to provide spacing between columns that
was somewhat greater than in conventional mill construction. More
significantly, the reinforced-concrete frame embedded in the perimeter
walls left more space in the envelope for windows, enhancing the
day-lighting of the interior work spaces. The structure was also
fireproof. Although comparable to the pioneering work being done in
reinforced-concrete industrial design by Ernest Ransome in California
and the New York area, the Kahn design was a great improvement over the
conventional industrial buildings being used by the automobile industry
elsewhere in Detroit. Another feature of the Kahn design was perhaps
equally important in attracting future clients in the automobile
industry: Building No. 10 was asymmetrical, as Kahn set aside normal
aesthetic considerations of the period and rather let the functional
requirements of the plant dictate its overall form and shape. In this
regard, Kahn exhibited a willingness to explore new areas in
architectural design that did not appeal to his peers in the
architectural profession.[^21]

Kahn\'s next set of industrial buildings was in Buffalo for George N.
Pierce, maker of the Pierce Arrow car. Designed in 1906, the complex is
important because it foreshadowed buildings that would become the norm
in the auto industry a decade later. The Pierce buildings were
one-story, very wide, and employed a saw-tooth roof to allow skylights
to illuminate all of the broad interior space.[^22]

By the time the Ford Motor Company announced its intention in 1908 to
build the Highland Park plant to manufacture the Model T, Albert Kahn\'s
reputation was known to Ford officials because of the Packard plant,
only a few miles from the Highland Park site. Some time after the
company decided to build the plant, it selected Kahn as its architect,
beginning a long relationship between Kahn and Henry Ford. Although
there must have been many fascinating facets to their relationship, two
stand out. First, both men had risen to prominence in their respective
fields without much formal education. Ford is known to have disliked the
pretenses he believed some education people exhibited, but that would
have been absent in Kahn, who shared the feeling. In fact, during the
1920s and until 1935, Kahn did not hire a single person with an
architectural degree, believing such a person\'s desire for
self-expression was not compatible with the cooperative team he had
assembled in his office. Second, Ford was a notorious anti-semite, even
going to far as to publish anti-Jewish diatribes in his weekly
newspaper, the *Dearborn Independent*, which he bought in 1918. Yet
despite the fact that Kahn was a Jew, neither man terminated the
relationship. One thing that certainly must have enamored Ford of Kahn
was Kahn\'s oft-repeated adage: \"Architecture is 90% business and 10%
art.\"[^23]

The Highland Park plant was very similar to Kahn\'s Packard plant and
not much like the Pierce plant in Buffalo. The original building was of
reinforced concrete, four stories tall, 860 feet long, and 75 feet wide,
with a row of columns extending along the building\'s central axis.
Later additions, such as power plant, offices, machine shop, and another
multi-story factory building made the Highland Park complex immense.
Edward Gray, a Ford engineer, contributed much to the design of the
additions. Two features were fundamental to the design of Highland Park:
efficient flow of materials was paramount to the configuration of
buildings and spaces, and effective daylighting increased workers\'
productivity within the buildings.[^24]

While Kahn and his office worked on Highland Park, they also continued
to work on expanding the Packard plant and designed industrial buildings
for other firms, like Dodge Brothers, Hudson, and Continental in the
auto industry and B.F. Goodrich Rubber Company and Joseph Mack Printing
in other sectors. In 1910, Kahn\'s brother Louis joined the firm. By
1918, 80 people worked in the office. Wilby remained with the Kahn firm
until 1922.[^25]

The River Rouge plant, which marked a new turn in the operations of the
Ford Motor Company, also marked a turn in the kinds of factories Kahn
designed. Prior to the Rouge plant, most of Kahn\'s factory buildings
had been multi-storied reinforced-concrete structures; after Rouge, most
were single-storied steel-frame structures. Kahn was already experienced
with steel frames. He had used the system in 1904 when designing a
single-story building with sawtooth roof for the Burroughs Adding
Machine Company in Detroit, and he used a steel frame for machine shop
at Highland Park and for Packard\'s forge shop. But none of those
buildings came close to the scale of the plant Kahn designed for Ford at
the Rouge site in 1918. The first use of the original Rouge building was
not to assemble automobiles but rather submarine chasers. Henry Ford had
convinced the government that he could mass-produce submarine chasers,
called Eagle boats, using the same principles he used to make the Model
T. The government agreed to finance construction of the building in
early 1918, and Kahn proceeded to design a building 1,700 feet long and
255 feet wide. The building was ready for operations in May 1918, and
Ford launched its first Eagle boat in July. After the war, the company
converted the building, designated \"B\" Building in the River Rouge
complex, for use in assembling Model T cars and Fordson tractors. Kahn
also designed the other buildings at the Rouge plant, which grew in the
ensuing years to the gigantic proportions described in a previous
section of this report.[^26]

In addition to the Rouge plant, Kahn designed 35 of the branch assembly
plants that were part of the Ford expansion of the 1920s. And Ford was
not Kahn\'s only client. He designed major projects for Studebaker,
Fisher Body, Chrysler, Chalmers Motor Company, Plymouth, and the Glenn
L. Martin Company. The latter client was his first in the aircraft
industry. Throughout this period Kahn continued to design non-industrial
buildings as well, notably the General Motors Building and the Fisher
Building in Detroit and the William L. Clements Memorial Library at the
University of Michigan. Kahn\'s non-industrial buildings are beautiful
structures and impeccably detailed, but they also demonstrate that as a
commercial architect he remained entirely conventional and derivative.
By 1929, the Kahn firm had designed more than fifty major factories and
had grown to more than 400 employees, who were designing more than
\$1,000,000 worth of construction each week. This was the Kahn firm as
it stood when called upon by Ford to design the branch assembly plant in
Richmond, California.[^27]

With the onset of the Great Depression, sales of automobiles dropped,
and auto companies and other industrial firms curtailed their plans for
expansion of plant and capacity. Correspondingly, Kahn\'s roster of
domestic commissions languished, and his firm would have suffered were
it not for a new venture he began in 1929. The Soviet Union, through its
international commerce arm the Amtorg Trading Corporation, commissioned
him to design a giant tractor factory at Chelyabinsk. Kahn was initially
reluctant because the United States had still not recognized the Soviet
government, many of Kahn\'s American clients were strongly
anti-communist, and the Nazis and anti-semites in the U.S. often accused
Jews of being communist sympathizers, a label that thereby might affix
to him. He concluded, however, that the Russian people had long suffered
under the czars and were as entitled to benefits deriving from good
factory design as anyone. He could contribute in that regard. During the
next three years, Kahn and his firm designed several other huge
industrial plants inside the Soviet Union, at least one of which was in
conjunction with the Ford Motor Company, which was also in a contractual
relationship with Amtorg. Ford agreed to supply the Soviets with plans,
specifications, management systems, and technical assistance for the
construction at Niznij Novgorod of an automotive plant based on the
River Rouge model. Kahn designed the complex. Kahn and his staff not
only designed industrial buildings for the Soviets; they also
established a branch office in Moscow to help train Russian architects
and engineers in the principles of factory design on the Ford/Kahn
model. Not surprisingly, Kahn did have to defend himself against
accusations in the U.S. that he was supporting the communists,
accusations which subsided after his contract with the Soviets ended in
1932.[^28]

As the need for new construction re-emerged in the mid-1930s, Kahn again
began to secure domestic industrial projects, including the Lady Esther
cosmetics factory in Illinois, giant new plants for Chevrolet, Chrysler,
Dodge, and DeSoto in Michigan, and several more airplane factories for
such clients as United Aircraft Corporation and Glenn L. Martin again.
With war on the horizon in the late 1930s and with Congress and the U.S.
military taking steps to mobilize American industry for the production
of aircraft, Kahn secured more airplane factory commissions in the early
1940s, including Wright Aeronautical Corporation in Ohio, Consolidated
Aircraft Corporation in New Orleans, Curtiss Wright Corporation in
Kentucky and New York, and Ford\'s Willow Run plant in Michigan. Kahn
also designed the giant Chrysler Tank Arsenal in Detroit and a torpedo
plant for the Navy and American Can Company. Albert Kahn died in 1945
after becoming the most prolific and influential architect of industrial
structures in the first half of the twentieth century. His firm, Albert
Kahn Associated, Inc., exists to this day.[^29]

**C. The Building, Then and Now**

The Ford Motor Company assembly plant at Richmond is 1,050 feet long
from north to south and 320 feet wide from east to west. The main body
of the building is 950 feet by 320, and there is a craneway, 100 feet
wide, that extends along the south end, giving the building its total
length of 1,050 feet. The craneway is built over the water and actually
extends an additional 80 feet to the east as well, so that the south end
of the building measures 400 feet. A boiler room (80 ft. by 55 ft.) is
located at the inside corner of the \"L\" formed by the main body of the
building and the craneway. There is a dock structure 40 feet wide
running along the entire south end the building (the craneway), and the
dock, is also built over water. These are the original dimensions of the
building.[^30]

The building has a slab-on-grade, a steel frame with the columns sitting
on spot footings atop pilings, and curtain walls of brick, industrial
garage doors, and industrial window sash. The west half of the main body
of the building is two stories, and the east half is one story. Sawtooth
roof trusses create skylights over the second floor of the west half and
the first floor of the east half. The craneway is two stories
throughout. Most of the interior of the building is open factory space,
but the northwest corner of the building has partitions that divide
areas into showroom and office spaces. There is a free-standing oil
house just northeast of the boiler room.[^31]

Historically, two sets of railroad spurs served the plant, both entering
the Ford property at the northeast corner. One set of two spurs curved
toward the plant and approached the northeast corner of the building
from the north. One spur actually entered the building at that corner at
a grade several feet below the first floor, and the other spur ran along
outside of the east side. Both of these spurs extended the full length
of the main body of the building. Although there is evidence of the
interior set of tracks, most of the area along that spur has been filled
and the floor there is now at the level of the first floor. The other
set of spurs ran along the east side of the property and curved toward
the southeast corner of the plant, approaching it from the east. One
spur entered and extended the length of the crane way and two others ran
the length of the dock. Another pair of spurs in this set ran along the
north side of the oil house.[^32]

The general flow of materials to and through the plant was as follows.
Ford delivered auto parts to the craneway of the Richmond plant either
by ship or by rail. A conveyor, located at the center of the south end
of the second floor, transported unpainted body parts from the craneway
through a slot in the concrete floor to the second floor for storage,
painting, and partial assembly.[^33] Conveyors, probably added later in
the 1930s, delivered other body parts, like roof panels of car bodies,
from the delivery dock along the east side of the plant to the second
floor.[^34] An incline conveyor delivered partially assembled bodies to
the central area of the first floor for further treatment before
delivery to the final assembly line.[^35] Materials for assembly of seat
cushions and service stock parts were also delivered to the second
floor, either by means of the conveyors or by two freight elevators, one
located at the southeast corner of the second floor and one located
along the east wall of the second floor near the north end. Both
elevator shafts are still in place. Service stock storage was located at
the northeast corner of the second floor. The seat cushion assembly area
was located just south of the second-floor offices and the service stock
storage area.[^36]

The final assembly line was located along the west wall of the first
floor, with vehicles in the process of assembly moving from south to
north.[^37] Tributary sub-assembly lines moved from east to west toward
the final assembly line. The frame conveyor was located at the south end
of the first floor, moving from east to west and with the steering gear
assemblies being installed just before the frames were placed on the
final assembly conveyor. Conveyors for axle assemblies led from north to
south toward the frame conveyor.[^38] The motor line was just north of
the frame conveyor, again moving from east to west, where completed
motors could be installed on frames as they moved north along the final
assembly line. North of the motor line were an area for tire storage
(east), a wheel oven for baking freshly painted wheels (west), and a
mounting line, along which tires were mounted on wheels before the
wheels were conveyed to the final assembly line to be mounted on the
chassis as they moved north.[^39] North of the mounting line were the
radiator storage racks. The next area to the north was quite large, and
it featured ovens and lines along which fenders, hoods, trim, etc. were
treated before being assembled as bodies and then conveyed to the
chassis assembly line.[^40] Body hoists along the final assembly line
hoisted completed bodies down upon the completed chassis as they moved
north along final assembly.[^41] Completed cars and trucks rolled off
the north end of assembly line, located about 300 feet south of the
northwest corner of the building.[^42]

There were several openings in the east wall of the second floor through
which conveyors delivered body parts to the second floor and carried
assembled bodies and delivered them to subsequent conveyors for body
assembly on the first floor. The original drawings for the building show
only two openings for conveyors to the second floor: the one through the
floor at the south end of the building, mentioned in a previous
paragraph, and one midway along the east wall of the second floor. This
is undoubtedly the opening at the head end of the incline conveyor shown
in photo no. 2057.[^43] There are at least two other openings through
the east wall that match the appearance of that in the 1937 photo of the
conveyor delivering roof panels to the roof panel storage area (the
corners of the openings are cropped).[^44] The current developer of the
Richmond plant is changing the spacial relationship between the second
floor and the first by cutting a polygonal opening in the east wall at
each first-floor skylight bay. The shape of these openings parallels the
slope of the north-facing skylight windows, but it does not stem from
the shapes of the openings for the conveyors that were part of the
production process.

Although most of the interior of the Richmond plant is open space, there
are several enclosed, partitioned areas. General offices for the plant
were located on the second floor at the northwest corner. They included
individual offices for managers, small meeting rooms, cashier\'s office,
and rest rooms. These offices are the only rooms finished in wood. With
small exceptions, the configuration of the offices is that shown on the
Kahn drawings of the plant. There are four sets of coat rooms and toilet
rooms for production workers located along the east wall of the second
floor. These sets of rooms are located in enclosed mezzanines that are
two steps down from the second floor and extend into the sawtooth roof
skylights over the east side of the first floor. A pair of staircases,
each with midway landing, one stair on the north and one on the south,
descended from each coat room/toilet mezzanine. These stairs have been
altered over the years by completely removing one of the pair in some
cases and also by altering the direction of the stairs extending from
the landings to the first floor, undoubtedly to accommodate alterations
to the assembly equipment on the first floor. Production workers used to
enter the plant near the northeast corner, just west of the railroad
spur. The employee entry area has been altered over the years. Just west
of the employee entrance, however, is a set of rooms that appears to be
configured much as in 1931. They include a factory service office, a
first aid room, operating room, rest rooms, and a dressing room. The
showroom area on the first floor beneath the general offices has been
changed considerably since the plant was used to assemble autos. The
main feature that is partially intact is the formal plant entrance and
the relatively grand stairway to the second-floor offices.[^45]

The exterior of the plant has sustained little change over the years.
The brick and glass exterior is industrial in character throughout, with
limited and modest ornamentation at the corners of the building, in the
minimal application of dentils along the roof-line, and in the gable
ends of the craneway. The exception to the industrial character is at
the northwest corner, where the showrooms (first floor) and general
offices (second floor) were located. The fact that these spaces were
more open to the public (at least the public who had business at the
plant) is reflected in the window configuration and the roof. Whereas
windows throughout the factory are industrial sash, the windows at the
northwest corner are double-hung with transoms, presenting a more
commercial appearance. A truncated hipped roof of glazed clay tile
projects above the offices, delineating the non-industrial area of the
building by again presenting a more commercial appearance, and the
dentils in the cornice beneath the eaves of the tile roof are somewhat
more elaborate than the dentils elsewhere. Except for modifications to
some of the doors, the exterior is largely intact.[^46]

**D. Operation during the 1930s**

Ford\'s three new assembly plants on the Pacific Coast opened in the
early 1930s. The Long Beach plant was the first to open in 1930. The
Richmond plant opened on August 1st, 1931, and the Seattle plant
commenced operations in early 1932. Because of the onset of the Great
Depression, demand for autos was down, and the Richmond plant employed
only 1,000 at the outset. Yet despite the Depression, Ford maintained
its record of expansion around the world. The year 1931 saw the opening
of four other assembly plants in addition to the one at Richmond. Plants
went into service at Buffalo, New York; Cologne, Germany; and Madras,
India, and the new facility at Dagenham, near London, England, became
the second-largest automobile manufacturing plant in the world after
Ford\'s River Rouge plant. At about the time the Richmond plant began
operating, Ford also inaugurated the manufacture of body parts, pressed
sheet steel parts, at its Long Beach Plant. The new department at Long
Beach supplied hoods, fenders, and other body parts to the Ford assembly
plants at Long Beach, Richmond, Portland, and Seattle.[^47]

Getting the Richmond plant ready to operate entailed completing the
building and installing the assembly-line and ancillary equipment
necessary for the assembly of parts made elsewhere into finished autos.
Ford moved very little of that equipment from the San Francisco plant.
By mid-July, equipment was installed and the plant, under the management
of Charles A. Bulwinkel, began assembling Model A and Model AA
cars.[^48]

The Richmond plant was originally organized into several departments,
each headed by a superintendent. They were the Sales Department,
Accounting Department, Production Department, Inspection Department,
Stock Department, and Receiving Department. The Production Department
was sub-divided into several of its own departments, each headed by a
foreman. Those departments were the assembly line, body production, body
trim, body paint, enameling, and the stock department. Shift foremen
supervised the workers and reported to their respective department
foremen.[^49]

The Ford Motor Company and local organizations sponsored a variety of
events to celebrate the Richmond plant\'s opening on August 1st. The
night before, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce held a banquet featuring
a speech by California\'s Governor. The day of the opening, caravans of
Ford cars carrying dealers and enthusiasts said to represent more than
250 cities in northern and central California converged on Richmond. The
Ford Motor Company hosted a luncheon for more about 1,000 of
California\'s business people and then dedicated the plant with
speeches, after which the first automobile rolled off the assembly line.
Following the official ceremony, the company opened the plant to
visitors, giving tours throughout the day to about 20,000 people. The
operating plant remained open to tours for a week, and as many as
100,000 people observed the assembly line in operation during the
festivities.[^50]

The Ford Motor Company\'s first ship to deliver parts to Richmond, under
the command of Captain O.L. St. Marie, arrived later in August carrying
engines, axles, and frames. It had already stopped at the Long Beach
plant. After Richmond, it was bound for the Ford plant at Portland
before returning to the Atlantic Coast. The parts had not travelled all
the way to Richmond by water, however. Ford had sent them by rail to
Chester, Pennsylvania, where they were loaded on the ship.[^51]

The Richmond Branch supplied autos to Ford dealerships in its territory,
which included Hawaii. Depending on demand in other regions and the
output of the assembly plants serving those regions, the Richmond Branch
also supplied cars to the Seattle, Portland, Salt Lack City, and Long
Beach territories.[^52] The Richmond plant also housed a Stock
Department, which stored a stock of Ford parts to supply dealerships
throughout the Pacific Coast region.[^53]

The Richmond and other Pacific Coast plants had opened during an
inauspicious time, though, because of the lagging demand for autos.
Several Ford assembly plants around the country closed temporarily at
the end of 1931, not opening until late in the spring of 1932. Ford\'s
problems were compounded by stiff competition from Chevrolet and the
newcomer in the economy-car market, Plymouth. After a peak in car sales
in 1929, when the economy was still robust, the market slumped through
the early 1930s. The three economy makes\--Ford, Chevrolet, and
Plymouth\--sold a combined 2,174,000 autos in 1929, with Ford accounting
for more than 60% of those sales. Even though the three automakers\'
combined sales slumped to 1,737,000 in 1930, Ford retained its 60%
share. In 1931 and 1932, though, even as overall sales continue to
decline each year, Ford\'s share of that total fell to 44% and 35%
respectively. In 1932, Ford sold only 258,000 autos. During those years,
Chevrolet\'s sales declined, but not as precipitously as Ford\'s, and
Plymouth\'s sales actually grew. One reason for the slip in Ford sales
was the difficulty the company had changing the Rouge plant over to the
V-8 engine.[^54]

The Ford Motor Company introduced its new V-8 engine to great fanfare in
1932. Conscious of the pioneering role the Model T had played 25 years
earlier, *Ford News* claimed that its V-8 was pioneering into the next
stage of the automobile age:

The Model T blazed the way for the motor industry. It was almost
entirely utilitarian in character. It pioneered in an era when the
public was not conscious of its need for motor cars. The V-8 pioneers in
an era when that conscious need is universal.

Personal transportation should never be a luxury. It and the latest of
its refinements are the rightful heritage of every man, woman, and child
in America. Modern civilization has given it to them. This heritage is
the wholly reasonable and logical outgrowth of higher standards of
living.[^55]

The change was very disruptive of Ford sales, however. Just as the
switch from the Model T to the Model A disrupted production schedules,
leading to a sharp drop in sales in 1927, the switch to the V-8 led to
cuts in 1932 Ford sales to a number less than half of 1931 sales.
Conversion to the V-8 was delayed because of mechanical problems with
the new engine block that Ford engineers discovered at the River Rouge
plant.[^56]

The Ford Motor Company began manufacturing Mercuries at the Richmond
plant in 1938. The Richmond Branch supplied Mercuries to all the Ford
territories on the Pacific Coast and to the Hawaiian Islands.[^57]

The Ford Motor Company assembled its ceremonial twenty-seven-millionth
car at the Richmond Branch on 15 February 1939. It was the first time
the company had designated one of its assembly plants outside of Detroit
or Dearborn for the honor of producing a \"millionth\" Ford.[^58]

Throughout the 1930s and into the 1940s, the Richmond Branch remained
fully integrated into the Ford Motor Company\'s continent-wide and
world-wide system of production. Thus, managers of the Richmond Branch
had to obtain authority from Dearborn to conduct extraordinary
activities, whether large or small. A relatively large project for which
Richmond sought approval in the summer of 1940 concerned repairs to the
rock rip-rap along the water\'s edge of the Ford property, necessitated
by recent storm damage. Manager W.A. Abbott sent photographs of the
damage to the Branch Operations Superintendent\'s Office in Dearborn,
described the remedy he proposed, and asked for comments on his proposal
and for the authority to solicit bids from contractors to make the
specified repairs. Dearborn authorized the repairs and instructed Abbott
in the specifications he should issue to bidders. Upon receipt of bids,
Abbott forwarded them to Dearborn, along with his recommendation of
which contractor\'s bid to select. Dearborn approved the recommendation,
pending the contractor\'s certification that it was properly insured
against liability and workers compensation.[^59]

Likewise, Abbott needed Dearborn\'s approval for something as
significant as raising employees\' pay. In 1940, for example, Abbott
wanted raise the pay for several salaried superintendents, foremen, and
clerks. Some of the individuals had recently been transferred to new,
more responsible positions, but they had not yet received raises
commensurate with their new posts. Others had taken on challenging new
tasks in their existing positions, and Abbott wanted to give them raises
to reward the quality of work they were doing. Abbott did not, however,
have the authority to grant raises without approval from Dearborn, so he
wrote to the Payroll Office there explaining his reasons for wanting to
issue the raises.[^60]

Ford\'s central Branch Operations Office in Dearborn also maintained
control of seemingly more minor matters. Thus, when Branch Operations
decided to make a system-wide change, each branch, including Richmond,
was expected to implement it unless some local condition suggested an
exception be made, in which case the local branch needed to request such
an exception. Letters from the 1940s in the Records of the Ford Motor
Company at the Henry Ford Museum indicate the extent to which Dearborn
supervised small details at the branch operations. For example, the
Dearborn Superintendent\'s Office sent a letter to all branch plants in
1940 describing the kinds of oxygen tanks and breathing apparatus they
were expected to have in their first aid departments. The plant
physician at the Richmond plant, however, recommended against the
purchase, because the City of Richmond had such emergency equipment
available within five minutes of a call. Richmond branch superintendent
W.A. Abbott therefore requested that Richmond be exempted from the
required purchase, stating that he would buy the equipment, though, if
the Dearborn office required it nevertheless. In another instance,
Richmond\'s general foreman Charles Johnson wished to remove a spray
booth and oven that was intended for use on small parts. His crews had
begun painting small booths in other departments, so he wished to remove
the booth and oven in question to make space available for other
purposes. He needed to seek authority from Dearborn to do so.[^61] This
experience of working as a component in a much larger system perhaps
helped prepare Ford\'s Richmond managers for their participation in the
World War II production.

**E. Production for the Civilian Market in the Early 1940s**

Henry Ford had an extensive empire of auto plants throughout Europe at
the end of the 1930s. Dearborn managed all of them through Dagenham,
England, except the plants in Germany and France, which were autonomous
from Dagenham but still managed by Dearborn. While Adolf Hitler and the
Nazis were appalling much of the world for their treatment of Jews and
for an imposing military escalation, Henry Ford showed little concern.
In 1938, Ford was even willing to become the first American to receive
an award, the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle, from
Hitler\'s government.[^62] Ford also tried to remain neutral in Asia,
even as Japan invaded and occupied countries like China and Korea. The
company produced and shipped several thousand military trucks to Japan
from the Richmond dock in 1937.[^63] Although Ford wanted to remain
neutral as hostilities loomed, nationalistic forces soon wrested control
of Ford production in Germany away from Dearborn and placed it in
support of the building Nazi war machine. As the Nazis swept through
most of western Europe, Ford plants in Hungary, France, Denmark, and the
Netherlands also came under German control. Until the attack on Pearl
Harbor and formal declarations of war in December 1941 made Germany and
Japan enemies of the United States, Ford managers in Dearborn maintained
limited communications with the German managers and even continued
shipping some auto parts to Ford plants in occupied countries.
Meanwhile, Ford\'s plant at Dagenham turned its production to the
defense of England.[^64]

In 1940, while Europe and Asia had gone to war and the United States
still struggled with economic depression, the Richmond Branch produced
about 100 cars each day. As in previous years, the plant turned out many
but not all of the models Ford offered. As mentioned earlier, Richmond
was now a Mercury assembly plant, so five models of Mercuries including
sedans, coupes, and convertibles comprised about one-quarter of
Richmond\'s output. About half of the Mercuries Richmond produced were
Town Sedans. All the Mercuries had 95-hp engines. Richmond produced
Fords in seven body types, including sedans, coupes, convertibles, and
station wagons. Most were equipped with 85-hp engines, but some had
either 60-hp or 95-hp engines. The plant produced no trucks during the
first seven months of the year. Then in August, while much of the plant
was converting for production of the new 1941 model cars, Richmond
produced 200 light trucks of the 1941 model, including pick-ups, panel
delivery trucks, and commercial cab-over-engine truck chassis that
others bought to finish as dump-trucks and delivery trucks. About half
of the trucks had 85-hp engines and the rest had 95-hp engines. In
September, the plant turned out 1,130 light trucks as well as nearly 800
1941-model cars. Even with the possibility of war looming for the U.S.,
and with Ford and other automakers beginning to increase military
production, Ford\'s 1941 models featured a variety of changes.
Wheelbases and overall lengths were longer, the cars were wider, and the
greater size led to changes in exterior and interior styling. With more
of the nation\'s workers returning to work because of huge increases in
production of military ordnance, sales of Ford\'s 1941 models were among
the best ever.[^65]

When Ford rolled out its new 1942 models, however, a different set of
parameters shaped the design. The federal government had started to
divert certain strategic metals to the production of military weapons,
ammunition, and equipment, leaving less for the automobile industry.
Ford responded by nearly eliminating the use of aluminum in its 1942
cars and trucks and reducing dramatically the amounts of nickel,
magnesium, and tungsten. This led to visual changes, like the
elimination of nickel and chrome finishes on wheel rings, headlights,
hood ornaments, and other decorative features, and it lead to heavier
cars. Those changes in design became moot in January 1942, however, when
Donald Nelson and the War Production Board issued a decree that after
the end of the month no materials would be authorized for use in
manufacturing new passenger cars and trucks for civilian use.[^66]

America\'s auto industry was one of the nation\'s largest, and with the
termination of civilian car production the industry could turn its
entire attention and energy to the production of ordnance for the
military. The converted auto industry therefore achieved a remarkable
record during the years 1942-1945. Of the United States\' total output
for the military during the war, American auto makers produced more than
20%, including more than 50% of the aircraft engines, 33% of the machine
guns, 80% of the tanks and tank parts, 50% of the diesel engines, and
100% of the trucks. The U.S. built more B-24 bombers during the war than
any other airplane, and the auto industry built most of those
B-24s.[^67] The next chapter describes the role of Ford\'s Richmond
assembly plant in helping to accomplish that tremendous output.

[^1]: ^?^David L. Felton, \"The Industrial Heritage of the Richmond
    Inner Harbor Area: An Initial Inventory of Cultural Resources,\"
    unpublished cultural resources report dated 6 November 1979 and
    prepared for the Richmond Inner Harbor Port Redevelopment Project,
    City of Richmond, pp. 4-8; Shirley Ann Wilson Moore, *To Place Our
    Deeds: The African American Community in Richmond, California,
    1910-1963* (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
    Press, 2000), 8.

[^2]: ^?^Felton, \"The Industrial Heritage of the Richmond Inner Harbor
    Area,\" 11-12; Moore, *To Place Our Deeds*, 8-9.

[^3]: ^?^Felton, \"The Industrial Heritage of the Richmond Inner Harbor
    Area,\" 12-14.

[^4]: ^?^Felton, \"The Industrial Heritage of the Richmond Inner Harbor
    Area,\" 14-37; Marjorie Dobkin, \"Filice and Perrelli Canning
    Company, Inc., Richmond, California: Historic Resource Evaluation
    Report,\" unpublished cultural resources report dated August 1998
    and prepared for the STG Group, Santa Rosa, CA, pp. 7-9.

[^5]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of Mr. Fred D. Parr,\" Oral History
    conducted by Owen Bombard and dated 14 June 1952, HFM Acc. No. 65,
    1-28.

[^6]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of Fred D. Parr,\" 28-32.

[^7]: ^?^\"How Ford Came to Richmond,\" *Richmond United* (special issue
    of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce\'s monthly) 4 (August 1930): 3;
    \"The Reminiscences of Fred D. Parr,\" 32-41; M. Wiesmyer, \"Branch
    Operations - Richmond,\" preliminary draft report dated 26 April
    1956, HFM Acc. No. 106, microfiche. The latter document includes
    several descriptions of the land owned by Ford at the Richmond
    plant, and they very from 47.84 to 50.76 acres for the area of dry
    land and from 58.57 to 73.71 acres for the total area, including
    water, within the property boundaries.

[^8]: ^?^Felton, \"The Industrial Heritage of the Richmond Inner Harbor
    Area, 33-37; Dobkin, \"Filice and Perrelli Canning Company,\" 3-13.

[^9]: ^?^\"Ford Acquires Land on Coast,\" *Automobile Topics* 84 (18
    December 1926): 522; \"Ford to Rebuild on Coast,\" *Automobile
    Topics* 96 (18 January 1930): 1015; \"Ford Is Completing Third Coast
    Plant,\" *Automobile Topics* 103 (8 August 1931): 12; \"History of
    Richmond Branch,\" unpublished report dated 18 March 1941, HFM Acc.
    No. 429, box 2, Richmond, CA, folder. The acreage cited in the
    paragraph is from the earliest of the above-cited notes in
    *Automobile Topics* and almost certainly refers to the total area,
    including water, acquired by Ford.

[^10]: ^?^\"Ford Lets Plant Contract,\" *Automobile Topics* 98 (2 August
    1930): 1031; \"Local Contract Announcement Is Made,\" *Richmond
    United* 4 (August 1930): 3; \"Celebration Marks Opening of Work on
    Big Plant,\" *Richmond United* 4 (August 1930): 5; \"The
    Reminiscences of Clarence Bulwinkel,\" 26; \"The Reminiscences of
    B.R. Brown,\" 24-25.

    In \"The Reminiscences of B.R. Brown,\" (p. 8), Brown lists to cost
    of the Richmond branch plant as \$1,845,284, which is probably just
    the building itself, while Clinton Construction\'s total \$3,500,000
    contract probably included site work, such as the dock.

[^11]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of B.R. Brown,\" 27.

[^12]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of B.R. Brown,\" 1-2, 8.

[^13]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of Mr. M.L. Wiesmyer,\" Oral History
    conducted by Owen Bombard and dated 18 March 1953, HFM Acc. No. 65,
    1-5, 8-13, 18-20.

[^14]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of M.L. Wiesmyer,\" 28, 31-39; \"The
    Reminiscences of B.R. Brown,\" 25-27.

[^15]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of M.L. Wiesmyer,\" 54, 56-57; \"The
    Reminiscences of B.R. Brown, 8-9; \"The Reminiscences of Clarence
    Bulwinkel,\" 26; \"The Reminiscences of Fred Parr,\" 43.

[^16]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of M.L. Wiesmyer,\" 54-56.

[^17]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of B.R. Brown,\" 12.

[^18]: ^?^Grant Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry: The Architecture of
    Albert Kahn* (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1974), 5-18; Federico
    Bucci, *Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford* (New York: Princeton
    Architectural Press, 2002), 27-28.

[^19]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 21.

[^20]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 25-28; Bucci, *Albert
    Kahn*, 29-31. On Boyer, see David A. Simmons, \"\'The Continuous
    Clatter\': Practical Field Riveting,\" *IA: The Journal of the
    Society for Industrial Archeology* 23 (1997, no. 2): 5-20.

[^21]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 28-34; Bucci, *Albert
    Kahn*, 31-35.

[^22]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 34-43; Bucci, *Albert
    Kahn* 35-36.

[^23]: ^?^Kahn quoted in Bucci, *Albert Kahn*, 37; see also, Hildebrand,
    *Designing for Industry*, 43-44, 127; Nevins and Hill, *Ford:
    Decline and Rebirth*, 124-129, 311- 322; David L. Lewis, \"Ford and
    Kahn,\" *Michigan History* (September/October 1980): 26-27. Lewis
    (p. 17) describes Ford asking Kahn to design Highland Park in 1907,
    but Lewis offers no citations for his version of the initial meeting
    between Ford and Kahn.

[^24]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 44-54; Bucci, *Albert
    Kahn*, 38-44.

[^25]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 54-61.

[^26]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 72-123; Bucci, *Albert
    Kahn*, 48-57.

[^27]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 100, 124-126, 133-149;
    Bucci, *Albert Kahn*, 62-64.

[^28]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 128-130; Bucci, *Albert
    Kahn*, 88-94.

[^29]: ^?^Hildebrand, *Designing for Industry*, 166, 180, 197-205;
    Bucci, *Albert Kahn*, 77-87, 101-114. For a recent assessment of
    Kahn\'s place in the history of modernism and American architecture,
    see Brian Carter, ed., *Albert Kahn: Inspiration for the Modern*
    (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Art, 2001). For an
    excellent collection of photos of Kahn\'s buildings, see W. Hawkins
    Ferry, *The Legacy of Albert Kahn* (Detroit: Wayne State University
    Press, 1987). The book features a concluding essay by Walter B.
    Sanders, \"Albert Kahn Associates, 1942-1970,\" that reviews major
    projects by the Kahn firm after his death.

[^30]: ^?^Albert Kahn, Inc., Architects, Assembly Building of Ford Motor
    Company, Richmond, California, Job No. 1562, \"Plot Plan,\" Sheet 1,
    dated 22 May 1930.

[^31]: ^?^Albert Kahn, Inc., Architects, Assembly Building of Ford Motor
    Company, Richmond, California, Job No. 1562, \"Sections and
    Details,\" Sheet 6, dated 22 May 1930.

[^32]: ^?^Albert Kahn, Inc., Architects, Assembly Building of Ford Motor
    Company, Richmond, California, Job No. 1562, \"Plot Plan,\" Sheet 1,
    and \"First Floor Plan,\" Sheet 3, both dated 22 May 1930.

[^33]: ^?^The earliest known drawing of the layout of equipment on the
    second floor of the Richmond plant is \"Assembly Building -
    Richmond - Second Floor Layout,\" drawing dated 1 May 1939 and
    included in M. Wiesmyer, \"Branch Operations - Richmond.\" Although,
    there may have been some modifications to the layout, so that the
    configuration in 1939 was different from 1931, when Ford was still
    producing the Model A, the general scheme and location of equipment
    as described here matches the evidence in photographs produced in
    1931 at the Richmond plant as assembly equipment was being installed
    in the plant, construction of which was just completed. See, for
    example, photo no. 2011 (folder 1) dated 23 May 1931 and showing the
    first coat of plaster complete on the body prime ovens, located
    along the west side of the second floor; photo no 2026 (folder 2)
    dated 14 June 1931 and showing the trim and finish trim conveyors
    with Cooper-Hewitts (task-lighting fixtures) installed down the
    center of the second floor; photo no. 2050 (folder 4) dated 25 July
    1931 and showing the body stock conveyor from the southeast corner
    of the second floor; photo no. 2052 (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931
    and showing the closed body construction conveyor from the south end
    of the second floor; all photos HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^34]: ^?^Photo without number (folder 8) dated June 1937 and showing
    conveyor for delivering body stock from unloading dock to second
    floor; photo without number (folder 8) dated July 1937 and showing
    conveyor for mixed delivering body stock from unloading dock to
    second floor; photo without number (folder 8) dated 1937 and showing
    conveyor delivering body roof panels to roof panel storage at south
    end of second floor; all photos HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8. The opening
    in the east wall for this conveyor appears in the 1939 drawing for
    the second-floor layout, but it does not appear on the original Kahn
    drawings. It is therefore likely this conveyor was added sometime in
    the 1930s after Ford ceased producing the Model A.

[^35]: ^?^Photo no. 2039 (folder 3) dated 28 June 1931 and showing
    construction of the incline conveyor for bringing bodies from the
    second floor to the first; photo no. 2040 (folder 3) dated 12 July
    1931 and showing incline conveyor from first floor to balcony; photo
    no. 2057 (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931 and showing table for loading
    bodies onto incline conveyor; all photos HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^36]: ^?^Photo no. 2055 (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931 and showing the
    cushion assembly area at the north end of the second floor, HFM Acc.
    No. 696, box 8.

[^37]: ^?^The earliest known drawing of the layout of equipment on the
    first floor of the Richmond plant is \"Assembly Building -
    Richmond - First Floor Layout,\" drawing dated 1 May 1939 and
    included in M. Wiesmyer, \"Branch Operations - Richmond.\" As with
    the second floor, there is a nice match between this 1939 drawing
    and the 1931 photos of assembly equipment as it was being installed
    at the Richmond plant. See, for example, photo no. 2013 (folder 1)
    dated 29 May 1931 and showing the escalator and the final assembly
    line under construction; photo no. 2041 (folder 3) dated 12 July
    1931 and showing the escalator and final assembly line; photo no.
    2068 (folder 5) dated 25 July 1931 and showing the south end of the
    chassis assembly line; all photos HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^38]: ^?^Photo no. 2030 (folder 2), no date, showing axle conveyors and
    Model A and Model AA frame conveyors, HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^39]: ^?^Photo no. 2045 (folder 3) dated 12 July 1931 and showing wheel
    delivery conveyor; photo without number (folder 8) dated June 1937
    and showing conveyor, adjacent to tire storage, for delivering body
    stock from unloading dock to second floor; photo without number
    (folder 8) dated July 1937 and showing conveyor, adjacent to tire
    storage and wheel storage, for delivering body panels from unloading
    dock to second floor; all photos HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^40]: ^?^Photo no. 2002 (folder 1) dated 15 May 1931 and showing the
    unloading end of the enamel oven under construction; photo no. 2005
    (folder 1) dated 15 May 1931 and showing the loading end of the
    enamel ovens under construction; photo no. 2019 (folder 2) dated 8
    June 1931 and showing the south end of an enamel oven and the
    ventilation system for the commercial body spray booth; photo no.
    2022 (folder 2) dated 8 June 1931 and showing the south end of the
    assembly line and the overhead supporting steel for hicycle tools;
    photo no. 2049 (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931 and showing the sand
    line and solvent booth; photo no. 2058 (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931
    and showing the unloading end of the enamel oven; photo no. 2061
    (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931 and showing fender conveyor and the
    washing machine and burn-off oven; photo no. 2062 (folder 4) dated
    25 July 1931 and showing hood and enamel storage area and deliver
    conveyors adjacent to north end of final assembly line; all photos
    HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^41]: ^?^Photo no. 2065 (folder 5) dated 25 July 1931 and showing
    commercial body conveyors and hoists; photo no. 3018 (folder 7)
    dated June 1937 and showing the final assembly line near the north
    end; all photos HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^42]: ^?^Photo no. 2062 (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931 and showing hood
    and enamel storage area and deliver conveyors adjacent to north end
    of final assembly line; photo without number (folder 7) dated ca.
    1933 and showing a truck moving along the escalator at the north end
    of the final assembly line; all photos HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^43]: ^?^Photo no. 2057 (folder 4) dated 25 July 1931 and showing table
    for loading bodies onto incline conveyor, HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^44]: ^?^Photo without number (folder 8) dated 1937 and showing
    conveyor delivering body roof panels to roof panel storage at south
    end of second floor, HFM Acc. No. 696, box 8.

[^45]: ^?^Albert Kahn, Inc., Architects, Assembly Building of Ford Motor
    Company, Richmond, California, Job No. 1562, \"First Floor Plan,\"
    Sheet 2, and \"Second Floor & Roof Plans,\" Sheet 4, both dated 22
    May 1930.

[^46]: ^?^Albert Kahn, Inc., Architects, Assembly Building of Ford Motor
    Company, Richmond, California, Job No. 1562, \"Elevations,\" Sheet
    5, dated 22 May 1930.

[^47]: ^?^\"Ford Is Completing Third Coast Plant,\" *Automobile Topics*
    103 (8 August 1931): 12; \"Making Pressed Steel Parts at Long
    Beach,\" *Ford News* 11 (September 1931): 4; \"1931: a Year of
    Progress in the Ford World,\" *Ford News* 12 (January 1932): 10.

[^48]: ^?^\"Plant Questionnaire\" dated 10 February 1932, in chapter on
    Richmond in M. Wiesmyer, \"Branch Operations,\" unpublished
    preliminary report dated 26 April 1956, HFM Acc. No. 106; \"History
    of Richmond Branch,\" unpublished report dated 18 March 1941, HFM
    Acc. No. 429, box 2, Richmond, CA, folder; \"The Reminiscences of
    Mr. Clarence Bulwinkel,\" 27.

[^49]: ^?^\"The Reminiscences of Mr. Clarence Bulwinkel,\" 28.

[^50]: ^?^\"New Plant Opens on San Francisco Bay,\" *Ford News* 11
    (September 1931): 4; \"The Reminiscences of Mr. Clarence
    Bulwinkel,\" 27-28.

[^51]: ^?^\"Ford Boat Delivers Parts,\" *Automobile Topics* 103 (29
    August 1931): 224.

[^52]: ^?^\"History of Richmond Branch,\" unpublished report dated 18
    March 1941, HFM Acc. No. 429, box 2, Richmond, CA, folder.

[^53]: ^?^\"History of Richmond Branch,\" unpublished report dated 18
    March 1941, HFM Acc. No. 429, box 2, Richmond, CA, folder.

[^54]: ^?^\"Ford Branch Assembly Is Getting Under Way,\" *Automobile
    Topics* 106 (21 May 1932): 139; \"Ford Branch Production Continues
    to Increase,\" *Automobile Topics* 106 (4 June 1932): 236; \"Mr.
    Ford Doesn\'t Care,\" *Fortune* 8 (December 1933): 66.

[^55]: ^?^\"A New Car: The Ford V-8,\" *Ford News* 12 (April 1932): 3.

[^56]: ^?^\"Mr. Ford Doesn\'t Care,\" *Fortune* 8 (December 1933):
    66-67; \"The Reminiscences of Mr. Clarence Bulwinkel,\" 28-29.

[^57]: ^?^\"History of Richmond Branch,\" unpublished report dated 18
    March 1941, HFM Acc. No. 429, box 2, Richmond, CA, folder.

[^58]: ^?^\"27-Millionth Ford Made At Richmond,\" 15 February 1939
    newspaper clipping in HFM Acc. No. 99, box , Richmond, CA, Branch
    Clippings folder; \"History of Richmond Branch,\" unpublished report
    dated 18 March 1941, HFM Acc. No. 429, box 2, Richmond, CA, folder.

[^59]: ^?^W.A. Abbott to Superintendent\'s Office, Dearborn, undated
    memorandum; Abbott to Power & Construction, Dearborn, memoranda
    dated 21 June & 11 July 1940; H.B. Hanson to Abbott, telegram dated
    2 July 1940; all in HFM Acc. No. 371, box 16, folder 1.

[^60]: ^?^Abbott to Payroll Office, Dearborn, memorandum dated 14 June
    1940, HFM Acc. No. 371, box 16, folder 1.

[^61]: ^?^Charles Johnson to Superintendent\'s Office, Dearborn,
    memorandum dated 11 July 1940, and W.A. Abbott to Medical
    Department, Dearborn, memorandum dated 22 July 1940, both in HFM
    Acc. No. 371, box 16, folder 1.

[^62]: ^?^*Labor Herald* (11 August 1938): 3. A headline, \"Fordism Is
    Fascism\...This Proves It!\", appears over a photograph of Ford, on
    his 75th birthday, receiving the award from Karl Kapp, German consul
    in Cleveland.

[^63]: ^?^\"Hitler Decorated Ford: His Workers Apply for Relief,\"
    *Labor Herald* (11 August 1938): 1. The article is primarily about
    how production at Ford plants was so low that Ford workers had to
    apply for relief much of the year, but the article also points out
    that Ford produced military trucks the previous year for Japan in
    its invasion of China. The author has not verified this production
    for the Japanese military in Ford sources. That Ford\'s Richmond
    plant produced trucks for the Japanese government is corroborated,
    however, in \"Parley Ends Ford Strike,\" *Richmond Independent* (24
    April 1937): 3.

[^64]: ^?^Nevins and Hill, *Ford: Decline & Rebirth*, 273-281.

[^65]: ^?^Monthly Report of Total Assemblies, Form 6116, Richmond
    Branch, for the months January through September 1940, HFM Acc. No.
    468, box 9; \"It\'s a Big, New Car: 1941 Ford,\" *Ford News* 20
    (October 1940): 219-227; \"Progress in the Ford World,\" *Ford News*
    22 (January 1942): 24.

[^66]: ^?^\"Savings in Defense Metals,\" *Ford News* 21 (October 1941):
    259, 270; \"Mercury 8 for 1942,\" *Ford News* 21 (October 1941):
    260-261; \"The Beautiful New Ford for 1942,\" *Ford News* 21
    (October 1941): 262-263; \"1942 Ford Trucks,\" *Ford News* 21
    (October 1941): 266-267; \"Progress in the Ford World,\" *Ford News*
    22 (January 1942): 25; Nevins Hill, *Ford: Decline and Rebirth*,
    198-199.

[^67]: ^?^Donald Nelson, *Arsenal of Democracy: the Story of American
    War Production* (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1946),
    212-224.