The Fehr & Granger Tradition at St. Stephen's

T HE FE HR & GR A N GE R T R A D I T I O N A T S T. S T E P H E N ’ S

January 2015

Dear Friends, As St. Stephen’s Episcopal School begins its 65th year, we celebrate our unique architectural heritage with a tribute to our original campus architects, Arthur Fehr and Charles Granger. They worked closely with our founders, the Rt. Rev. John Hines, the Rev. William Brewster and the early board of trustees to create a cohesive plan for the land and distinctive architectural vocabulary for the buildings. This collaboration to create a strikingly modern and progressive institution at St. Stephen’s is an important story that deserves to be told.

Out of the original, rugged 400 acres, these visionaries carved the site master plan that we use today. Comprised of three distinct zones — academic, residential and athletic — the campus was carefully designed to reflect the mission of the school.

Situated at the highest point on The Hill, the Chapel integrates our campus into the natural setting and serves, both literally and figuratively, as the heart of our school community. Surrounding the Chapel, the zones roll out like rings with academic buildings circling closest, followed by residential and student life buildings nestled into the slope of the hillside, and athletic and parking areas at the outermost point on campus.

Physical changes made to the campus faithfully maintain the principles established by our original architects. Underscoring the work of Fehr & Granger, we treasure and preserve the views looking west over the Hill Country and place all new buildings squarely within the village — no sprawl here! Throughout the last 20 years, while we moved cars out of the center of our busy campus to peripheral parking, we created a pedestrian zone that runs through the middle of campus.

Alumni who return to campus can easily find their way.

The jewel of our campus, arguably the finest of the hundreds of buildings designed by Fehr & Granger, is the Chapel. The Chapel continues to anchor our community, joining generations of Spartans through their collective memories and shared experiences in that sacred space.

This booklet was made possible by the generosity and vision of our beloved alumna Jill Wilkinson ’64 and the Still Water Foundation.

I hope you enjoy this Spartan story.

Christine Aubrey Director of Advancement

Fehr & Granger in the Modern Context

“Architecture is a complex art embracing form and function, symbol and social purpose, technique and belief.”

—William Curtis, Architectural Historian

Arthur Fehr and Charles Granger were fortunate to work in one of the most dynamic eras of American design. The end of World War II brought unprecedented prosperity, rapid urban growth and a population boom. The city of Austin, where they established their architectural practice, followed the national trend. In 1936, when Charles Granger graduated from The University of Texas, Austin’s population was 68,000. By 1950, the year St. Stephen’s Episcopal School opened to students, the population had soared to 132,000. Americans’ tastes were changing just as rapidly. Service men and women returned victorious from Europe with great optimism about the future.

Their growing families created demand for streamlined, mass-produced furniture and household objects, as well as a progressive design approach for the buildings they occupied. This was the era of Mid-Century Modernism.

While modernism in mainstream American life was fairly new, it had by this time matured elsewhere in the world. Overall, the modern architecture movement lasted nearly 100 years, beginning with the Industrial Revolution. It then evolved alongside the devastation and economic collapse of World War I, the rise of fascism, World War II, and the period of great prosperity and global dissemination that followed. As such, modernism has a complex history with many contributors. Parallel movements emerged in cities throughout Western Europe, Russia and the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: Art Nouveau in Brussels, the Vienna Secessionists, the Deutscher Werkbund, and the Chicago School of Louis Sullivan, to name a few.

While these early manifestations of modernism took various aesthetic forms, all worked to reconcile the great technological, social and urban transformations ushered in by the Industrial Revolution.

According to architectural historian William Curtis, “History did not stand still, and the same creative individuals who had seemed to be pushing toward a common aim went their own separate ways; in turn seminal ideas were transformed by followers.” Charles Granger was three generations removed from those absolute foundations of modernism. His mentors had learned from purists in the movement but developed their own unique design philosophies, which they passed on to him as an apprentice and student.

Charles Granger Jr. (1913–1966) was born in Austin and graduated from The University of Texas with a bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1936. Soon afterward he moved to Los Angeles to work for Richard Neutra (1892–1970), a renowned architect with a formidable modernist pedigree. The Austrian-born Neutra had studied at the Vienna University of

Fehr & Granger in the Modern Context

Technology under Adolf Loos, author of the seminal manifesto “Ornament and Crime” (1908). Loos railed against Art Nouveau and Secessionism as decorative, superficial styles. He believed that a “universal style” for modern times would emerge when ornament was eschewed in favor of essential qualities like form, proportion and clarity.

Following World War I Neutra moved to Switzerland and then in 1921 to Berlin, where he worked for Erich Mendelsohn (1887–1953), a German-Jewish architect practicing in the manner of Expressionism. As a soldier in the trenches during the war, Mendelsohn created fantastical sketches of futuristic buildings like factories and film studios.

Forms were plasticized and dynamic, almost cartoonish, juxtaposing the rigors of the machine age against biomorphic forms. His seminal work, an observatory in Potsdam known as Einstein Tower (1920–24), would have been on the drawing boards while Neutra was employed in his office. The building, which contained a telescope and an astrophysical laboratory for the exploration of spectro-analytic phenomena, was highly organic in appearance, featuring curved window openings sculpted into the seemingly stretched surface of the white plaster walls.

Einstein Tower (1920–24) would have been on the drawing boards while Neutra was employed in Mendelsohn’s office.

Lovell House (1927– 29) was designed around a series of horizontal levels interrupted by open stairways, atriums and outdoor courtyards, echoing the influence of Cubism.

According to William Curtis, “Mendelsohn conceived of science and industry as sources of new social and formal energy. He wished to breathe the quality of life into his designs and to unite intellect and feeling, function and space.” These themes of life and feeling would appear in Neutra’s own work and later be reiterated in the work of Fehr & Granger.

By 1923 the climate for Jews and the creative class in Germany was souring. Neutra immigrated to the United States with his family. He worked briefly in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Los Angeles office before striking out with friend and colleague from the Vienna University of Technology, Rudolph Schindler (1887–1953). His first solo commission, Lovell House (1927–29), remains one of his most influential and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Cascading down a hillside in Los Angeles, the house was designed around a series of horizontal levels interrupted by open stairways, atriums and outdoor courtyards, echoing the influence of Cubism. The house utilized many of the tenets of modernism’s International Style, which was at its peak in Western Europe.

International Style incorporated large expanses of prefabricated windows sized and oriented to correspond to the functions behind them (i.e., form follows function); a stark,

Fehr & Granger in the Modern Context

unornamented facade (as advocated by Adolf Loos 20 years prior); and a steel frame structure. Thanks to that steel frame, Neutra could open large interior volumes and cantilever elements to imply enclosure for the private outdoor spaces. The dynamic, light-filled design was the first of what he called the “health house.” In some ways harking back to Mendelsohn’s philosophy, the “health house” was defined as a “mechanism serving mind and body, linking the individual in a sensual way to the rhythms of nature.” Neutra was exploring the concept of regional modernism; the climate and terrain of Southern California inspired him to incorporate the design mode of the time, International Style, with local considerations of shading, cross ventilation and topography. It would remain a primary focus of his practice during the years that Charles Granger apprenticed with him and would be reflected in Fehr & Granger’s work on St. Stephen’s campus.

In 1938 Granger returned to Austin and began working for Arthur Fehr (1904–1969).

An Austin native as well, Fehr graduated from The University of Texas with a bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1925. He continued graduate studies at Columbia University, New York University and the Beaux Arts Institute of Design in New York. Before returning to Austin, Fehr worked for architects in New York and San Antonio and traveled extensively around Europe. In 1934 he became an architect for the National Park Service at Bastrop State Park, where he first met Granger, who interned at the park as a draftsman during college summers.

In 1937 Fehr received his first solo commission—a church—and opened his own office.

A year later Granger returned to Austin from Los Angeles and joined Fehr’s office as an associate. During World War II the practice was closed due to lack of commissions.

Fehr became an engineer for the U.S. Department of War, and Granger worked in the engineering department of an aircraft manufacturer. In 1944 Granger was awarded a fellowship to study architecture at Cranbrook Academy of Art in Michigan, where he studied under the second modernist mentor of his career: Eliel Saarinen (1873–1950).

Saarinen was a Finnish architect with a long and productive career in his native country.

He was a disciple of Art Nouveau, but adapted it into a regional style known as Finnish National Romanticism. The most well-known example of Finnish National Romanticism is his Helsinki Central Railway Station (1919), a monumental, granite and copper-clad building with four colossal figures flanking its main entrance. In addition to architecture, Saarinen practiced city planning in Hungary and Estonia. At age 50, he moved his family to the United States following his second-place entry for the Chicago Tribune Tower. His

The most wellknown example of Finnish National Romanticism is the Helsinki Central Railway Station (1919), a monumental, granite and copper-clad building with four colossal figures flanking its main entrance.

design was never built, but a near replica—the Gulf Oil Building—was later constructed in Houston. The family settled in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where Saarinen held a visiting professorship. In 1925 he was approached to design the campus of the Cranbrook Educational Community, an emerging institution on a private estate in Bloomfield Hills that aimed to revive craftsmanship. The campus is now designated a National Historic Landmark and is the most complete example of Saarinen’s built work.

The Academy of Art was officially sanctioned in 1932 with Saarinen as its president.

The school’s structure was, and still is, unique. There was no set curriculum; students were advised by artists-in-residence while pursuing individual courses of study. Other well-known designers to move through the program in its early years were Charles and Ray Eames and furniture designer Frances Knoll. Granger studied closely with the elder Saarinen, as well as with his son, Eero. After earning a master’s degree in architecture and urban planning in 1945, Granger stayed in Michigan briefly to work for Saarinen & Swanson. Later that year he returned to Austin to work again with Fehr—this time as partners. When asked in an article why he chose Austin over offers in Los Angeles and Bloomfield Hills, Granger replied, “Because the future of Texas looked extremely bright.”

Fehr & Granger in the Modern Context

The Office of Fehr & Granger was positioned perfectly. The era of Mid-Century Modernism was just beginning. Austin was a growing city in a proud state with a highly educated population thanks to The University of Texas. Because of their studies and travels, apprenticeships with renowned modernists, and their familiarity with the climate and vernacular of Central Texas, the architects brought a unique credibility to their practice.

Fehr ran the administrative side of the firm while Granger led the drafting studio; they both collaborated with their associate employees on design.

Over the next 20 years, Fehr & Granger designed hundreds of buildings, including residences, schools, churches, medical clinics, offices and civic facilities. Their work was published more than a dozen times in Progressive Architecture, the preeminent design magazine of the era. Their designs also garnered numerous awards, including first honors from the Texas Society of Architects (TSA) for the Chapel at St. Stephen’s Episcopal School, an award of merit from the TSA for Westwood Country Club, and a Progressive Architecture Design Award for Robert Mueller Municipal Airport.

While Fehr & Granger were not specialists—they designed a variety of building types and scales—their entire portfolio of work was cohesive. This can be attributed to two considerations: all were uncompromisingly modern in appearance and all (except one residence) were built in Texas. Granger’s time with Richard Neutra, learning the principles of regional modernism, left an indelible mark. He adapted the concept to Central Texas by designing to its unique climate and native building materials. A classic Fehr & Granger building—be it Central Presbyterian Church in downtown Austin or St. Stephen’s Chapel —was characterized by elegant economy: a clean, spare appearance; a limited material palette (often local limestone, wood, glass and steel); and thoughtful siting that took advantage of prevailing breezes and daylight. Faithful to the work of their mentors, every element felt essential.

A portfolio, published by the Office of Fehr & Granger included this defining statement: “It is the architect’s responsibility to translate through research and creative professional skill the client’s needs into their proper functional relationships within the economic resources available, using not only his creative ability but the best engineering judgment and technology. The buildings which result from this approach are structures of beauty, efficiency and sound economy. This is true architecture.”

Tragically, in 1966 Charles Granger was killed in a car accident, which also took the life

of his wife and one of his three children. Arthur Fehr carried on Fehr & Granger until his own death three years later. Although their partnership lasted fewer than 30 years— paralleling the arc of the Mid-Century Modern Movement—the unique legacy of Fehr & Granger will remain for generations. Their progressive ideas shaped development in Austin and the surrounding region during a period of unprecedented growth. By modeling their practice on the principles of their modernist mentors, Fehr & Granger created a signature architectural language that was in tune with the modern American ethos and contextually appropriate for Central Texas.

By Brett Koenig Greig

Bibliography Curtis, William J.R. Modern Architecture Since 1900. London: Phaidon, 1996.

Portfolio of the Office of Fehr & Granger Architects and Planning Consultants. 1967.

“Round Robin Critique: 4 Houses.” Progressive Architecture Aug. 1950: 51–69.

“The Architect and His Community: Fehr & Granger —Austin, Texas.” Progressive Architecture Aug. 1958: 89–104.

“Research Does It.” Texas Architect Jan. 1959: 6–7; 14.

“Cranbrook Academy of Art—History.” Cranbrook Academy of Art. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2014. wwwcranbrookart.edu/about/history/ Triggs, Riley. “The Shaping of the Mid-Century Home in Austin.” Creede Fitch. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2014. www.creedefitch.com/an-austin-mcmprimer/#

Middle School gym

The original head of school home, Residence No. 5

St. Stephen’s Chapel details

Hines Hall details

“It is our concept that the buildings should be open to this expanse, should be of native materials so as to blend into this terrain, and that each should be developed from its purpose in the community so as to be truly useful, logical units.”

—Arthur Fehr and Charles Granger

Hines Hall, looking east

The Fehr & Granger Tradition at St. Stephen’s

“It is our earnest intent to solve the plan of St. Stephen’s so that it will not be just another school, but will age and ripen, and become a memorable place for its alumni.”

—Arthur Fehr and Charles Granger

The St. Stephen’s Episcopal School campus represents a cohesive blend of the Mid-Century Modern aesthetic and contemporary West Texas regional design. Since its founding in 1950, the school has grown dramatically to meet the needs of its burgeoning student population, but in many ways the campus design has changed little in the last 65 years. This consistency in design is due in large part to the great vision of modernist architects Arthur Fehr, FAIA, (1904–1969) and Charles Granger, FAIA, (1913–1966) and their inspired collaboration with St. Stephen’s founders.

Planning for the school began in 1947, when a survey sent out to all congregants of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas found that 63 of their children were attending boarding schools outside the state. The Rt. Rev. John E. Hines (1910–1997), then Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Texas, and later Bishop of the Diocese and Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, took up the call to establish a church boarding school of such high caliber so as to draw those children back to Texas.

He invited the Rev. William Brewster (1907–1953), who had been the headmaster at St. Mark’s School, an all-boys institution in Massachusetts, to lead the new school.

Brewster was a reformer, in tune with the sentiments of post-World War II America.

The war’s end had ushered in an era of optimism and unprecedented prosperity, but also marked a shift in values as formal traditions were being eschewed in the name of progress.

For Brewster, progress meant co-education. In an essay printed in The Texas Churchman, the publication of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, Brewster wrote, “Our primary objective is to educate in the largest meaning of that word, the boys and girls of our church so that they may become good men and women, devoted and informed church people, responsible and wise parents and citizens.” St. Stephen’s would become the first co-ed Episcopal school in the United States and later the first racially integrated boarding school in the South.

Brewster believed that the progressive values of this new school should be manifest in its architecture. But first he, Bishop Hines and the school’s board of trustees needed to agree upon a location on which to build. The War Assets Administration, which was charged with divvying up the surplus from World War II, offered the Diocese use of Camp Swift, just north of Bastrop. However, their offer was for a short-term lease, which meant repurposing buildings that had been hastily built and were not ideally set up to house a boarding school.

The Fehr & Granger Tradition at St. Stephen’s

Concerned about the impression that excessive investment in a temporary site would give to parents and donors, Brewster advocated strongly for a permanent location. “The building of tradition that undergirds the spirit of the school is very important,” he wrote in 1948. “Tradition is built around rocks, trees, fields in the natural setting and about buildings, particularly those where the life of the spirit and intellect is kindled. It would be difficult to start building tradition in a place known to be temporary. Roots would not go down deep, and our establishment would be like the house built upon sand.”

Brewster preferred a site eight miles west of Austin that was part of the Rob Roy Ranch that previously had been held by the Colorado Lake Chautauqua Association. “It contains many outstanding features, including a large amount of acreage, good tillable land, ample room for playing fields, access to Lake Austin, and a large building site with a westward view that is superb,” he reported.

At their meeting on Dec. 13, 1948, the St. Stephen’s board of trustees voted unanimously to decline the offer of Camp Swift and approve purchase of the land along Lake Austin.

At the same meeting, the board agreed “to go forward with the employment of an architect to draw up a master plan of the school as it will eventually appear and to begin the arrangements for building a school to house 60 students the first year.”

They turned to the Office of Fehr & Granger. The architecture firm had formed in 1946; however, before the war, Granger had worked for Fehr as an associate for four years.

Both partners were Austin natives, and both held bachelor’s degrees in architecture from The University of Texas. They had each done graduate work and internships outside of the state. Fehr took courses at Columbia University, New York University and the Beaux Arts Institute of Design. Granger interned with renowned modernist Richard Neutra in Los Angeles and later studied under Eliel Saarinen at the Cranbrook Academy of Art. While their design sensibilities reflected the tenets of the International Style, they gave their work a true sense of place through material choices and sensitivity to site. Their development of a regional vernacular modernism garnered repeated praise

by Progressive Architecture, the preeminent design magazine of the era.

Brewster and the board hired Fehr & Granger after touring a small chapel the firm had designed for an impoverished Roman Catholic congregation. Brewster later wrote that he found its modern appearance attractive, but it was also appealing because the design was simple and inexpensive to build. No doubt, he was drawn to the architects’ articulation

of regional modernism—exemplified by an uncluttered appearance, limited material palette drawn primarily from the local landscape, and thoughtful site placement.

According to Brewster’s son, a member of St. Stephen’s first graduating class, his father “talked about the influence of Frank Lloyd Wright often as he was considering architectural plans of the first buildings and subsequent expansion of campus,” said the Rev. Will Brewster ’51. “He liked architecture that emphasized bringing the outside into the building and using natural materials that fit into the landscape.”

Although Brewster had not discovered Fehr & Granger from articles in Progressive Architecture, he did in fact have a connection with the magazine. By coincidence his old friend George A. Sanderson was its features editor from the 1940s through the 1960s. Sanderson discovered the association between Brewster and the darlings of Progressive Architecture when he read a description of St. Stephen’s in the September 1949 issue of The Texas Churchman, which Granger had mailed him. Sanderson’s subsequent correspondence with his old friend sheds a bright light on the working relationship between Fehr & Granger, Brewster and the trustees of St. Stephen’s.

In his Oct. 13, 1949, letter to Brewster, Sanderson gave Fehr & Granger high praise.

“They are not only grand guys, but as architects (in my opinion) they rank with only a handful of others in the country for the genuineness and distinction of their design accomplishment,” he wrote. “I’m sure they are proud of the St. Stephen’s assignment, and I feel certain that the end result will be something that will be both an excellent school and an important architectural contribution.”

Sanderson also commended Brewster’s leap of faith, so to speak, in hiring modernists to design a church school: I congratulate you for whatever part you may have had in seeing that the school should be simple, dignified, and reflecting confidence both in the time of its founding and in the future. There are few building types that (architecturally) seem to cling to looking backward, downward and inward as much as the church. And, except for elementary schools, this is almost as true of buildings for education (Vide Yale, Harvard—almost any place you can name). Hence it is almost uniquely exciting in our field to find a project combining both educational and religious functions which has

The Fehr & Granger Tradition at St. Stephen’s

been developed in so unpretentious, dignified and suitable a manner, incorporating contemporary techniques and material usages.

Brewster’s reply on Oct. 25 confirmed Sanderson’s suspicions that the design process had not been without challenge. “As you might expect, it has taken a bit of selling to put across modern, functional and indigenous architecture to an Episcopal Church school board,” he wrote. “I can assure you that nothing like that could have happened in New England.” He gave due credit to the architects, “who have not tried to insist dogmatically on anything, but who have swung us all around their way. I am enthusiastic about the plans they are drawing up and believe that the buildings will be distinctive in appearance and most economical in operation.”

Over the course of their careers, Fehr & Granger were invited to design many churches and church schools throughout Texas. Undoubtedly, the question of style in ecclesiastical architecture came up again and again. But their practice was founded on a firm commitment to regionally appropriate design, and for St. Stephen’s they issued the following explanation: We believe that we would not be worthy of such a project, to take the present wealth of materials and methods and use them to create a ‘Gothic’ or ‘Roman’ or ‘Tudor’ and say that it is an adequate resolution. Nor would it be ecclesiastical architecture. We have analyzed the site, the materials at hand and have purposely avoided the easy route of presenting a sweet ivy-covered perspective which is used much too often to sell an architecture that has an archaeological charm. We believe St. Stephen’s should have an alert and vigorous architecture. We hope that an open, flexible plan, light, clean-cut buildings in their setting of sky and hills above the river, will express plainly man’s striving and God’s purpose.

Indeed, they succeeded in designing distinctive, attractive and appropriate buildings for St. Stephen’s needs and established aesthetic guidelines that the school’s current architects continue to reference. Fehr & Granger laid out the original 400-acre campus in three distinct zones, working with the contours of the land and the stands of trees growing along the grade. At the highest point, known as The Hill, they placed the Chapel, surrounding it with the academic core. Just down from The Hill, they created the residential district; where the land flattened out, they located athletic fields. “It is

our concept that the buildings should be open to this expanse, should be of native materials so as to blend into this terrain, and that each should be developed from its purpose in the community so as to be truly useful, logical units,” the architects wrote.

When it opened in the fall of 1950, St. Stephen’s looked, as one student described in her yearbook, like a wilderness outpost. At that time, only six buildings—two dormitories, a classroom building, the dining hall (which also served as library and chapel), administration and the headmaster’s house—were completed, but the roads had not yet been paved. The raw state of the campus the student encountered underscored the fact that years of planning were only just being set in motion. Throughout the next 16 years, Fehr & Granger would oversee the design and construction of more than a dozen buildings on the St. Stephen’s campus.

Once fully completed, St. Stephen’s held one of the largest collections of Fehr & Granger designs in the state. The architects did design other campuses—the Texas School for the Deaf, Seminary of the Southwest and Austin State School, to name a few—but St. Stephen’s best embodies the principles of regional vernacular modernism that defines the work of Fehr & Granger. The buildings were modern in their functionality, but also in their aesthetic. “This architecture should be sincere,” Fehr explained.

“Rather than ornamenting the materials, which is costly, the materials themselves shall be the ornament, which spells economy.”

Inspired by Brewster’s view that the life of the school be embedded in its natural setting, Fehr & Granger designed a cohesive composition of simple, low-slung stone buildings that allowed the picturesque surroundings to take center stage. They applied their vernacular regionalism through the use of site-quarried stone as both an exterior and interior material, contrasted with more modern materials like exposed structural steel and large expanses of glass.

In keeping with the modern ethos, each building was designed around its function.

The architects operated under the assumption that “no form anywhere is to be dictated by approaching it outwardly, but by analyzing each space within each building.”

They continued, “A limited budget demands economical, functional design, and the entire purpose of St. Stephen’s demands a free, uncluttered, crisp development.”

The first academic building—what is today Brewster Hall—was oriented so that

The Fehr & Granger Tradition at St. Stephen’s

eastern light flooded the classrooms. High windows on the west side could be opened for cross ventilation, but were sheltered from the heat under a broad overhang that also protected an exterior corridor. The social spaces, such as restrooms and lockers, were clustered together, away from the quiet of the classrooms. The first two dormitories, Freeman and Ives, also were organized in response to noise. Students’ rooms came off a double-loaded corridor, but the sleeping areas were buffered from the hallway by wardrobes and storage.

With the exception of the Chapel, the buildings at St. Stephen’s were not intended to visually compete with each other. Consecrated in 1953, the Chapel was designed to be the heart of the St. Stephen’s campus, and it remains so today due to the important function it serves and to its integration with its site and the timeless, regionally appropriate materials used in its construction. The building is nestled between stands of live oaks and is oriented to catch the prevailing east-west breezes blowing across The Hill throughout the year. The interior is grand in volume and yet spare in its palette of stone, glass and stucco—suited to the rituals performed there, both solemn and celebratory. From the exterior, the Chapel appears deceptively small due to the facade strategy that Fehr & Granger used. Fin walls, built of site-quarried limestone, bookend the short facades. The architects created visual continuity across campus by utilizing the fin wall on nearly every building they designed. The Chapel’s stone was laid so that individual rocks occasionally project from the face of the wall. The result is a fine but rusticated texture that plays with the sense of scale. In 1955, the Chapel design received First Honors in Architecture at the Texas State Fair.

While it is true that Fehr & Granger designed many church buildings over the life of their practice, there is something special about the Chapel at St. Stephen’s that sets it apart from the others. This may be due not to one specific quality, but a synthesis of many. The building gently occupies the hilltop, appearing small although it is one of the largest gathering spaces at the school. Due to its simplicity, the building materials themselves are its ornament. To this day, the Chapel remains free of mechanical air conditioning that would otherwise muffle the rhythms of campus life. Most importantly, the building’s physical and conscious placement at the center of the educational community it serves makes the Chapel one of Fehr & Granger’s most significant designs.

It is inevitable that over time buildings would need to be adapted, renovated or removed in the name of growth. Fehr & Granger’s original master plan accounted for 300 students, while

today enrollment is nearly 700. Today the Chapel, classrooms 7, 8 and 9, the Middle School gym, and faculty residence No. 5 remain in near-original condition. Others, like Brewster and Hines halls, have undergone renovations and additions, while Ives and Freeman dormitories had to be razed to make room for Wycliff-Freeman, a larger facility more suited to the needs of current boarding students.

Despite these changes, the St. Stephen’s campus remains organized exactly as Fehr & Granger designed it 65 years ago—with the religious and academic core at the highest point, and residential life and athletic pursuits in the adjacent valley near St. Stephen’s creek. In time the newer buildings will become “old,” nestled into the school’s natural setting, aiding in the growth of tradition and the kindling of intellect and spirit.

By Brett Koenig Greig

Bibliography Brewster, the Rev. William. “St. Stephen’s School— Important Decisions Made.” The Texas Churchman 52.5 (Jan. 1949): 6–7.

Brewster, the Rev. William. “Why Coeducation at St. Stephen’s School?” The Texas Churchman 52.8 (Apr. 1949): 6–7.

Brewster, the Rev. William. Letter to George A. Sanderson. 25 Oct. 1949. Austin, Texas.

Brewster, the Rev. William. Partial Notes for Presentation to Board of Trustees, 13 Dec. 1948 meeting (assumed provenance).

Fehr, Arthur, FAIA, and Charles Granger, FAIA. “The Architects’ Point of View.” The Texas Churchman 53.1 (Sept. 1949): 8–9.

Greig, Brett Koenig. “Completing the Circle.” Texas Architect. Nov-Dec. 2013: 86–93.

Sanderson, George A. Letter to the Rev. William Brewster. 13 Oct. 1949. New York, NY. “History and Traditions.” St. Stephen’s Episcopal School. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. www.sstx.org/history

Documents from the Carter Luckie Scrapbook Collection including: • Announcement of the school’s opening • School prospectus • Preparation letter from the headmaster to families, dated 10 August 1950 • Progress report letter from the headmaster to families, dated 4 October 1950 • Program from the first graduation exercises on 31 May 1951

About the Author Brett Koenig Greig is an architect in Austin, Texas.

She holds a B.S. in architecture from the University of Virginia, and an M. Arch. from The University of Texas at Austin, where she teaches undergraduate design studios. Greig was introduced to the architecture of Fehr & Granger in 2008, when she attended the annual Festival of Lessons and Carols in the St. Stephen’s Episcopal School Chapel with her husband, Travis Greig ’94.

Photography All images by Andrew Pogue Photography

www .SSTX. org