The New Deal and Public Works Administration

When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, the nation was suffering the worst economic depression of its history, and both poverty and unemployment were common. He and his staff had an ambitious, progressive plan for bolstering employment throughout the country, a plan that took on the name the New Deal and became synonymous with that period of US history, from 1933 to about 1939 when the federal focus shifted heavily from these programs to war preparation. Within the first few months of Roosevelt’s presidency, he created a number of federal agencies aimed to do this through the direct and indirect dispersion of monies to state and local governments and to other programs that would design, build, and maintain public buildings, structures, parks, monuments, and the like. By requiring architects, builders, supervisors, and of course crews of laborers, these projects would provide opportunities for employment. One of the most prolific of these federal programs was the Public Works Administration (PWA), which received annual budgets approved by congress and dispersed them to state-level committees, who in turn would take applications from municipal and county governments for funds to put toward certain projects. The approved projects would most commonly receive funds for 45% of their total project, and the applying government body would be responsible for covering the remaining 55%. This was standard practice for the PWA, which continued through 1939, when Engine House No. 2 was built, through 1940 when projects were ordered to be largely complete, and through its closure in 1943. After 1939, the agency was discontinued at the federal level, and only state-level offices were left in place to oversee ongoing projects. But in the last years of its existence, even the state offices were consolidated, and many of Iowa’s last PWA projects were overseen from the agency’s Omaha office (Short and Stanley-Brown 1939; Svendsen 2003:4-8).

At the PWA’s founding, Iowa was instructed to set up a three-person committee, just as the other 47 states were. After some time, the state committee systems were replaced by a state director, often titled as “engineer.” P.F. Hopkins was first selected to serve as the “acting” state PWA engineer. In addition to selecting and overseeing the process, these engineers were responsible for making reports to federal agencies, to help encourage applications from local governments, and to help assist the applicants in procuring other needed funds. The state engineers’ staffs included attorneys, engineers, and financial experts (Short and Stanley-Brown 1939; Svendsen 2003a:8-9).

To secure funds through the PWA’s state office, an application would first have to be drafted by local staff and approved by the governing body, such as county board of supervisors or by a city council in this case. Often, this approval would first need an official, approved means of how to fund the remaining 55% of the project, which in turn would require significant work on the local government’s part, if not, actual public bond referendums would need to be voted on by the citizens. Though not needed in the case of Mason City’s Engine House No. 2, these bond issues sometimes required significant local campaigns to garner positive public sentiment. To that end, many of these applications took time to prepare. The application to the PWA would include, at a minimum, a detailed description of the project, the status of architectural drawings and various specifications, a breakdown of contractors and workers who would be impacted by the project, detailed listing of expenses, and detailed financial information on how the rest of the project was to be funded. With that information compiled, the application could then be sent to the state PWA office. If approved, construction could proceed under the director’s supervision (Svendsen 2003a:9-12).

PWA projects were graded and selected on the following criteria:

1. social desirability and relation to coordinated planning,
2.  economic desirability in relation to unemployment and revival of industry,
3. soundness of design,
4. financial ability of applicant to complete the work, and
5. legal ability for project to be commenced and completed or the enforceability of any lease entered into.

These “yardsticks” helped the generally decentralized agency keep uniform standards, which appear to have been kept across the country, with some regional architectural differences (Short and Stanley-Brown 1939; Svendsen 2003a:8-9). Engineer Hopkins would certainly have been aware of these criteria in managing Iowa’s PWA office. Mason City’s application, by virtue of its success, appears to have met such criteria. Specifically, for:

1. social desirability and coordination, it addressed the need for further fire protection and fighting in a developing part of the city and complimented the city’s overall plan for expansion and modernization;
2. its economic/employment/industry importance was easy to define, as it employed a local architectural firm, a local construction company, and a staff of firefighting professionals in its operation;
3. its soundness of design appeared to coordinate with the overall trend of PWA Moderne designs nationwide;
4. the city council had a plan in place to cover the remaining costs without requiring a bond referendum; and
5. the city already owned the land on which it would sit, apparently not requiring much if any legal action.

In January of 1940, Iowa PWA engineer Klise told an audience over local KGLO radio about the importance of PWA programs to Mason City and vicinity. He noted that about $79-million had been distributed to Iowa through the program and that over $1.3-million had been distributed to Mason City alone, and of that about $430,000 was paid to local builders and subcontractors. Mason City’s PWA projects included schools, sewers and water treatment infrastructure, a library, water works, a bridge, and of course Engine House No. 2. He noted that the county courthouse project did not meet its necessary referendum but noted several other significant projects in nearby cities. In creating “thousands of man hours of useful employment for our skilled and unskilled workers… [as well as many more in] manufacturing, mining, processing, producing, and transportation,” Klise noted that these benefits were certainly local but also national. He emphasized that the program was doing good for communities in all parts of the country, lifting it up and that “while other nations have been forced by war to destroy, we in America have been building for the future.” He thanked the citizens of Mason City for their cooperation with the PWA and congratulated the city on its many fine outcomes (GG 1/17/1940).