Magnum Mania!

Here are the gate house floor plans, as best as I can approximate. It is based on the number of staff bedrooms when it was designed which was five. The staff almost certainly would have been separated by gender so there is a bathroom and living room on each floor, with shared laundry and kitchen. Staff on the first floor would have been responsible for the main gate, hence the door there, otherwise the structure is generally oriented away from the main house.

https://ibb.co/tQspFNb

https://ibb.co/R0PbJKS

https://ibb.co/wrWDHz9

Edit:

The gate house was renovated at some later date into an apartment. The interior photos of the space taken for the sale show this modified interior. The exterior was unchanged and my plans are very accurate regarding overall dimensions using the property tax records. The door and window locations are all known from photos. Even the bathroom locations in the middle of the main mass are generally accurate because of photos showing plumbing vents in that location. There are also vents on the roof above the kitchen and laundry locations.

The other major spaces all slot in nicely but are not known with complete certainty. Various sources tell us it originally had 5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a living room, kitchen, laundry, garage, and obviously a staircase. There’s no evidence of a dining room, which makes sense as a servant space. They ate either in the main house servant’s dining room or likely at a table in this kitchen when off duty. I placed the staircase in that location because of the irregularity of the window and door placement there. The other facades are surprisingly symmetrical and balanced.

After reading about staff being separated by gender in old estates of this size, it occurred to me that it was likely separation by floor in this case. Generally, female staff were in the main house, in a separate wing or attic bedrooms. Male staff were in a separate outbuilding like a gate house or in even older estates, over the stables. Pahonu has things arranged a little differently. This is why I’ve wondered if the boathouse ever housed staff. On occasion, wealthy visitors would bring their own personal servants to longer stays on these large estates. It could have been for that purpose. I have no actual evidence for the second living room I’ve drawn, but all the known rooms are accounted for, leaving an extra space. It makes sense but is still uncertain. It’s the only major uncertainty of the plan. I’d estimate it’s 90% accurate, give or take.

It’s interesting to note that Pahonu was built very near the end of this lavish estate lifestyle with multiple live-in servants. It’s important to remember this was a second home, designed for entertaining the society folk of Hawaii at the time. The growth of these “country estates” really exploded after the Civil War during industrialization and the Gilded Age and continued through the Roaring 20’s until the Great Depression took hold. After World War II it never really returned. Actually, many of these “dinosaurs” were torn down in the 50’s and 60’s, some after just a few decades. To be honest, Pahonu survived longer than many of its kind.

I have been curious about this for years. Thanks for all the great stuff you post Pahonu!

NotthatRick wrote:I have been curious about this for years. Thanks for all the great stuff you post Pahonu!

Glad you’re enjoying it!

Pahonu wrote:Here are the gate house floor plans, as best as I can approximate. It is based on the number of staff bedrooms when it was designed which was five. The staff almost certainly would have been separated by gender so there is a bathroom and living room on each floor, with shared laundry and kitchen. Staff on the first floor would have been responsible for the main gate, hence the door there, otherwise the structure is generally oriented away from the main house.

https://ibb.co/tQspFNb

https://ibb.co/R0PbJKS

https://ibb.co/wrWDHz9

Edit:

The gate house was renovated at some later date into an apartment. The interior photos of the space taken for the sale show this modified interior. The exterior was unchanged and my plans are very accurate regarding overall dimensions using the property tax records. The door and window locations are all known from photos. Even the bathroom locations in the middle of the main mass are generally accurate because of photos showing plumbing vents in that location. There are also vents on the roof above the kitchen and laundry locations.

The other major spaces all slot in nicely but are not known with complete certainty. Various sources tell us it originally had 5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a living room, kitchen, laundry, garage, and obviously a staircase. There’s no evidence of a dining room, which makes sense as a servant space. They ate either in the main house servant’s dining room or likely at a table in this kitchen when off duty. I placed the staircase in that location because of the irregularity of the window and door placement there. The other facades are surprisingly symmetrical and balanced.

After reading about staff being separated by gender in old estates of this size, it occurred to me that it was likely separation by floor in this case. Generally, female staff were in the main house, in a separate wing or attic bedrooms. Male staff were in a separate outbuilding like a gate house or in even older estates, over the stables. Pahonu has things arranged a little differently. This is why I’ve wondered if the boathouse ever housed staff. On occasion, wealthy visitors would bring their own personal servants to longer stays on these large estates. It could have been for that purpose. I have no actual evidence for the second living room I’ve drawn, but all the known rooms are accounted for, leaving an extra space. It makes sense but is still uncertain. It’s the only major uncertainty of the plan. I’d estimate it’s 90% accurate, give or take.

It’s interesting to note that Pahonu was built very near the end of this lavish estate lifestyle with multiple live-in servants. It’s important to remember this was a second home, designed for entertaining the society folk of Hawaii at the time. The growth of these “country estates” really exploded after the Civil War during industrialization and the Gilded Age and continued through the Roaring 20’s until the Great Depression took hold. After World War II it never really returned. Actually, many of these “dinosaurs” were torn down in the 50’s and 60’s, some after just a few decades. To be honest, Pahonu survived longer than many of its kind.

Hi Pahonu,

Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention and no apologies needed on the length of the edit either. I enjoy your explanations and supporting evidence. You always take the time to run through the scenarios and your drawings are excellent too. It's fun to put on the architectural detective hat and try and piece an old building layout back together, especially this particular one! I agree with the edit on all points. Like you said, we can't say it's 100% accurate, but based on the data out there it's darn close. We would need Eve or Reed to chime in and confirm things and the chances of that happening are slim to none. I was thinking of that second living room upstairs and it being a possible bedroom(s) when other guests brought their own staff and it's plausible for sure, but that would mean this space should only be for female visiting staff, leaving us short a room for the male visiting staff. You might be right with the boathouse comment...the upstairs level of the boathouse may have been the overflow for visiting male staff members. The covered lanai would even work for sleeping quarters with the small room inside used for changing etc.. Using it for temporary living quarters would've worked.....heck, I would sleep in a hammock on that covered lanai any day. Again we don't know for sure...........another thought, maybe the visiting guests brought a large tent or maybe Eve's relatives supplied and set up a large tent in the gatehouse location for the visiting staff members...it is Hawaii with warm weather so it's possible....all guesses. I still see the boathouse as storage below and possibly a spot above as place to get out of the sun after swimming and enjoy a refreshment...the small room above used for drinks and snacks...mini prep kitchen area. Having said that I wonder if that would be beneath them to have a beverage in the boathouse location......I guess it all depends on how high the nose is pointing in the air.
I know Hawaii is more laid back, but society folk back then were fairly rigid and by the book.....who knows....more guesses. Another thought on the boathouse and living quarters......I vaguely remember reading part of an article that had Eve mentioning she would come to Pahonu with her grandparents or parents by boat.....now was that by choice or by necessity. I know back then the Pali Hwy. or road shall we say wasn't the greatest and most likely dangerous too. I don't think there was a direct road from Waimanalo to Waikiki (following the ocean), but don't quote me on that. It would be interesting to do a timeline on when Pahonu was built and when all the roads went in. Anyways, the point I was trying to get at was maybe the upper section of the boathouse was used by possible boat staff...i.e. the captain and maybe one crew member....again, all guesses, maybe Eve and family sailed in themselves with no help. Another question for Eve to answer. Getting back to the gatehouse and the upper living room..........it would be nice to know for sure, but based on the data at hand the upper living room seems to fit nicely with the overall layout you have come up with. Maybe it was a flex space where they could add a cot or two when needed. Either way, great detective work there Pahonu. Thanks for taking the time to put this altogether for us!!!!

I'm sure a few will find the following link interesting..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructi ... ry_Britain

Hey Kenji,
Thanks for the link! I’ve read a bit on the subject. It’s an even larger phenomenon in Britain than the US. However, in Britain there have been significant changes to the property tax laws over the years with the specific intent of saving these country estates. Tourism can provide for the upkeep of many, if the property taxes are significantly reduced. Otherwise it makes more economic sense to subdivide them or sell off pieces of the property. Some US states have reduced property taxes for designated historic structures but many don’t. It’s a matter of popular sentiment and political will, I think. Britain and the US are different in that way.

You have lots of great thoughts there. I’ll Have to unpack them and get back to you, but I was just discussing via PM with another member the boat arrival you mentioned. Here’s what I wrote:

On a side note, the former set decorator on the show who spoke with Eve Anderson, said that when the house was finished construction, the highway wasn’t complete. This is shown to be true by the land purchase plat before construction. The small road that ran through the area was actually on Pahonu’s current property. Anyway, the set decorator said that they used to arrive at the estate by boat as there was a pier on the property. I don’t know if you’ve seen these images.

I’ll get back to you soon, Kenji.

HI Panohu and Kenji, this a little off-topic but...

From my little point of view, This thread call for the following question: Was there any reason why France, in the 19th/early 20th century, did not follow Britain trend regarding country mansions/monuments demolishing ?

So, I induced a little research.

In summary, France had a very different path. During the 'Ancien Regime' (roughly, from the thirteen century to 1790) it was very common to demolish old/unhabited private/country mansions or buildings of public use (such a minor castles, manors, churchs, covered markets, military gates, customs posts, bulwarks...) in order to provide building materials for housing. On of the best example i know (in Bordeaux) is the Gallo-Roman era arena called 'Palais Gallien' which was in ruins since the Middle age. It was wholy dismantled during the 16-18th centuries for local housing. At the time 1793, the place was striken as a public stone pit...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_Gallien

The beginning of protective laws regarding historical building heritage traces back to the French revolution with the "Monuments Nationaux" law of 1790. that time the aim was only to protect from demolishing only national level monuments and buildings.

Then the 1887 law ( "conservation des monuments historiques") establishes for the first time a rating of monuments to protect and a budget for safeguard measures.

Until then, only the public domain monuments were concerned.

You will have to wait until André Malraux 1962 law to reach the current level of protection that spans to the private domain and regards not only the monuments/building itself but a whole historial area around it (such a quartier Montmartre in Paris).

So, in France, protective laws that forbide and frame the capabilies of private owners to demolish/modify buildings of public/historical interest is quite an early concern. Today is gathers an great (and heavy) corpus of imperative rules that often burden private properties projects...

Today at the local level, a dedicated administration is ruling and applies law measures: the DRAC (Direction Régionale des Affaires Culturelles). Combined with the assignments of the Préfet de Région (Régional Prefect (?)), This administration could impose a lot to owners (Preliminary statements and authorizations, preventive protective measures, preventive archeological excavations, architectural alignments, and so on...).

Thanks for reading !

i testify that in France this administration is known for being VERY zealous...

Gorilla Mask wrote:HI Panohu and Kenji, this a little off-topic but...

From my little point of view, This thread call for the following question: Was there any reason why France, in the 19th/early 20th century, did not follow Britain trend regarding country mansions/monuments demolishing ?

So, I induced a little research.

In summary, France had a very different path. During the 'Ancien Regime' (roughly, from the thirteen century to 1790) it was very common to demolish old/unhabited private/country mansions or buildings of public use (such a minor castles, manors, churchs, covered markets, military gates, customs posts, bulwarks...) in order to provide building materials for housing. On of the best example i know (in Bordeaux) is the Gallo-Roman era arena called 'Palais Gallien' which was in ruins since the Middle age. It was wholy dismantled during the 16-18th centuries for local housing. At the time 1793, the place was striken as a public stone pit...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_Gallien

The beginning of protective laws regarding historical building heritage traces back to the French revolution with the "Monuments Nationaux" law of 1790. that time the aim was only to protect from demolishing only national level monuments and buildings.

Then the 1887 law ( "conservation des monuments historiques") establishes for the first time a rating of monuments to protect and a budget for safeguard measures.

Until then, only the public domain monuments were concerned.

You will have to wait until André Malraux 1962 law to reach the current level of protection that spans to the private domain and regards not only the monuments/building itself but a whole historial area around it (such a quartier Montmartre in Paris).

So, in France, protective laws that forbide and frame the capabilies of private owners to demolish/modify buildings of public/historical interest is quite an early concern. Today is gathers an great (and heavy) corpus of imperative rules that often burden private properties projects...

Today at the local level, a dedicated administration is ruling and applies law measures: the DRAC (Direction Régionale des Affaires Culturelles). Combined with the assignments of the Préfet de Région (Régional Prefect (?)), This administration could impose a lot to owners (Preliminary statements and authorizations, preventive protective measures, preventive archeological excavations, architectural alignments, and so on...).

Thanks for reading !

i testify that in France this administration is known for being VERY zealous...

Hey GM,

One of the things I teach in my World Civilizations course, which covers the Enlightenment to the modern era, is that the French Revolution became more radicalized in part because of the failure of the Ancien Regime and the house of Bourbon to moderate and give up at least some control. The same fate befell the Romanovs in Russia. In Britain, over the centuries, power was gradually yielded to the parliament and the transition was less radical. This, of course, comes largely after the bloody failure of Cromwell and the English Revolution. This was failed radicalism in its own way.

Anyway, I also teach about the storming of the Bastille and how the masses disassembled the symbol of the absolute monarchy by hand, brick by brick. These bricks were then used to build other structures in the city. This is part of the answer to the question you asked. In France, the historic fabric was violently destroyed by the revolutionary fervor of the day. Even the grand dame was converted into a temple of reason and then became nothing more than a warehouse while it was allowed to rot. It was generations later before Hugo revived interest with his novel and Violett-Le-Duc began the restoration of the monument. The two nations have different governments today as a result of these different paths. Today the historic reverence for the architectural exists in France, but there was a significant period where it did not, and much was lost.

Pahonu wrote:
Hey GM,

One of the things I teach in my World Civilizations course, which covers the Enlightenment to the modern era, is that the French Revolution became more radicalized in part because of the failure of the Ancien Regime and the house of Bourbon to moderate and give up at least some control. The same fate befell the Romanovs in Russia. In Britain, over the centuries, power was gradually yielded to the parliament and the transition was less radical. This, of course, comes largely after the bloody failure of Cromwell and the English Revolution. This was failed radicalism in its own way.

Anyway, I also teach about the storming of the Bastille and how the masses disassembled the symbol of the absolute monarchy by hand, brick by brick. These bricks were then used to build other structures in the city. This is part of the answer to the question you asked. In France, the historic fabric was violently destroyed by the revolutionary fervor of the day. Even the grand dame was converted into a temple of reason and then became nothing more than a warehouse while it was allowed to rot. It was generations later before Hugo revived interest with his novel and Violett-Le-Duc began the restoration of the monument. The two nations have different governments today as a result of these different paths. Today the historic reverence for the architectural exists in France, but there was a significant period where it did not, and much was lost.

Salutations, Panohu !

Very interesting historical explanation. I had only overfly it from a legal 'milestones' point of view. But you're mainly right about Monarchy/nobility/Clergy ownership: between 1790 and the Restoration (1815) a lot of destruction/degradations occured. Thereafter, there was no balance though. During his reign Charles X enacted a specific law (loi sur le sacrilége) that convicted religious and sacred objects of cult roberries up to the death sentence ! This included Churchs degradations... this infamous law was very disputed within the french society.

This is during this era that the expression 'iconoclaste' (the one who breaks religious icons) knew a revival and entered the modern and common language.

And, yes, you're right with the fact that an effective protection of public/historical munuments was not effective until the end of the 19th century, besides it was a sensitive concern even for Revolutionnary parliamentarians.

Furthermore, the phenomenon in England, from what i've read, was emphasized by the social condition changes that burdened Landlords quality of life. From my knowledge, we did not have such a great event in France during the 19th.

Again, very nice exchange, thanks.

KENJI wrote:

Pahonu wrote:Here are the gate house floor plans, as best as I can approximate. It is based on the number of staff bedrooms when it was designed which was five. The staff almost certainly would have been separated by gender so there is a bathroom and living room on each floor, with shared laundry and kitchen. Staff on the first floor would have been responsible for the main gate, hence the door there, otherwise the structure is generally oriented away from the main house.

https://ibb.co/tQspFNb

https://ibb.co/R0PbJKS

https://ibb.co/wrWDHz9

Edit:

The gate house was renovated at some later date into an apartment. The interior photos of the space taken for the sale show this modified interior. The exterior was unchanged and my plans are very accurate regarding overall dimensions using the property tax records. The door and window locations are all known from photos. Even the bathroom locations in the middle of the main mass are generally accurate because of photos showing plumbing vents in that location. There are also vents on the roof above the kitchen and laundry locations.

The other major spaces all slot in nicely but are not known with complete certainty. Various sources tell us it originally had 5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a living room, kitchen, laundry, garage, and obviously a staircase. There’s no evidence of a dining room, which makes sense as a servant space. They ate either in the main house servant’s dining room or likely at a table in this kitchen when off duty. I placed the staircase in that location because of the irregularity of the window and door placement there. The other facades are surprisingly symmetrical and balanced.

After reading about staff being separated by gender in old estates of this size, it occurred to me that it was likely separation by floor in this case. Generally, female staff were in the main house, in a separate wing or attic bedrooms. Male staff were in a separate outbuilding like a gate house or in even older estates, over the stables. Pahonu has things arranged a little differently. This is why I’ve wondered if the boathouse ever housed staff. On occasion, wealthy visitors would bring their own personal servants to longer stays on these large estates. It could have been for that purpose. I have no actual evidence for the second living room I’ve drawn, but all the known rooms are accounted for, leaving an extra space. It makes sense but is still uncertain. It’s the only major uncertainty of the plan. I’d estimate it’s 90% accurate, give or take.

It’s interesting to note that Pahonu was built very near the end of this lavish estate lifestyle with multiple live-in servants. It’s important to remember this was a second home, designed for entertaining the society folk of Hawaii at the time. The growth of these “country estates” really exploded after the Civil War during industrialization and the Gilded Age and continued through the Roaring 20’s until the Great Depression took hold. After World War II it never really returned. Actually, many of these “dinosaurs” were torn down in the 50’s and 60’s, some after just a few decades. To be honest, Pahonu survived longer than many of its kind.

Hi Pahonu,

Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention and no apologies needed on the length of the edit either. I enjoy your explanations and supporting evidence. You always take the time to run through the scenarios and your drawings are excellent too. It's fun to put on the architectural detective hat and try and piece an old building layout back together, especially this particular one! I agree with the edit on all points. Like you said, we can't say it's 100% accurate, but based on the data out there it's darn close. We would need Eve or Reed to chime in and confirm things and the chances of that happening are slim to none. I was thinking of that second living room upstairs and it being a possible bedroom(s) when other guests brought their own staff and it's plausible for sure, but that would mean this space should only be for female visiting staff, leaving us short a room for the male visiting staff. You might be right with the boathouse comment...the upstairs level of the boathouse may have been the overflow for visiting male staff members. The covered lanai would even work for sleeping quarters with the small room inside used for changing etc.. Using it for temporary living quarters would've worked.....heck, I would sleep in a hammock on that covered lanai any day. Again we don't know for sure...........another thought, maybe the visiting guests brought a large tent or maybe Eve's relatives supplied and set up a large tent in the gatehouse location for the visiting staff members...it is Hawaii with warm weather so it's possible....all guesses. I still see the boathouse as storage below and possibly a spot above as place to get out of the sun after swimming and enjoy a refreshment...the small room above used for drinks and snacks...mini prep kitchen area. Having said that I wonder if that would be beneath them to have a beverage in the boathouse location......I guess it all depends on how high the nose is pointing in the air.
I know Hawaii is more laid back, but society folk back then were fairly rigid and by the book.....who knows....more guesses. Another thought on the boathouse and living quarters......I vaguely remember reading part of an article that had Eve mentioning she would come to Pahonu with her grandparents or parents by boat.....now was that by choice or by necessity. I know back then the Pali Hwy. or road shall we say wasn't the greatest and most likely dangerous too. I don't think there was a direct road from Waimanalo to Waikiki (following the ocean), but don't quote me on that. It would be interesting to do a timeline on when Pahonu was built and when all the roads went in. Anyways, the point I was trying to get at was maybe the upper section of the boathouse was used by possible boat staff...i.e. the captain and maybe one crew member....again, all guesses, maybe Eve and family sailed in themselves with no help. Another question for Eve to answer. Getting back to the gatehouse and the upper living room..........it would be nice to know for sure, but based on the data at hand the upper living room seems to fit nicely with the overall layout you have come up with. Maybe it was a flex space where they could add a cot or two when needed. Either way, great detective work there Pahonu. Thanks for taking the time to put this altogether for us!!!!

I'm sure a few will find the following link interesting..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructi ... ry_Britain

Hey Kenji,

I went back and reread all your ideas and gave them some thought. I have no idea about the tent concept you wrote about. My guess is that if there really were several visiting servants, they would just have them sleep in the living rooms, men downstairs and women upstairs. The key really is the separation. Cohabitating was just not done. I’ve never seen any evidence of it in any of the estates I’ve read about it. You are absolutely right about the stricter social conventions of the era, even in Hawaii. I would also point out that the estate had only 5 suites, with one occupied by Mrs. Wall (which one is actually not known for certain). The number of visiting servants couldn’t have been that many. Some of these country estates had guests suites in the double digits! I guess, theoretically, that if four couples came to stay, all for longer periods, and brought both their valets and lady’s maids, then you could have eight total! That doesn’t seem very likely in any circumstance.

Your other two ideas about the boathouse are very intriguing. I never considered boat crew before, but it is possible. The Adamson House in Malibu was built for a wealthy family who owned the entire Malibu Rancho! They had a home in Los Angeles and originally used the house for the summer, kind of like Pahonu. They built the Malibu Pier and kept their yacht and crew there at times. Generally though, crew live aboard as they have their own cabins. I had a friend who used to captain boats for wealthy people from Newport Beach. Once, I ran into him in a bar on Catalina Island and he was staying aboard a 60 foot boat he was captaining while the couple was staying in a hotel on the island for the week. A friend and I went out and had drinks that night on the boat with him. What a boat! Still, having sailed a lot, the boathouse would be a good spot to get on dry land and have a real shower!

The other idea about using the boathouse to clean up after a day on the water fishing and such is also possible, then enjoying a cocktail on the lanai. Two things come to mind here. There is already the bathhouse behind the main house with changing rooms, toilets, and showers. This seems like the likely pattern of use. Also, it’s likely not a coincidence that the bar in the main house is the closest to the beach gate of any room in the building. The doors in the end of the one-story ell are just yards from the beach gate. How convenient! Come out of the tidepool and towel off and a cold drink is just steps away.

One thing suddenly stands out to me about the lanai, and it just occurred to me after all these years! This is why these conversations are great! The boathouse lanai is the only place on the entire estate where you can be outside, covered in the shade, and steps from the water. Everywhere else is missing one of those things. The sea wall terrace by the main house and the beach itself are uncovered. The covered patios around the courtyard don’t view the water. Even the second floor lanai with it’s views of the water is a long way from the sand. Many of the main house rooms have great views and some are pretty close to the water, but your inside.

That may just be it, Kenji! Like you said, the boathouse lanai was a place to enjoy a drink and snack in the cool shade out of the hot afternoon sun and right by the water. It’s isolation also provides a bit of a getaway and there’s a convenient bathroom and a little place inside for food and drink prep. There is that cabinet inside shown in the real estate photos. Hmmm? It does look strikingly similar to butlers pantry cabinets. Any thoughts?

Pahonu wrote:

KENJI wrote:

Pahonu wrote:Here are the gate house floor plans, as best as I can approximate. It is based on the number of staff bedrooms when it was designed which was five. The staff almost certainly would have been separated by gender so there is a bathroom and living room on each floor, with shared laundry and kitchen. Staff on the first floor would have been responsible for the main gate, hence the door there, otherwise the structure is generally oriented away from the main house.

https://ibb.co/tQspFNb

https://ibb.co/R0PbJKS

https://ibb.co/wrWDHz9

Edit:

The gate house was renovated at some later date into an apartment. The interior photos of the space taken for the sale show this modified interior. The exterior was unchanged and my plans are very accurate regarding overall dimensions using the property tax records. The door and window locations are all known from photos. Even the bathroom locations in the middle of the main mass are generally accurate because of photos showing plumbing vents in that location. There are also vents on the roof above the kitchen and laundry locations.

The other major spaces all slot in nicely but are not known with complete certainty. Various sources tell us it originally had 5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a living room, kitchen, laundry, garage, and obviously a staircase. There’s no evidence of a dining room, which makes sense as a servant space. They ate either in the main house servant’s dining room or likely at a table in this kitchen when off duty. I placed the staircase in that location because of the irregularity of the window and door placement there. The other facades are surprisingly symmetrical and balanced.

After reading about staff being separated by gender in old estates of this size, it occurred to me that it was likely separation by floor in this case. Generally, female staff were in the main house, in a separate wing or attic bedrooms. Male staff were in a separate outbuilding like a gate house or in even older estates, over the stables. Pahonu has things arranged a little differently. This is why I’ve wondered if the boathouse ever housed staff. On occasion, wealthy visitors would bring their own personal servants to longer stays on these large estates. It could have been for that purpose. I have no actual evidence for the second living room I’ve drawn, but all the known rooms are accounted for, leaving an extra space. It makes sense but is still uncertain. It’s the only major uncertainty of the plan. I’d estimate it’s 90% accurate, give or take.

It’s interesting to note that Pahonu was built very near the end of this lavish estate lifestyle with multiple live-in servants. It’s important to remember this was a second home, designed for entertaining the society folk of Hawaii at the time. The growth of these “country estates” really exploded after the Civil War during industrialization and the Gilded Age and continued through the Roaring 20’s until the Great Depression took hold. After World War II it never really returned. Actually, many of these “dinosaurs” were torn down in the 50’s and 60’s, some after just a few decades. To be honest, Pahonu survived longer than many of its kind.

Hi Pahonu,

Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention and no apologies needed on the length of the edit either. I enjoy your explanations and supporting evidence. You always take the time to run through the scenarios and your drawings are excellent too. It's fun to put on the architectural detective hat and try and piece an old building layout back together, especially this particular one! I agree with the edit on all points. Like you said, we can't say it's 100% accurate, but based on the data out there it's darn close. We would need Eve or Reed to chime in and confirm things and the chances of that happening are slim to none. I was thinking of that second living room upstairs and it being a possible bedroom(s) when other guests brought their own staff and it's plausible for sure, but that would mean this space should only be for female visiting staff, leaving us short a room for the male visiting staff. You might be right with the boathouse comment...the upstairs level of the boathouse may have been the overflow for visiting male staff members. The covered lanai would even work for sleeping quarters with the small room inside used for changing etc.. Using it for temporary living quarters would've worked.....heck, I would sleep in a hammock on that covered lanai any day. Again we don't know for sure...........another thought, maybe the visiting guests brought a large tent or maybe Eve's relatives supplied and set up a large tent in the gatehouse location for the visiting staff members...it is Hawaii with warm weather so it's possible....all guesses. I still see the boathouse as storage below and possibly a spot above as place to get out of the sun after swimming and enjoy a refreshment...the small room above used for drinks and snacks...mini prep kitchen area. Having said that I wonder if that would be beneath them to have a beverage in the boathouse location......I guess it all depends on how high the nose is pointing in the air.
I know Hawaii is more laid back, but society folk back then were fairly rigid and by the book.....who knows....more guesses. Another thought on the boathouse and living quarters......I vaguely remember reading part of an article that had Eve mentioning she would come to Pahonu with her grandparents or parents by boat.....now was that by choice or by necessity. I know back then the Pali Hwy. or road shall we say wasn't the greatest and most likely dangerous too. I don't think there was a direct road from Waimanalo to Waikiki (following the ocean), but don't quote me on that. It would be interesting to do a timeline on when Pahonu was built and when all the roads went in. Anyways, the point I was trying to get at was maybe the upper section of the boathouse was used by possible boat staff...i.e. the captain and maybe one crew member....again, all guesses, maybe Eve and family sailed in themselves with no help. Another question for Eve to answer. Getting back to the gatehouse and the upper living room..........it would be nice to know for sure, but based on the data at hand the upper living room seems to fit nicely with the overall layout you have come up with. Maybe it was a flex space where they could add a cot or two when needed. Either way, great detective work there Pahonu. Thanks for taking the time to put this altogether for us!!!!

I'm sure a few will find the following link interesting..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructi ... ry_Britain

Hey Kenji,

I went back and reread all your ideas and gave them some thought. I have no idea about the tent concept you wrote about. My guess is that if there really were several visiting servants, they would just have them sleep in the living rooms, men downstairs and women upstairs. The key really is the separation. Cohabitating was just not done. I’ve never seen any evidence of it in any of the estates I’ve read about it. You are absolutely right about the stricter social conventions of the era, even in Hawaii. I would also point out that the estate had only 5 suites, with one occupied by Mrs. Wall (which one is actually not known for certain). The number of visiting servants couldn’t have been that many. Some of these country estates had guests suites in the double digits! I guess, theoretically, that if four couples came to stay, all for longer periods, and brought both their valets and lady’s maids, then you could have eight total! That doesn’t seem very likely in any circumstance.

Your other two ideas about the boathouse are very intriguing. I never considered boat crew before, but it is possible. The Adamson House in Malibu was built for a wealthy family who owned the entire Malibu Rancho! They had a home in Los Angeles and originally used the house for the summer, kind of like Pahonu. They built the Malibu Pier and kept their yacht and crew there at times. Generally though, crew live aboard as they have their own cabins. I had a friend who used to captain boats for wealthy people from Newport Beach. Once, I ran into him in a bar on Catalina Island and he was staying aboard a 60 foot boat he was captaining while the couple was staying in a hotel on the island for the week. A friend and I went out and had drinks that night on the boat with him. What a boat! Still, having sailed a lot, the boathouse would be a good spot to get on dry land and have a real shower!

The other idea about using the boathouse to clean up after a day on the water fishing and such is also possible, then enjoying a cocktail on the lanai. Two things come to mind here. There is already the bathhouse behind the main house with changing rooms, toilets, and showers. This seems like the likely pattern of use. Also, it’s likely not a coincidence that the bar in the main house is the closest to the beach gate of any room in the building. The doors in the end of the one-story ell are just yards from the beach gate. How convenient! Come out of the tidepool and towel off and a cold drink is just steps away.

One thing suddenly stands out to me about the lanai, and it just occurred to me after all these years! This is why these conversations are great! The boathouse lanai is the only place on the entire estate where you can be outside, covered in the shade, and steps from the water. Everywhere else is missing one of those things. The sea wall terrace by the main house and the beach itself are uncovered. The covered patios around the courtyard don’t view the water. Even the second floor lanai with it’s views of the water is a long way from the sand. Many of the main house rooms have great views and some are pretty close to the water, but your inside.

That may just be it, Kenji! Like you said, the boathouse lanai was a place to enjoy a drink and snack in the cool shade out of the hot afternoon sun and right by the water. It’s isolation also provides a bit of a getaway and there’s a convenient bathroom and a little place inside for food and drink prep. There is that cabinet inside shown in the real estate photos. Hmmm? It does look strikingly similar to butlers pantry cabinets. Any thoughts?

Hi Pahonu,

Apologies for the delay in responding!

I agree with you that the cabinets inside the boathouse do look very similar to ones you would see in a butler's pantry! I think we might be onto something. Great observation regarding the boathouse lanai being the only covered section that is facing the ocean!!! What a nice spot to unwind, enjoy a drink or two while being served some snacks. It's perfect little spot for it. You're right, these conversations are great for opening up our minds and looking at things a little differently and more closely.

You have a good point regarding the boat crew staying onboard in their own cabins. For some reason I wasn't picturing a huge yacht coming from Waikiki to Pahonu...I was thinking much smaller, due the reef around Pahonu....wondering if they might've been limited on the size of the boat because of it. Assuming there were no issues with the reef and factoring in how wealthy they were back then.....bigger with cabins was probably what they had. I know Doris Duke did some "alterations" outside her place to accommodate her large yacht.....she definitely had connections to get that done....there is no way it would happen today!

Getting back to the gate house and accommodations for visiting staff......you're probably right with them sleeping in the separate living rooms. We were probably overthinking things.....comfort wasn't at the top of the list for staff back then, so a couch, cot or floor might've been it for those visiting staff. Pahonu was no Highclere Castle/Downton Abbey either, so they didn't have to deal with those numbers of staff as well as visiting staff.
Another thought.......and a real stretch for sure, but I'll throw it out there......I wonder if they could've used the bathhouse in some way as overflow for visiting staff...bathrooms/showers, maybe a cot or two....I doubt it, as it would've inconvenienced the owners and guests too much when they went swimming etc. and that's all that mattered back then.....staff had to tow the line and keep their mouths shut or face being sacked....they didn't have a voice back then.

I'll leave it there for now.

K