Arthur L. Troutner (1921–2001)

From a sixteen-sided house anchored to the basalt cliffs above Boise to the engineered wood systems that transformed American construction, Arthur Lowe Troutner pursued architecture through an unusual combination of structural experimentation, mechanical invention, and practical enterprise. His residential designs, patented building technologies, and collaboration on the University of Idaho's Kibbie Dome highlight the development of ideas that began in southern Idaho and eventually reached construction sites across the country.

In March 1955, Arthur Troutner, better known as Art, and his brother Paul were assembling the framework of a house on a rocky ridge below Table Rock, above the eastern edge of Boise. The site was steep, exposed, and cut by a spine of basalt rising from the hillside. Troutner had chosen to build around the rock rather than level it. At the center stood a steel pipe two feet in diameter, anchored in the outcropping and rising through what would become a sixteen-sided residence. The brothers attached triangular brackets of angle iron around the pipe, preparing a radial framework that would carry the floors and roof. There was some uncertainty about whether enough money remained to complete the structure. The work continued.

Troutner was thirty-three years old. He had studied architecture at the University of Idaho, served in the Army Air Forces during the Second World War, and spent much of his childhood repairing and improvising machinery on a farm near Pingree. His brother was an experienced stone mason. Working together, they approached the unusual construction with skills acquired in different ways, one through architectural education and mechanical experimentation, the other through years of practical building. The house would rise from a system of steel trusses cantilevered around its central column, with wood, stone, and glass enclosing the spaces between them. It was an extraordinary solution for a private residence, particularly one being built under significant financial constraints.

The house also belonged to a period of concentrated architectural investigation. During the 1950s, Troutner designed residences with sharply pitched roofs, triangular floor plans, circular interiors, and structural assemblies that departed substantially from conventional wood framing. Some employed heavy timbers and masonry; others anticipated the lightweight composite systems he would later patent. The buildings offered opportunities to test ideas about material efficiency, structural depth, fabrication, and the relationship between geometry and domestic space. Their experimental character was inseparable from the practical problems of constructing them.

Within a few years, Troutner's investigation of lightweight structural systems would lead to a business partnership with Harold E. Thomas and the establishment of Trussdeck Corporation, later known as Trus Joist. Products developed through that enterprise helped establish engineered wood as a practical alternative to conventional framing in residential and commercial construction. Troutner continued designing buildings and inventing machinery, eventually participating in the development of the vast roof over the University of Idaho's Kibbie Dome. The distance between his hillside residence and that stadium was considerable in scale, but both projects originated in his search for ways to make structural materials perform beyond their customary limitations.

From the Snake River Plain to Architecture

Arthur Lowe Troutner was born on September 29, 1921, in Pingree, a farming community in southeastern Idaho. He was one of five children of Paul Henry Troutner Jr. and Olive Webster Troutner. His family raised sugar beets and potatoes on a modest farm near the Snake River, where the daily demands of agricultural work required familiarity with machinery, tools, and repairs. Jonathan Reich, whose study of Troutner draws upon interviews and historical photographs, describes a childhood in which the shortage of resources often made improvisation necessary. As a boy, Troutner reportedly constructed a miniature threshing machine from discarded parts, an early example of the mechanical interests that would occupy much of his life.

The surrounding landscape also became important to his development. Pingree lay near the Fort Hall Reservation, within the broad agricultural country of the Snake River Plain. Troutner spent considerable time outdoors, including hunting trips into the surrounding mountains. His later architectural work often incorporated difficult terrain, existing rock formations, and extensive views, although the relationship between his childhood experiences and particular design decisions cannot always be documented. What emerges more clearly from the historical accounts is his continuing interest in understanding how things worked and finding practical ways to alter them.

As an adolescent, Troutner moved to Boise to continue his education, living with relatives while attending school. He graduated from Boise High School in 1939 and subsequently attended Boise Junior College. Among his contemporaries was Charles Hummel, who would become one of Idaho's prominent architects. Years later, Hummel recalled Troutner's unusual enthusiasm for ambitious scientific projects, suggesting that his interest in experimentation had already become apparent before he entered the profession.

The Second World War interrupted his education. Troutner entered the Army Air Forces and worked with military aircraft, including B-17 and B-24 bombers. His duties involved aircraft maintenance and mechanical responsibilities that required close attention to the interaction of structural components, weight, materials, and equipment. Airframe construction presented engineering problems quite different from those encountered in ordinary buildings. Aircraft needed to be light enough to operate efficiently while remaining strong under considerable stress, and their assemblies depended upon careful coordination among materials and connecting elements.

After the war, Troutner returned to Idaho and enrolled at the University of Idaho, graduating with a degree in architecture in 1949. His education gave formal direction to interests already developed through mechanical work and wartime experience. The architectural profession was itself undergoing substantial change. New construction materials, industrial production methods, and structural engineering research were expanding the possibilities available to designers, while growing demand for housing created incentives to build more efficiently.

Troutner's professional development followed a less conventional course than that of architects who established large firms or pursued civic commissions. Historical accounts indicate that he did not take the architectural licensing examination. Nevertheless, he designed buildings, prepared architectural drawings, developed structural systems, and worked with clients and builders on projects across southern Idaho. His career combined architectural design with mechanical invention and, eventually, the manufacture of construction products.

The First Residential Experiments

Some of Troutner's earliest documented residential work dates to the years surrounding his graduation. The Robert and Lois Cummins House in Boise was designed and constructed between approximately 1948 and 1950, making it an important surviving example of his early practice. Its later history includes a 1984 addition and restoration work undertaken by Dwaine Carver Studio beginning in 2024. The project provides an opportunity to study Troutner before the increasingly unconventional structural experiments of the following decade. Surviving photographs and restoration documentation identify a residential design in which materials, roof form, and interior organization already received considerable attention.

Another early commission was the Helen Copple Williamson House on South Johnson Street, dating to 1949. The original residence was subsequently altered through additions in 1962 and 1975, gradually changing its initial organization toward a more enclosed courtyard arrangement. Its history illustrates a recurring difficulty in studying mid-century residential architecture: buildings that remain in use often develop through successive alterations, and their present appearance cannot automatically be treated as evidence of the architect's original intentions.

These early projects are significant because they establish that Troutner's residential practice preceded the more celebrated experiments of the mid-1950s. His development was gradual, involving repeated attention to domestic planning, construction, and the interaction of natural materials with structural systems. The houses also belonged to a period when Boise was expanding beyond its older neighborhoods. The demand for individual residences provided opportunities for designers and builders willing to depart from standardized plans, although unconventional construction could introduce financial and technical difficulties for clients.

Troutner's subsequent houses reveal an increasing willingness to make the structure itself the organizing element of a design. The location of a central support, the arrangement of a roof, or the distribution of loads across a set of structural members could determine the plan and experience of the entire building. His residential commissions offered a comparatively small scale at which to investigate such ideas, sometimes with his own labor and financial resources committed directly to their construction.

The House Beneath Table Rock

The house Troutner built for himself and his wife, Kathryn, occupies a rocky site beneath Table Rock, where the Boise foothills rise above the river valley. He purchased the property from a Basque sheepherder and selected a portion of the outcropping that offered expansive views across the city toward the Owyhee Mountains. The location was relatively remote from Boise's developed neighborhoods during the 1950s, although geographically close to the city. It gave him room for a residence and the workshops that would become important to his later experiments.

The building's sixteen-sided configuration developed from its central support. A large steel pipe anchored into the basalt served as the principal organizing element, with steel trusses extending outward to carry the floors and roof. The arrangement allowed portions of the house to project from the steep terrain while limiting the need for a conventional foundation beneath every part of the structure. The central column rose through the interior, establishing a vertical axis around which the rooms were organized. The geometry also produced an exterior composed of short, angled wall segments, creating a faceted enclosure whose relationship to the hillside changed with each elevation.

The house combined steel, wood, and stone. Large areas of glass opened the rooms toward the surrounding landscape, while substantial stonework connected the structure visually and physically to the rocky setting. An Oakley stone hearth occupied an important place in the interior. The quartzite, quarried in southern Idaho, appeared repeatedly in Troutner's residential work and became one of his preferred materials. Its irregular texture and substantial mass contrasted with the exposed steel framework and lighter building components.

The house has sometimes been discussed in relation to Frank Lloyd Wright's organic architecture, particularly because of its central hearth and incorporation of an existing rock formation. There are genuine formal similarities, but the structural system deserves consideration on its own terms. Troutner's central steel pylon and radiating trusses represented a particular solution to the difficulty of building on a steep site. The building's appearance followed from the relationship between that system and the surrounding terrain.

It is also important to distinguish this structure from Troutner's later patented Trus-Deck system. The house used steel trusses cantilevered from the central support, rather than the thin composite wood-and-steel deck developed for subsequent commissions. Its construction belongs to an earlier stage of experimentation in which he was investigating structural geometry, support, and the practical limits of available materials.

The property eventually accommodated workshops and other structures associated with Troutner's broader inventive interests. He developed experiments involving solar equipment, sailboats, and airships, including a workshop and hangar associated with his dirigible work. These activities extended the property's role beyond that of a private residence. The hillside became a place where architectural construction and mechanical experimentation could proceed alongside domestic life.

The original house later suffered substantial fire damage. In 2001, subsequent owners commissioned Trout Architects to undertake restoration and design additions, including a sleeping wing and garage. The project involved Dwaine Carver and Steve Trout, whose work sought to retain the architectural character of the surviving structure while accommodating the needs of its later occupants. The house that survives today consequently incorporates original design elements and later restoration work, a distinction essential to understanding its architectural history.

Three Houses Above Idaho Falls

During the same period, Troutner designed three residences on adjoining properties along South Fifth West in Idaho Falls. Completed in 1955 and 1956, the Aupperle Studio, Migel House, and Poitevin House represent an unusually concentrated record of his architectural experimentation. The three properties occupy approximately seven and a half acres on a bench overlooking the Snake River Plain. When they were built, the surrounding landscape retained a largely rural character, with comparatively few neighboring houses.

The houses differ markedly in form. One uses a steep A-frame, another develops a three-wing plan beneath an offset triangular roof, and the third organizes domestic space around a circular central court. Their proximity makes it possible to examine several architectural ideas pursued by the same designer over a short period. In 2008, the properties were listed together on the National Register of Historic Places as the Art Troutner Houses Historic District, recognizing their significance as distinctive examples of modern residential architecture.

The Aupperle Studio

The first house was designed for Donald and Helen Aupperle and completed in 1955. Known as the Aupperle Studio or Arrow House, it has an exceptionally tall A-frame configuration, approximately sixty-four feet long and twenty-nine feet wide. Its sharply pitched roof rises to roughly thirty-two feet, supported by substantial timber members. The building includes a full basement, with an artist's studio at one end and garage space at the other. The principal living areas occupy the level above.

The interior expresses the structure with unusual directness. Heavy exposed beams support the steep roof, while tongue-and-groove wood decking forms the ceiling between them. An Oakley stone fireplace anchors the living room, and extensive wood finishes continue through the smaller interior spaces. The design also incorporates built-in cabinetry, including storage specifically intended for Donald Aupperle's sheet music. Such details show that the unusual roof form was accompanied by practical planning for the occupants' daily activities.

The house used materials that were experimental in different ways. In addition to conventional timber and stone, its construction incorporated Cemesto panels, a manufactured composite material developed during the 1930s and used in prefabricated construction. Cemesto contained cementitious components and asbestos, reflecting a period when materials now recognized as hazardous were promoted for their strength, durability, and fire resistance. The use of such products places the house within the broader history of twentieth-century construction technology.

The Aupperle Studio demonstrates Troutner's interest in making structural form a principal architectural feature. Its immense roof members provide both the building's defining silhouette and the enclosure of its interior. The scale of those timbers also suggests the practical problem that would increasingly occupy him: how to achieve substantial spans and distinctive roof forms without relying upon such large quantities of solid wood.

The Migel House

The following year, Troutner designed a residence for Dr. Dauchy and Frances Migel on the neighboring property. Its plan is organized into three wings that project from a central area, forming a clipped triangular star. Above the intersection of the wings, a raised triangular roof element is rotated relative to the principal plan, creating a more complex geometry when viewed from above.

The arrangement divides domestic activities among separate portions of the house. Bedrooms occupy one wing, while living and service spaces extend into others. This configuration gives the rooms a degree of separation despite the building's relatively compact footprint. The central masonry fireplace and supporting pier establish an important structural and spatial focus, while clerestory glazing beneath the raised roof introduces daylight into the interior.

The house makes extensive use of quartzite, including floors, patios, and substantial walls that extend between the interior and landscape. Vertical cedar boards and large windows occupy the spaces between the masonry elements. In several rooms, the contrast between the substantial stone surfaces and the broad glazing gives the building a distinctive character. Original cabinetry, wood paneling, light fixtures, and folding doors were still present when the National Register nomination was prepared.

One wing was originally intended to accommodate a two-car garage but was converted to a den within several years of construction. The modification changed the use of the space while retaining much of the house's original architectural organization. The building illustrates Troutner's ability to use geometry to differentiate domestic functions, although the unusual plan also required careful coordination among roof structure, circulation, and interior partitions.

The Poitevin House

The third residence was designed for Ada Poitevin, Frances Migel's mother, on a smaller parcel adjoining the Migel property. Completed in 1956, it has an approximately sixteen-sided plan organized around a central circular space known as the rose lanai. Living rooms, bedrooms, service spaces, and circulation occupy wedge-shaped portions around the perimeter.

Its roof depends upon a large continuous steel ring at the center, from which sixteen substantial joists radiate outward. The ring is supported by interior timber posts and masonry walls arranged around the central lanai. The system allows the roof to cover a nearly circular plan while distributing the structural loads through a combination of steel, timber, and stone.

Originally, a large skylight admitted daylight directly into the central garden space. Although visually effective, the glazing created excessive summer heat. Around 1983, the owners replaced the original skylight arrangement with a raised roof element surrounded by windows. The modification reduced solar heat gain while retaining daylight in the center of the house. According to the National Register nomination, Troutner later visited the property and reportedly approved of the alteration.

The Poitevin House provides an important reminder that architectural experimentation continues after construction. Its original skylight established a strong visual relationship between the interior court and the sky, but the resulting thermal conditions proved difficult to manage. The later modification addressed a problem that had emerged through occupation and use. The house therefore preserves evidence of both the original structural idea and its subsequent adaptation.

Together, the three Idaho Falls residences show Troutner working with markedly different geometries and materials. Heavy timber framing, radial roof supports, central masonry, manufactured panels, and extensive glazing appear in different combinations. Their preservation provides a rare opportunity to examine his architectural development through a closely related group of buildings, each responding to a particular client while advancing a different structural investigation.

The Phillips House and the Search for a Lighter Roof

By 1957, Troutner had begun developing a structural system intended to reduce the depth and weight of conventional roof and floor construction. The resulting experiments would become central to his architectural and commercial career.

The Dr. John and Elaine Phillips House, completed in 1958 at 3233 West Edson Street in Boise's Depot Bench neighborhood, provided an important opportunity to test the new system in a residence. John Phillips, a professor of psychology at Boise Junior College, commissioned Troutner to design a house that departed considerably from ordinary suburban construction. The project eventually became one of the most thoroughly documented examples of his residential work, receiving National Register listing in 2019.

The house is distinguished by its tri-gabled roof, whose steeply angled planes create a striking silhouette above the principal rooms. Large areas of glazing occupy the gable ends, while the interior organization takes advantage of the unusual roof geometry to accommodate living spaces on different levels. The structure allowed Troutner to investigate the relationship between an unconventional architectural form and a relatively shallow roof assembly.

His experimental Trus-Deck system combined timber elements with steel connecting members to create a composite structural unit. Instead of relying upon deep solid beams or conventional joists beneath a separate ceiling, the assembly brought structural support and the roof or ceiling surface into a more integrated relationship. Wood members resisted part of the bending forces, while the steel webbing helped transfer loads between them. The arrangement offered a means of obtaining useful spans with comparatively little structural depth.

Early units were approximately nine inches deep, two feet wide, and thirty-two feet long, according to the Phillips House National Register documentation. They could be placed alongside one another to form larger structural surfaces. The system promised reduced material requirements and greater design flexibility, but its unfamiliar construction also created difficulties. Builders, lenders, and suppliers were accustomed to standardized framing methods, and a new system without an established commercial history required unusual confidence from those financing and constructing a house.

Architectural historian D. Nels Reese recorded that the unconventional design complicated financing for the Phillips residence and that construction exceeded its original budget estimate of approximately $25,000. The difficulties illustrate the distance between technical possibility and ordinary building practice. A successful prototype had to satisfy the immediate needs of a client while also persuading contractors and financial institutions that its structural approach was dependable.

The Phillips House subsequently received additions in 1963 and 1976, including a shop and an accessory dwelling unit. Those changes were designed by Phillips rather than automatically belonging to Troutner's original commission. The National Register nomination evaluates the resulting property as a historically significant building whose principal architectural character remains recognizable despite later development.

The house occupies a pivotal position in Troutner's career. Its roof demonstrated that the thin composite system could support an unconventional residential design. At the same time, the difficulties involved in construction helped reveal the limitations of marketing such a specialized assembly directly to ordinary builders.

The Klein House and the Limits of Experimentation

The Edith Miller Klein House, completed in 1959 on Boise's Warm Springs Avenue, employed another version of Troutner's Trus-Deck system. Its architecture combined extensive glazing, carefully detailed woodwork, and an indoor swimming pool with an unusual roof arrangement. The house provided a further opportunity to investigate the thin composite structure under conditions different from those encountered at the Phillips residence.

The original roof assembly extended over the pool, where an elongated barrel-vaulted skylight introduced daylight into the interior. Operable wood-and-glass doors connected the pool area with surrounding spaces. The thinness of the roof was important to the design, allowing the ceiling to appear relatively light while maintaining the required structural support.

Over time, the chemically aggressive environment of the enclosed pool affected the steel components of the Trus-Deck assembly. Chlorine-related corrosion progressively weakened connecting elements, and the roof began to deform. The structural problem arose from an environmental condition that had not been adequately anticipated in the original design.

In 1995, Trout Architects undertook a substantial restoration. The project team included Steve Trout, Elizabeth Young, and Dwaine Carver. The damaged roof over the pool was removed and replaced with galvanized steel joists, while a discreet supporting beam and small columns were introduced near the skylight. The new assembly was designed to reproduce the original roof's apparent thickness and wood ceiling finish, preserving the architectural character while providing a more suitable structural response to the pool environment.

The restoration illustrates the difference between preserving an experimental structure's original materials and preserving its architectural appearance. The deteriorated roof could not simply be retained without addressing the structural failure. The rehabilitation substituted a different system intended to reproduce the original visual relationships while improving performance.

The Klein House is significant for both its original invention and the later engineering work required to keep it usable. It provides direct evidence of the consequences of placing unfamiliar structural materials in demanding environments. Troutner's experiment generated an architectural possibility, while subsequent occupation revealed a vulnerability that later designers had to resolve.

From Trus-Deck to Trus Joist

The development of Troutner's structural inventions eventually moved beyond individual houses. The central question became how to manufacture lightweight structural members consistently enough, and economically enough, for ordinary building projects.

On February 10, 1958, Troutner filed a patent application for his Composite Truss Deck. The patent, issued on February 6, 1962, described a structural assembly combining wooden decking with metal connecting elements. Its purpose was to allow relatively thin components to work together as an integrated load-bearing system.

The system grew from Troutner's architectural experiments, but commercial development required a product suited to a much broader range of construction. The original deck was specialized and demanded careful installation. Builders needed structural members that could replace conventional joists without requiring an entirely unfamiliar roof or floor assembly.

Harold E. "Red" Thomas recognized that opportunity. Troutner met Thomas during work associated with the Boise Little Theater, and the two began discussing the commercial possibilities of the experimental system in the latter half of the 1950s. Thomas had experience in lumber sales and understood the needs of contractors and suppliers. He believed that a lightweight, long-span joist offered a more practical market than the integrated truss deck used in Troutner's houses.

Troutner moved his manufacturing experiments into an old hangar at Gowen Field near Boise. There, he developed a freestanding truss with timber chords at the top and bottom, connected by steel tubing arranged in a triangular web. The resulting member could resist substantial bending loads while using less solid wood than many conventional structural alternatives.

The early commercial truss joist was approximately twenty inches deep, weighed about three pounds per linear foot, and could be manufactured in lengths approaching fifty feet. It employed a Warren truss configuration, in which diagonal members transferred forces between the upper and lower chords. The arrangement made efficient use of the different structural properties of wood and steel, with the components working together to provide strength and stiffness.

Manufacturing the product required additional inventions. Troutner developed machinery to form and connect the steel web members, while the company established methods for grading timber and producing consistent assemblies. His work increasingly involved the design of manufacturing processes as well as the structural products themselves.

On February 15, 1960, Troutner and Thomas incorporated Trussdeck Corporation. The company initially operated with limited capital, and both men assumed direct responsibilities for production and sales. Troutner concentrated on manufacturing and technical development, while Thomas worked to persuade architects, contractors, and suppliers to adopt the unfamiliar joists.

The building industry did not immediately accept the new products. Contractors often equated structural strength with the size and weight of familiar timber members. A comparatively lightweight truss made from smaller wood sections and thin steel tubing could appear inadequate, even when engineering calculations demonstrated otherwise.

Troutner and Thomas commissioned independent load testing and invited local building officials to observe the results. Successful tests helped establish confidence in the system and supported its acceptance under building regulations. The company also prepared standardized connection details and span tables that allowed architects to specify the product without designing each member individually.

Thomas developed a distinctive sales approach. According to Jonathan Reich's account, he sometimes placed a short section of truss joist on a small red tablecloth during meetings with architects, allowing the product's unusual construction to attract attention before explaining its capabilities. Joseph La Marche, a Boise architect, was among the early professionals who recognized its potential and visited the manufacturing operation.

The business expanded rapidly once the product gained acceptance. Reich reports first-year sales of approximately $49,000, followed by increasing demand. By 1964, annual sales had exceeded one million dollars. The company adopted the Trus Joist name in 1965, reflecting the growing importance of the commercial joist product. In subsequent decades, the business would develop a family of engineered structural materials and expand far beyond its original Boise operations.

The Development of Engineered Lumber

The commercial success of the open-web truss joist created new opportunities and exposed additional manufacturing problems. The product required carefully selected timber chords with predictable structural properties. As production increased, the company needed larger quantities of suitable wood, while variations in the size and quality of available lumber complicated manufacturing.

Troutner and his colleagues began investigating ways to obtain greater structural consistency from smaller pieces of wood and manufactured components. The problem was both economic and technical. Long members made from high-quality solid timber were increasingly expensive, and the process of selecting suitable lumber produced waste. If the required properties could be obtained through engineered assemblies, manufacturers could use a wider range of raw material while maintaining predictable performance.

One development was the engineered wood I-joist. Instead of using the open triangular steel web of the earlier truss joist, this product employed solid wood flanges connected by a plywood web. Its cross section resembled the letter I, placing much of the structural material near the upper and lower edges, where it could resist the principal bending forces. The comparatively thin web connected the flanges and resisted shear forces.

Troutner's experiments with I-joists developed during the late 1960s, partly through investigations of lightweight structures for manufactured housing. An early curved form proved difficult to produce economically, but straight members offered a promising alternative. The product could be manufactured with more standardized components and was well suited to residential floor and roof construction. The company introduced a commercially successful I-joist around 1970.

This development differed materially from the earlier Trus-Deck assembly and the open-web truss joist. Each system used an engineered combination of materials, but their geometry, manufacturing processes, and applications were distinct. The I-joist's solid web and flanges made it particularly compatible with ordinary framing layouts, helping engineered products reach a much larger construction market.

Troutner and his colleagues also investigated laminated veneer lumber. The concept involved bonding thin wood veneers into structural members, reducing the influence of individual defects and allowing greater control over the finished product's properties. Laminating wood was already an established practice in furniture and construction, but its industrial adaptation for structural members required specialized manufacturing methods and reliable quality control.

Trus Joist introduced Micro-Lam laminated veneer lumber in the early 1970s. The product helped extend engineered wood beyond open-web joists and plywood-web I-joists into beams and structural components manufactured from bonded veneers. The ability to produce strong members with consistent characteristics offered designers and builders alternatives to large sections of solid timber.

Troutner's inventive work continued through the development of production machinery, connection systems, and structural assemblies. His patents included devices for forming truss webs, manufacturing I-joist components, and connecting members in different configurations. Several were developed with other inventors, reflecting the increasingly collaborative character of the engineering and manufacturing work.

The broader company continued to evolve. Trus Joist eventually became part of TJ International, which was acquired by Weyerhaeuser in 2000. Its history extended well beyond Troutner's original inventions, involving successive generations of engineers, manufacturers, executives, and product developers. His contribution lies in the early structural concepts, manufacturing experiments, and technical work that helped establish the company's direction.

The environmental implications of these technologies deserve careful distinction. Engineered wood can reduce reliance on large solid timber members and allow greater use of smaller or more variable wood resources. The manufacture of such products also involves adhesives, processing, energy, and industrial infrastructure. Their significance in the history of material efficiency is substantial, but broad claims of environmental superiority require consideration of the entire manufacturing and building life cycle.

The Kibbie Dome

The extraordinary scale of Troutner's structural work became especially visible at the University of Idaho's Kibbie Dome. The project began after the loss of the university's earlier football stadium and developed through a sequence of construction phases. An outdoor stadium opened in 1971, followed by artificial turf in 1972. The roof enclosure was completed in 1975.

Architect Glen E. Cline was responsible for the architectural project and worked with Troutner, Harold Thomas, and Trus Joist Corporation to develop a practical structural solution. The challenge was to cover a football stadium with a roof spanning approximately 400 feet, without interior columns that would obstruct the playing field or restrict the building's use.

The resulting structure employed an immense barrel-vaulted roof formed from engineered timber and steel. Its curved trusses distributed the loads across the stadium's width, allowing the interior to remain open. The system drew upon principles developed through Trus Joist's work with lightweight, high-capacity structural assemblies, although the enormous stadium trusses differed considerably from the commercial joists used in smaller buildings.

Construction of the major roof members proceeded rapidly during the spring of 1975. On June 11, crews placed the final arch, completing a principal stage of the structural assembly. Work continued on the roof covering and end walls before the enclosed stadium opened that fall. The finished facility measured approximately 410 by 498 feet and rose roughly 150 feet above the playing field.

The project required careful coordination among architectural design, engineering, fabrication, transportation, and construction. It also depended upon the university's ability to finance an ambitious structure through student participation, alumni support, and other institutional resources. William H. Kibbie's substantial contribution helped fund the enclosure, while the Associated Students of the University of Idaho played an important role in the project.

The completed building accommodated football and numerous other activities, transforming a seasonal outdoor stadium into a large multipurpose facility. Its roof became an important demonstration of the potential of engineered timber for unusually long spans. The project received professional engineering recognition in 1976 and remains an important example of collaboration between architectural planning and structural product development.

Troutner's contribution should be understood within that collaboration. Cline's responsibilities encompassed the architectural commission and the stadium's broader requirements, while Troutner and Trus Joist supplied specialized structural knowledge and manufacturing capabilities. The project brought technologies developed through decades of experimentation in Idaho into a building whose size made their possibilities particularly apparent.

An Inventor Beyond Architecture

Troutner's inventive interests were never confined to building materials. His work included experiments with solar energy, wind generation, transmission structures, and airships. The range of subjects reflects a continuing interest in mechanical efficiency and the behavior of structural systems under different forces.

Historical accounts identify more than fifty patents associated with his inventive career. Some addressed commercially successful construction technologies, while others concerned specialized machines or experimental devices that never achieved comparable market adoption. Among them were designs for a solar mirror furnace, a wind-powered generator, and wood transmission towers.

His investigations of airships were especially unusual. The workshop and hangar associated with his Boise property provided space for developing experimental dirigible designs, extending his interest in lightweight structures into another field. The projects were consistent with his wartime experience with aircraft and his later work with efficient structural assemblies, although the available evidence does not establish that they became commercially viable products.

Troutner also explored prefabricated buildings and compact housing. In the early 1960s, he and his design team prepared a series of kit-cabin concepts intended to make use of the company's structural products. Such proposals reflected his interest in construction methods that could reduce labor and allow building components to be manufactured in advance.

These projects belong to the wider history of industrialized housing, where architects and manufacturers repeatedly attempted to reconcile design quality, production efficiency, transportation, and affordability. Troutner's schemes were part of that larger investigation, even where their commercial results were limited.

His willingness to pursue experiments beyond the immediate needs of his architectural practice was a defining feature of his career. The successful products funded further research, while projects that failed or remained incomplete offered additional experience with manufacturing, materials, and mechanical design.

Preservation and the Record of Experimentation

Troutner's surviving houses present unusually complicated preservation questions because their significance often depends upon experimental structural systems. In conventional residential architecture, replacement of damaged finishes or building components may leave the underlying structural concept largely unaffected. In Troutner's work, the roof assembly, central support, or unusual geometry can be among the building's most important historical features.

The Klein House demonstrates the difficulty clearly. Its original Trus-Deck roof was a significant example of lightweight structural experimentation, but corrosion made the assembly unsuitable for continued use over the indoor pool. The restoration retained the architectural appearance through a substantially different structural solution. The resulting building preserves Troutner's spatial and visual intentions while incorporating later engineering work necessary to maintain its function.

The personal residence beneath Table Rock presents another preservation problem. Fire damage required substantial rehabilitation, and later additions changed parts of the original property. The restoration involved an assessment of what could be retained, repaired, reconstructed, or newly designed. Its history demonstrates how preservation often requires a combination of historical understanding and contemporary construction expertise, especially when original materials or structural methods are no longer practical.

The Phillips House and the Idaho Falls historic district provide a different form of evidence. Their documented plans, materials, and surviving interiors allow architectural historians to examine the relationship between Troutner's drawings and completed buildings. The National Register nominations preserve detailed descriptions of construction, ownership, alterations, and original features, establishing a stronger historical record than photographs or later recollections alone could provide.

The Idaho Falls houses are particularly important because they represent three approaches to structural form within a closely related group of commissions. Their National Register listing recognizes the significance of the ensemble as well as the individual buildings. The district makes visible a period when Troutner was investigating geometry through architecture before his composite systems became commercially established.

The preservation of these properties also highlights the value of original drawings and technical records. The University of Idaho holds an important collection of Troutner's architectural material, and the Idaho Heritage Trust supported archival work associated with the collection in 1995. Such records provide evidence of designs that were altered, lost, or never constructed, and allow surviving buildings to be understood in relation to the architect's broader experiments.

The Architecture of Structural Possibility

Arthur Lowe Troutner died on April 14, 2001, in California, leaving a body of work that crossed several professional boundaries. His architectural projects ranged from modest early houses to extraordinarily unconventional residences, while his inventions contributed to the development of structural products manufactured and used far beyond Idaho.

The relationship between those activities is clearest in the buildings of the 1950s. The Aupperle Studio relied upon substantial timber members to support its tall roof. The Migel and Poitevin houses investigated more elaborate geometries and different arrangements of central support. The personal residence beneath Table Rock used a steel pylon and radiating trusses to make construction possible on a difficult hillside. The Phillips and Klein houses then became sites for testing a lightweight composite system whose principles would be developed further through patented products and industrial manufacture.

The commercial history that followed required abilities and contributions beyond Troutner's own. Harold Thomas recognized the market for long-span joists and helped establish the organization needed to sell them. Engineers and manufacturers refined the products, while architects and contractors gradually incorporated unfamiliar systems into ordinary construction. The company's later growth produced new technologies whose development involved many people.

The Kibbie Dome demonstrated what could happen when the resulting structural knowledge was applied at an exceptional scale. Its roof depended upon the work of Cline, Troutner, Thomas, Trus Joist, university officials, and construction specialists. The building provided a public demonstration of engineered timber's capacity to solve problems previously associated with more conventional structural materials.

Troutner's architectural work remains significant because the buildings preserve the questions he was attempting to answer. How could a roof span farther without becoming excessively deep? How might a house occupy difficult terrain with fewer conventional foundations? Could manufactured components use wood more efficiently while providing predictable structural performance? His residences often answered these questions through forms that were visually unusual and technically demanding.

Some solutions succeeded. Others required modification, proved difficult to commercialize, or revealed weaknesses through years of use. Their historical value includes those limitations. The buildings document an architect willing to commit his ideas to construction, where calculations, materials, workmanship, weather, financing, and everyday occupation would determine what actually worked.

The house below Table Rock remains an especially concentrated expression of that approach. Its sixteen-sided enclosure emerged from a steel column anchored in basalt, a structural decision that determined the organization of the home around it. From that hillside experiment to the enormous roof at Moscow, Troutner's work repeatedly returned to the relationship between the strength of a material and the possibilities of its arrangement. His architectural contribution can be traced through those decisions, through the patents and manufacturing methods developed from them, and through the buildings that still reveal their consequences.

References

Carver, Dwaine. "Three Houses by Art Troutner." Dwaine Carver Studio, n.d. https://dwainecarver.com/three-by-troutner

Hein, HannaLore. Phillips, Dr. John and Elaine, House. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, National Register no. 100004672. Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and National Park Service, 2019. https://history.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/Phillips_House_100004672.pdf

Idaho Architecture Project. "1008 S. Johnson St." Idaho Architecture Project, n.d. https://www.idahoarchitectureproject.org/properties/1008-s-johnson-st/

Idaho Architecture Project. "3503 Wood Acres." Idaho Architecture Project, n.d. https://www.idahoarchitectureproject.org/properties/3503-wood-acres/

Idaho Heritage Trust. "University of Idaho, Arthur Troutner Archives." Idaho Heritage Trust, 1995 grant project. https://www.idahoheritagetrust.org/projects-grants/university-of-idaho-arthur-troutner-archives/

Idaho State Historical Society. Art Troutner Houses Historic District. National Register of Historic Places documentation, 2008. https://history.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Art_Troutner_Houses_Historic_District_08000868.pdf

Reese, D. Nels. "Phillips House." SAH Archipedia, Society of Architectural Historians, n.d. https://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/ID-01-001-0097

Reich, Jonathan. "Poetic Engineering and Invention: Arthur Troutner, Architect, and the Development of Engineered Lumber." California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, scholarly paper, n.d. https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/architecture/1/documents/faculty_papers/ReichTroutnerWithImagesSm.pdf

Trout Architects. "Klein House." Trout Architects, n.d. https://www.troutarchitects.com/project/klein-house/

Trout Architects. "Troutner House Addition." Trout Architects, n.d. https://www.troutarchitects.com/project/troutner-house-addition/

Troutner, Arthur L. Composite Truss Deck. U.S. Patent No. 3,019,491. Filed February 10, 1958; issued February 6, 1962. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3019491A/en

Troutner, Arthur L. Pitched Truss and Ridge Connector Therefor. U.S. Patent No. 3,535,845. Issued October 27, 1970. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3535845A/en

Troutner, Arthur L., John R. Russell, Stanley J. Wilmorth, and Alan W. Johnson. I-Beam Type Truss Joist Forming Apparatus. U.S. Patent No. 3,894,908. Issued July 15, 1975. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3894908A/en

University of Idaho Library, Special Collections and Archives. "Kibbie Dome." Campus Photographs Collection, n.d. https://www.lib.uidaho.edu/digital/campus/buildings/kibbiedome.html

University of Idaho Library, Special Collections and Archives. Arthur Lowe Troutner Papers, MG 460. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Archival collection identified in institutional and National Register documentation.

Watts, Donald W. Art Troutner Houses Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, National Register no. 08000868. Prepared August 30, 2007; listed September 10, 2008. National Park Service. https://history.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Art_Troutner_Houses_Historic_District_08000868.pdf