Quantcast
Channel: Urban Scale Richmond
Viewing all 42 articles
Browse latest View live

Critiquing "Sterilizing Development" in Historic Areas

$
0
0

Typical "patchwork" apartments in Richmond's historic center.
Urban advocates in Charlotte NC are taking a close look at the massive new multi-family apartment complexes that are transforming historic neighborhoods in a way that is becoming increasingly familiar here in Richmond. Is there a way to do new housing in city centers without damaging the fragile historic fabric of the small commercial and residential background buildings that provide the setting for the rich civic life, great cuisine, and commercial diversity that characterize Richmond's "bottom-up" revitalization in recent years? Is there a way to make new buildings that are more timeless in appearance and durable in materials, and that also respect the city's historic patterns of building?




Old Stone Row in Richmond's Shockoe Valley.







New apartment building in historic Jackson Ward.



Image:  Opponents of a new apartment complex at a recent Charlotte City  Council meeting credit: Ely Portillo, Charlotte Observer
In Charlotte a group of committed urbanists have organized "Civic by Design," a forum partnered with a wide array of cultural and design-related institutions, that intends "to elevate the quality of our region’s built environment and to promote public participation in the creation of a more beautiful and functional region for all." New Urbanist architect Tom Low, based in Charlotte, recently posted news of the forum on the traditional TradArch List.

The group has effectively defined the dense, cheap apartment blocks appearing in American cities as "sterilizing development." More than 10,400 units are under construction in Charlotte, with more than 10,300 planned. As in Richmond, many are four- or five-story mid-rise buildings being constructed in historic neighborhoods. These buildings are out of character with their surroundings in scale, materials, and proportion. Their designers attempt to mitigate their massiveness by applying a variety of exterior finishes in a seemingly patternless collage, often mixing brick, cement board, and corrugated metal. One prominent Richmond traditional architect has named this kind of form "RPQ, the Random Patchwork Quilt Style."

In Richmond, unlike in Charlotte, there has been little criticism of these new apartment blocks, perhaps because they are not yet as widespread and have not yet caused an extensive demolition of much-loved older buldings. The principal conversation in the past has been over the official design standards for new buildings in historic districts and the lack of external windows in a surprising number of rehabilitated lofts funded by historic preservation tax credits. 

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/development/article23919511.html#storylink=cpy

A forum at Charlotte's Levine Museum of the New South on June 9th defined the problem:


"Sterilizing development can be defined as new development that is too dense, too tall, too quick and diluting the funky character that makes our historic neighborhoods special.   These new designs are completely different in character and feel, quality, and style of bland, boring, beige, behemoth boxes all with the same look, the same standards, same floor plans.  This coarse grain approach is wiping out affordable housing and hole-in-the-wall neighborhood hang-outs, forcing people out and changing both the character and the social structure.  Developments with weak design and poor construction will not age well and quickly become passé, leaving neighborhoods to deal with the negative consequences in their wake.  Please join Civic By Design as we explore how development is sterilizing Charlotte."
The forum explored ways to change or mitigate the direction of development in Charlotte:
 
 
"1.  Review current design and redevelopment projects and their pros and cons for improving and harming neighborhoods and citizens — inclusive vs. elite, fine-grain vs. too coarse, durable vs. disposable?
2.  Determine what is key — can better civic design preserve elements of what is here now and allow for something new to come in and is it possible to control this? 
3.  Analyze the time and financial challenges developers along with the constraints and design teams must address and what options should be considered — the benefits and backlash of strong and time-consuming strict historic standards if imposed or are there other options?
4.  Explore ideas for a better and more civic design and development process as well as tools and techniques and how they can help —   where economics do not trump sentiment."

Civic by Design has come up with this alternate design for the kinds of bland, big-box developments that are overwhelming Charlotte's small-scale historic districts. This for an area around "Tommy's Pub," a much-loved landmark threatened with demolition.



Thanks to Tom Low on TradArch List.
 
Here are some pertinent links:


The School of Life: How to Make an Attractive City

$
0
0

Here is a great short film that summarizes some of the most salient points about making beautiful cities.

Civic Markers II: Monuments as Ordering Elements in the City

$
0
0
"The status of monuments on the cusp of the twenty-first century is double-edged and fraught with an essential tension: outside of those nations with totalitarian pasts, the public and governmental hunger for traditional, self-aggrandizing monuments is matched only by the contemporary artists’ skepticism of the monument" 
James E. Young, “Memory/Monument,” 2010
Lord Botetourt
Civic Markers II: Monuments as Ordering Elements in the City

Political leaders across the nation followed classical precedent in the employment of  rhetorical narratives, sponsoring civic art works to expound on important civic concepts, most often associated with a former military or political leader. Virginia, indeed, began a tradition of public statuary with the marble figure of a much loved royal governor. One of the earliest examples of public statuary in the colonies, the statue of Lord Botetourt, was placed in the central arcade of the Williamsburg Capitol in 1773. 

At first, Richmond, in its role as the new capitol of the commonwealth, built its narrative around political and military figures who were not necessarily local heroes. The state’s leaders memorialized the founding fathers and the larger-than life role Virginians played in the founding of the nation. In 1796, Houdon’s virtuoso life-size sculpture of George Washington took a central place in the new Capitol, a position that was equivalent to that previously occupied by Lord Botetourt’s statue in Williamsburg. Both Botetourt and Washington were here treated as modern citizens in modern dress, although Washington was accompanied by the symbols of the Roman hero Cincinnatus, who, like Washington, turned from war-craft to farming. 



As Charles Brownell and his student Ramin Saadat asked, at the Virginia Capitol, why had Jefferson "devised a templelike exterior and a templelike core surrounding a white marble statue in a fashion suggesting divine honors.” The answer, they suggest, may lie in the popular theory, known as Euhemerism, that saw the origin of ancient gods in mortal “leaders or benefactors” whose veneration had “naively evolved into worship.” 

It became necessary to call upon at least a modicum of myth in order to craft  an aestheticized history that met the new nation’s ideological needs. . . .  “American” versions of the methods by which Italy’s Renaissance packed the past with rich meanings eventually found their way into the national imagination, especially after the rising commitment to manifest destiny began to overlay republican modesty with grandiose images of heroic glory. But in the beginning the Capitol dealt with America’s first president in its own way. By a reversal of the euhemeristic tradition, as we will see in the making of the myth of George Washington, the mortal man became a demigod. 

George Washington as America’s savior general and first president would endow the nation’s capital with what Renaissance Italy named civile- “the affective identification of the [citizen] with a particular, geographically defined place,” as well as “a belief in the sacred nature of institutions and leaders, an attitude that invests things and persons political with a mystical aura, distinguishing them from mundane structures and from ordinary mortals.”

Public ceremonies required the right person to represent the nature of the republican virtues Americans were making up as they went along. . . . In both the Old World and the new, ceremonies of adventus sealed the relation of leaders to the people (private individuals, the military, the administrative staffs). They confirmed the needed sense of stability and order, backed by a coherent bureaucratic system. Over time, however, it became unnecessary to highlight the “action” by which a leader “arrives.” He is “just there” through a process that has been “completed and consummated.” . . . John Quincy Adams was deeply depressed by the implications of the inability to reach a compromise over the final resting place of the nation’s foremost symbol of unity. In his diary of February 22, 1832, Adams wrote that the wish for the capitol to be the site of Washington’s tomb had been “connected with an imagination that this federal Union was to last for ages. I now disbelieve its duration for twenty years, and doubt its continuance for five. It is falling into the sear and yellow leaf” [Martha Banta, One True Theory and the Quest for an American Aesthetic (Yale U Press, 2007, 77ff].

The indoor statue of Washington, “its form the result of a transatlantic dialog between Houdon, Thomas Jefferson, then serving as minister plenipotentiary to the court of Louis XVI, political figures in Virginia, and Washington himself,” depicted him as a modern Cincinnatus, the Roman general who voluntarily returned to farming after his success at war.  Maurie D. McInnis sees this as entirely appropriate republican imagery for the post-revolutionary period. Changes in the nation’s self-understanding gave impetus to an entirely different project for memorializing Washington in the 1850s, one that “captures the changing meaning of Washington and the Revolution for different generations of Virginians.  “By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, Washington as Marcus Aurelius, the great military leader, seemed more appropriate to Virginia’s leading men. . . . The second, by Crawford, was a response to the first, commissioned by a later generation of Virginians, who, in the 1850s, were attracted not to the symbols of pastoral virtue, but instead to the military might of Washington, as sectional tensions dictated a celebration of Washington’s military prowess as a defender of Southern liberties [Maurie McInnis, “George Washington, Cincinnatus or Marcus Aurelius?” from Peter S. Onuf and Nicholas P. Cole eds, Thomas Jefferson, the Classical World, and Early America. University of Virginia P, 2011].   

Thomas Crawford's equestrian Washington, 1858
Thus the Richmond tradition of outdoor public military monuments began with a sculptural composition to immortalizing in bronze and granite Virginia’s role in the nation’s founding and Virginia’s most famous citizen, George Washington. Maximilian Godefroy, who prepared landscape plans for Capitol Square, had proposed a triumphal arch in front of the capitol’s portico as well as a viewing platform/water tower to its west. The General Assembly authorized a public subscription for a monument and burial place on the Capitol Square for Washington in 1817. After years of inaction, a committee of citizens proposed a competition for the monument, which was held in 1849. The selected sculptor was Thomas Crawford, an American working in Rome. The popular and successful monument was not only a tribute to Washington as military and political leader, but an elaborate allegory linking Virginia with the national polity.


The monumental composition stands on a granite base appropriately shaped like a hexagonal star fortress. The design includes two tiers of supporting sculptures around a massive bronze equestrian figure of Washington, cast in Germany. The upper row of pedestals support statues of six Virginia patriots- Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, John Marshall, Andrew Lewis, Thomas Nelson, and Patrick Henry. The lowest tier consisted of six allegorical female figures and trophies representing revolutionary virtues (and places) allied with the six patriots. Andrew Lewis is allied with “colonial times,” Patrick Henry with revolution, George Mason with the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson with independence, Thomas Nelson with finance, and John Marshall with justice. Crawford died having completed only the sculptures of Washington, Jefferson, and Henry.  His student, Randolph Rogers, completed the remaining pedestal sculptures after the Civil War.  The monument strongly reinforces the urban order by serving as a objective at the end of Grace Street at the entrance to Capitol Square. It stands on axis with the Governor’s Mansion and in an effective non-axial introductory relationship with the Capitol itself. The nearby Washington Tavern was renamed the Monumental Tavern in its honor [Hopson Goddin, Richmond Virginia 1861- 1865, Civil War Centennial Committee, 1961].


Henry Clay Statue under the octagonal canopy, 1860

The Washington monument did not stand alone in Capitol Square for long. It was followed by the life-sized Henry Clay statue in 1860, located north of the Capitol. Henry Clay, born in Hanover County, Virginia, was a renowned statesman, orator, and long-serving speaker of the the U.S. House of Representatives who had studied law in Richmond with George Wythe. Clay was a hero to the Whig population of the city, who favored federalist policies promoting economic, social, and moral modernization in opposition to the populism of Andrew Jackson. The artist was the Kentucky-born sculptor Joel T. Hart (1810-1875). The statue was commissioned in 1845 by the Ladies Clay Association, in order to rescue his cause “from the foulest slanders ever invented for party purposes” during the presidential election of 1844 and to “teach our Sons to honor [his] name- and imitate [his] noble deeds” [The Papers of Henry ClayJanuary 1, 1844-June 29,1852, 1991: U P of Kentucky:203]. 

It took Hart until 1859 to arrange production of the marble sculpture in Italy.  The statue was placed under an octagonal, domed covering soon after its dedication in 1860. The cast-iron canopy, supported on eight Corinthian columns, was itself a major public amenity in Capitol Square and emphasized the heroic status of Clay in the eyes of the city. Unfortunately, the fifteen-year delay in the production of the monument meant that its intended influence in favor or compromise and federalism was of no use at the start of the Civil War. Unlike George Washington, the significance of Henry Clay was largely forgotten by the early twentieth century. The domed temple was demolished in the 1930s and the statue placed inside the Capitol.  


A life-sized statue of Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson was placed nearby in 1875, beginning a line of monuments that would be erected in the twentieth century along the northern edge of the square. The bronze sculpture was made in 1875 by Irish sculptor John Henry Foley and was the gift of “English gentlemen as a tribute of admiration.” 

It was a result of its former role of “national capitol” that Richmond acquired an extensive and more urbane collection of public art surpassing that of other state capitals of comparable size. The armature of monuments extending from the old city into the projected suburbs to the west was the serendipitous result, not of public planning, but of a family who wished to extend the city through their property.

Monument Avenue

Richmond's great urban processional route, Monument Avenue, represents the transformation of loss and suffering into a symbolic reconstruction of the partially burned city as a monument to its aspirations. As Lucien Steil has said: "The city is indeed the highest form of commemoration, the highest expression of resilience, the most beautiful synthesis of human culture." Lucien Steil, "Reconstruction and Commemoration." American Arts Quarterly, 4:3 (Winter 2015). 

Monument Avenue was laid out in 1887, not only to serve as an appropriate setting for the heroic statue of Robert E. Lee planned to stand at the center of a great circle at its eastern end, but as a grand extension of the city to the west.

As was documented by Jay Killian Bowman Williams, Monument Avenue was largely the creation of its property owners, beginning with the Allen family, who owned the site of Lee Circle. The city and most of the promoters of the statue wanted it to be placed in a familiar and existing location such as Capitol Square, Libby Hill, or Monroe Park. The Board of the Lee Memorial Association, having been convinced by, among others, Augustus St. Gaudens, that an accomplished European sculptor would produce the best work, hired Frenchman Jean Antoine Mercier and mandated a calm, serene Lee who would project a sense of the moral and aesthetic seriousness of the southern cause missing in the booming New South city that doubled in size between 1860 and 1890 [Jay Killian Bowman Williams, Changed Views and Unforeseen Prosperity: Richmond of 1890 Gets a 
Monument to Lee (Richmond: privately printed, 1969)]

Col. Otway Allen promoted his vision for his tract of undeveloped land at the western end of Franklin Street as the best place for the monument. Franklin Street was the pre-eminent residential axis, extending from Capitol Square’s Bell Tower to the city’s western limits. Allen insisted that “no better situation (as far as a site for the Lee Monument) could be obtained than at the head of Franklin Street. There is a prospect of the street being opened, and a place similar to Monument Place in Baltimore being laid out. Should this be done, where is a situation to compare with it?” 

A famous image of the Lee Monument, with a crop of tobacco growing in front of it. This has always looked to us like a  a publicity stunt.
Writers, including Henry James, who have mocked the messy selection process and the lonely situation of the Lee Monument in an undeveloped landscape, have failed to grasp the developers’ foresight and the similarity of this project other grand urban expansions.  Early Monument Avenue compares favorably with the dreary expanses of nineteenth-century District of Columbia. In previous decades, Baltimore’s Washington Monument (1815-1829) preceded development of its projected setting in Mount Vernon Square by many years. 

By the late nineteenth century, Richmond’s civic leaders lacked the political capacity to imagine or provide such a generously scaled setting for the monument on their own. This kind of effort required an unprecedented manipulation of the city’s grid, as ambitious, in its own way, as the creation of the great boulevards that were driven through the heart of Paris by Hausmann. Collison Pierpont Edwards Burgwyn, a civil engineer, novelist, and playwright employed by the Allens, laid out the 200-foot diameter Lee Circle and the two 140-foot wide boulevards converging on it. Monument Avenue closely resembles Frederick Law Olmstead’s contemporary project at Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. In a similar way, Commonweath Avenue was laid out on private land as the idea of developer and street railway operator, Henry M. Whitney.  

Monument Avenue looking west from Stuart Circle
Monument Avenue gradually extended to the west and its intersections became the settings for a sequence of public sculpture on a scale rarely achieved in an American city. Monumentally scaled statues of Confederate figures, some more effective than others, and none as fine as Lee’s, were eventually placed at the center of every other intersection for more than a mile. 

Older parts of the city had made no distinction among streets or sections by building type or land use, and streets were able to incorporate changes in form and use over time. This new boulevard was intended serve a distinctly residential suburban sector and was not intended to be a principal thoroughfare. Eventually, however, with the coming of the automobile it became a convenient commuters’ route into the city.  Oddly, and due to its emphatically axial form, Monument Avenue doesn’t accommodate public buildings quite as well as the older, reticulated parts of the city. Except at Stuart Circle, where two churches, a hospital, and an apartment building manage to enclose the more intimate circle there, churches and the few other larger buildings fail to fully engage with the street’s massive scale. One success in this regard is the temple-form church at the south end of Allen Street, which effectively terminates that street.     

Other Post-Civil War Civic Markers

While the Allens were developing Monument Avenue, another individual was responsible for creatively managing urban-scale improvements across a post-war city with little interest in spending money on public works. Col. Wilfred Emory Cutshaw, a VMI-trained engineer, began a long career as city engineer in 1873.  According to Tyler Potterfield, Cutshaw, who was responsible for the planning and supervision of municipal projects, “fully recognized the importance of neighborhood squares, tirelessly advocated for their improvement and oversaw a team of assistant city engineers who proved to be talented landscape designers.” Preparation for his position included travel to study up-to-date parks in the North and in Europe in 1879. 

Soldiers and Sailors Monument by William Ludwell Sheppard, 1894
 Cutshaw landscaped Monroe Park and the large “promontory parks” overlooking the James. He also acquired the small triangular parks that enliven Park Avenue in the Fan District and organized a sophisticated tree-planting program that provided shade throughout the city’s streets and parks in accord with the City Beautiful movement, an urban design branch of the American Renaissance.  His plan to create a dramatic monument to Robert E. Lee on the top of Libby Hill Park was rejected, but in its place he projected the Soldiers and Sailors Monument of 1894, which took the form of a Roman monumental column, placed on a highly visible axis carefully aligned with Main Street to the west [T. Tyler Potterfield, Nonesuch Place: A History of the Richmond Landscape (History Press, 2009)].



A triumphal arch constructed as a temporary 
entry gateway to the popular Street
Carnival held on Broad Street
in 1900. 
Arches have long been a theme in monumental Richmond. Street-spanning arches were proposed, but not built, for both George Washington and Jefferson Davis. Their lack of success is particularly instructive in the inherent contentiousness of myth- and monument-making in a democratic regime. The success of temporary arches built over Broad Street in 1900 and 1901 for street carnivals that were designed to “boost” the city seems to have prompted the United Daughters of the Confederacy to propose a monumental arch in 1902 over Broad Street at the intersection of Twelfth Street as a memorial to Jefferson Davis (the dramatic location where Broad Street drops off into the Shockoe Valley attracted propsals for structures at the urban scale over the years, starting with the Shockoe Market and Latrobe’s unexecuted project for a new Episcopal church, both proposed for the center of the street).



"Triumphal" arch in stone proposed for Monroe Park soon after Jefferson Davis' death in 1889.
An arch was again suggested to span Broad Street in 1901 [City on the James, 1893].

The grandious project broke down due to the sensible objections of Davis' widow, who indicated that she was opposed the location and the form of the proposed monument, not to mention its being harnessed to the promotion of the city. She declared that "arches, as monuments, have been built to perpetuate deeds of men and to express the idea of a ‘victory achieved.’ A triumphal arch to the memory of a man whose cause failed. . . is surely an inappropriate way to express respect for his memory, and certainly might excite ridicule in many quarters. Bound by a thousand most tender ties and a warm sympathy to Richmond, yet even to beautify the city I cannot approve the site at Broad and Twelfth Streets. . . . [at] the intersection of two of the noisiest and busiest streets, lined with shops and frequented by crowds of people of a prosperous and growing city" [Richmond Dispatch 1 June 1902]. 

First Regiment of Virginia Monument at Park Stuart and Meadow streets by Ferruccio Legnaioli
Additional Statues

A tradition began of placing statues at key points around the city, begun by Cutshaw, continued to punctuate the axes of transportation routes and along paths in public parks. These include the statue of A.P. Hill at Laburnum and Hermitage and the figure of Williams Carter Wickham (1820 –1888), a lawyer, judge, politician, and Confederate Cavalry commander, who image was placed in Monroe Park by his war-time comrades and employees at the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway in 1891. It was sculpted by Richmond’s Edward V. Valentine. The Richmond Howizers Monument (1892) and the Monument to the First Regiment of Virginia Infantry (1930) punctuate the irregular route of Park Avenue as it wends its way through the Fan District. 




Columbus statue and fountain

As the Fan District was extended to the west, Boulevard was laid out in 1875 as a grand cross street to connect Reservoir (Byrd) Park to Broad Street. The terminus at the foot of the great reservoir was given an suitably architectural effect by the placement of a small cascade fountain symbolizing the civic provision of water fronted by a statue of Columbus. This was placed in front of the fountain in 1925 by a group of citizens of Italian origin and sculpted by immigrant sculptor Ferruccio Legnaioli.


The discourse on Richmond's Civic Markers will continue with Part III- Fountains.

For a discussion of contemporary monumental art, see Public Art and Community Memory: Richmond's Maggie Lena Walker.

PUBLIC ART AND COMMUNITY MEMORY- RICHMOND'S MAGGIE LENA WALKER, PART II

$
0
0
"Urban Scale Richmond takes as its focus the rediscovery of the rules, both explicit and implicit, that have guided the building of the city and give to its art and architecture a unique character. One way to achieve this result (and to reduce the diminution of local conventions and the disempowerment of citizens) is for planners to actively reconstruct the city’s operative patterns. The way in which monuments proceed from a nexus of community expectations is an important part of those patterns. By engaging critically with local issues,  it will be possible to confirm and stimulate healthy growth and change in the city. 

The way in which monuments are procured has an effect on the quality of their 'fit,' although there is no consensus on the best way to control the process. The most complicated part of making a monument is in connecting it in some tangible way, not only with local tradition, but with the expectations of the various constituencies for which it is intended. This is only achieved through careful consideration of location, materials, scale, form, and viewer expectations. Urbanismo hopes for the best!"

This is how we ended our previous post on Public Art and Community Memory: Richmond's Maggie Lena Walker, expressing our concerns the commemorative public art proposed to honor Richmond's Maggie L. Walker . We were apprehensive that the Public Art Commission would guide the designer selection process away from the kind of engagement with the past seemingly favored by the community. A year and a half later, the process described in the post has been completed and we have very good news to report. The city's Public Art Commission announced last week that the commission would be for a statue and that the artist would be prominent American representational sculptor Antonio Tobias Mendez.  Mendez, with a BFA from the Chicago Art Institute, does sports, commemorative, private commissions, and veteran's memorials.

Mayor Dwight Jones announced the decision: “Not only will Richmond gain an important new monument that can reflect the diverse heritage and history of a significant local hero, but this effort will also underscore her role as a champion for civil rights on the national landscape,” said Mayor Jones in a press release. “Maggie Walker was a revolutionary leader in business, a champion for breaking down barriers between communities and showed incredible strength as a person that came out of extraordinarily challenging circumstances to create great things.”

The location of the monument will be in the triangular plot at the intersection of Adams Street and Broad Street, an important node on the urban scale, where the 18th-century road called Brook  Turnpike engages at an angle with the city grid.  This was formerly the site where a fountain was provided to water the horses and oxen drawing wagons and drays as they entered the city (that fountain is now located behind the Bill "Bojangles" Robinson Statue a few blocks to the north. The historic intersection was a key location in Maggie Walker's world and remains a very memorable node in the city's transportation network.  The new statue begins to reinforce an established civic armature. This begins at Franklin and Adams and moves from Maggie Walker's statue at Adams and Broad to the Bojangles statue and beyond.

This commission bodes well for the Maggie L. Walker Monument to join with many others, including the George Washington Monument and the Civil Rights Monument at Capital Square. As we previously observed, that "sculptural ensemble by Stanley Bleifeld avoids the sentimentality that characterizes some of the sculptor's work in other cities and takes a place among the very best monuments of recent decades." Let's hope the Maggie L. Walker Monument will achieve the same levels of formal and emotional strength, and by doing so, help re-establish the legitimacy of figurative public art.   
 
This seriousness should extend to the setting as well as the bronze centerpiece. Mendez's website indicates that "Toby primarily focuses on the figure, combining a classical figurative approach with a contemporary eye for site design." In monument-rich Richmond, the plinth says a great deal about the position of the subject in the city's historical narrative. Offering a sense of "approachability" by placing the statue on the same plane as the viewer has become a hackneyed trope. Maggie Walker, who pointed the way for her community, often from a position on her elevated front porch, would best occupy a raised podium equipped with moldings and set off by appropriate ornament. The setting should support and embrace the statue without seating, planting, or paving elements that draw attention to themselves or work against the city's conventional landscape patterns.

Congratulations to the entire community and the arts commission for making decisions that will contribute to a deeper understanding of Maggie Walker as leader, embodying the civic values she espoused throughout her life.

The Location of Richmond’s first African-American Burial Ground.

$
0
0

The question of the location and boundaries of the Richmond's historic first African-American Burial Ground has generated a series of conflicting reports, amplified by the undoubted sensitivity of the topic and the unpopular attempt to build a new ballpark in its immediate vicinity. Attempts at resolving the question have assisted in focusing attention on the small tract of land that condensed the realities of degradation and death for Richmond's enslaved and free black population in the first half of the nineteenth century. 

 
This study purports to show that the first Burial Ground for Negroes very likely shared a portion of its boundaries with a busy tract of publically owned land on the edge of the Shockoe Valley settlement. Careful consideration of the ownership of land in the area of the burial ground can help to solve the thorny question of exactly where it was located. The parcel of city-owned land appears on later maps and deeds but is poorly documented in the public record.




 

Watsons Tenement on the inset map of Byrds Lottery on Richard Youngs 1809 Map of Richmond. This map originated in 1768 and includes the platted town of Shockoe west of the creek labeled Town Land.



Background- Watsons Tenement

In 1780, when Richmond became a city, the majority of residents lived east of Shockoe Creek on the grid established by William Byrd in the 1730s. The plateau to the west on Shockoe Hill was laid out in streets in 1768 on the lands of William Byrd III and was incorporated into the city as the Town of Shockoe in the following year. The tract on Shockoe Hill was slow to develop, but one area, just at the top of the hill, attracted merchants and tavern operators along the old County Roadthat climbed the steep hillside and connected the town to points east and west. 

A large tract of undeveloped land on Shockoe Hill to the north and east of the County Road pre-dated the lots of 1768. It was known as Watsons Tenement because it had been leased by Philip Watson, a merchant, from William Byrd III. It is not clear when Watson acquired the lease, but it appears to have been renewed in 1757, at which time it comprised 128 acres. At some date after that, Thomas Turpin purchased Watsons Tenement from William Byrd III, as noted in a deed of 1783, when Turpin sold 93 1/2 acres, the remainder of the tenement after the sale of lots on the hill, to his son, Dr. Philip Turpin. This undeveloped remainder of Watsons Tenement ran east from the Shockoe Hill lots down to Shockoe Creek. The southern portion of this sloping land, containing Philip Watsons brick residence, had been considerably improved and was valued by a jury at 4,000 lbs specie. The sloping land of the portion to the north was considered less valuable and was assessed at only 1,000 lbs. 

Owing to the loss of records, including those pertaining to the General Court in Williamsburg, where the Byrds recorded most of their transactions, the history of the property is vague. Thomas Turpin acquired Watsons Tenement in its entirety after the lease was vacated, well before 1779. It was in that year that Thomas Jefferson, during his term as governor, occupied a house near the corner of Thirteenth and Broad belonging to Turpin.   

The Turpin tract was entirely in the hands of Philip Turpin by 1775. He laid out the flat part at the top of the hill in lots that extended the adjacent Shockoe Hill grid pattern by 1775, when he sold lots no. 781 and 782 to James Monroe [Richmond City DB 1:43].  The land on Council Chamber Hill and sloping down to the Shockoe Creek he sold in larger unnumbered tracts.  These less likely tracts became acceptable sites for public and civic uses. In 1786 he sold a lot to the trustees of the Quesney Academy [Richmond City DB 1:119]. This became the site of the Richmond Theatre, which after its destruction in a horrific fire, was replaced by Monumental Church. At that time, Turpin guaranteed that Broad Street (the Main Street on Shockoe Hill) should be extended along the entire frontage of the Academy lot. The citys Baptists acquired a lot east of the Academy.
 

At the bottom of the hill, in a bend of Shockoe Creek, the city invested in an irregularly shaped tract. While the date of purchase is not known, this property was to serve numerous secondary purposes over the following century and plays a key role in the search for the Burial Ground. The corporations tract of land is first seen on the Bates Map of 1835 containing the Citys jail and principal public school. Angled property lines separating the citys parcel and the other tracts along the west side of the creek from the lots on higher ground to the west probably correspond to the shapes of the bluff dividing them. On this map, the formerly inaccessible tract has been divided and joined to the rest of the city by extension of the streets to the north, east, and south, while the formerly winding Shockoe Creek has been channeled into a new bed to the east.
 


 
Detail, Mijacah Bates 1835 Map of Richmond showing the area of the city property on the west side of Shockoe Creek. The Rutherfoord lots extending west from 15th Street were the site of the residence of James Goodwin before 1807. The irregular lot on which the Lancastrian School (1816) and the City Jail (1830) are shown is the pubic land. It seems likely that this is the very same tract on which the burial ground, gallows, and magazine were placed.





 
Youngs 1809 Map of Richmond showing the site of the Burial Ground on the northeast side of what would become Broad Street, with the gallows in the center (marked with the letter N) and the Magazine to the immediate east [the top of the map as shown here points northeast]. 


The Land Belonging to the Corporation

The public functions on the west side of Shockoe Creek are first shown on Youngs 1809 map of the citys lots. These civil uses are identified as a magazine for the storage of gunpowder, the site of the gallows, and a Burial Ground for Negroes.  The location and extent of the Burial Ground as shown on this map has proven difficult to pin down with any certainty. Commentators have suggested that the graveyard was on common land and that it may have expanded into the area where Broad Street is located today, although the citys original commonswere located along the east side of Shockoe Creek as it ran in 1737 and along the river. Some commentaries have given the Burial Grounds boundaries an elastic quality that seems unrealistic in the litigious climate of eighteenth-century Virginia land speculation and boundary disputes. 
 

It is most likely that civil uses, including the Burial Ground, were officially restricted to public land already belonging to the city. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to assume that the boundaries of the Burial Ground were poorly marked at the time and that burials might, as was suggested at the time, have strayed onto private land. It would, however, be unusual for the litigious members of the Turpin family, owners of Watsons Tenement after c. 1780, to have approved of a public graveyard, gallows, and powder magazine on their land without a formal transfer of property to the city. The Turpins pursued lawsuits for decades over issues related to land acquired by the state. The size of the city tract was, in fact, probably large enough for its purpose, even adjusting for the steepness of the site, when compared with the two-acre site of the citys official graveyard on Church Hill that served the citys white population until 1822.

Public Ground

Jeffrey Ruggles has drawn attention to the 1811 account by the free African-American author Christopher McPherson of a visit to the Burial Ground ["The Burial Ground: An Early African American Site in Richmond, Virginia, 2009 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/42051809/Burial-Ground-Ruggles-12-09)]. McPherson described it as located to the east of the Baptist Meeting House. The citys tractwas, in fact, due east of the site of the meeting house, not southeast as shown on the 1809 map. He seems to confirm public ownership of the tract when he commented thatmany graves are on private land adjoiningowing to want of knowledge of what was public ground. He adds, as well, the humiliating fact that this is the very express gallows ground where malefactors are interred.” In fact,Richmond was the site of the executions of white felons from all over the state from 1780 to 1785, and the site on Shockoe Creek appears to have been used for that purpose. Prior to 1780, Henrico County had been required to send all white felons to Williamsburg for execution and probably placed the temporary gallows used for the execution of slaves wherever it was most convenient on the common land. From 1785 until its removal in 1816, most Richmond and Henrico County felons were executed there.

The public nature of this tract helps to explain the close association of the gallows, the magazine, and the Burial Ground. The powder magazine, always liable to explode, was shared by both the city and the state governments, and by both public institutions and private persons. A magazine was established by ordinance in 1788 [Records of Common Hall]. This appears to be the same structure shown as the magazine in 1809, placed where it was remote from most habitations. Temporary repairs were made to it in 1808 [Common Hall, 16 May 1808]. This was probably designed to extend its life until completion of a new state magazine near the penitentiary two years later would allow the city to abandon the structure [Common Hall, 10 June 1810].

Neighbors and Developers

Some have suggested that the Burial Ground extended into the right-of-way of Broad Street. The city was, however, vitally interested in keeping clear the future locations of public ways like Broad Street. The act of 1769 that extended the city boundaries to embrace Shockoe Hill stipulated that existing tracts like Watsons Tenement could be divided into half-acre lots, provided they continued the street grid through their lands. Until they subdivided their property they were not allowed to erect any house on any of the said tenements, so as to obstruct the prospect of any street which terminates at the said tenements, that may hereafter, when the same shall be laid off in lots, stop the said streets[1769 Act, quoted in John W. Reps, Tidewater Towns, 1972, 269]. On the other hand, the citys irregular tract of public land officially blocked the path of Marshall Street, which ended to the west at the top of a slope that was too steep to ever accommodate traffic.

The 1809 map contradicts conventional assumptions about the use of public land for public purposes. It places the Burial Ground directly north of Broad Street. The deed record, however, indicates that the question needs to be carefully approached. The land between the corporation’s parcel and Broad Street was purchased at some point in the late eighteenth century from Phillip Turpin by James Goodwin, who was living there at the time of his death in 1807. This parcel had never served as public or common land and was likely utilized by Goodwin as part of his domestic establishment. Some burials may have extended south onto Goodwins lot by error, but is unlikely that there were enough to disrupt the residential use of the property during the same period.

Another portion of the tract between the future jail lot and what would become Broad Street was sold in 1811 to Charles Beck and Company. They sold it, in the form of two narrow lots extending between an alley (Church or College Street) and Shockoe Creek as it meanders,to Thomas Rutherfoord in 1814 [Richmond DB 8:255]. Rutherford built a long line of houses facing Broad Street after it was extended east in 1845, but at the time it was probably already the site of houses fronting on Church or College Street, the same or predecessors of those shown in the 1865 photo by Andrew J. Russell analyzed in the article by Jeffrey Ruggles.
 

 

Map of the City, c 1817, by Richard Young. This shows the City Jail lot (assigned to that purpose in 1817 on land belonging to the corporation,but not built until 1830) and the Lancastrian School (1816) across the street, comprising all of the city-owned property on the west side of Shockoe Creek.

 
 

 
Map by Morgan of 1848, showing the City Jail (F2) and the Lancastrian School (E3). It indicates the steep bluff into the slope of which the jail was built and the canalization of the creek along the route of 16th Street. The angled edge of the city property roughly corresponded to the bluff.

The principal problem in resolving the question of the relationship of the burying ground to the property belonging to the corporation on which the magazine lately stoodhas been in identifying when the city acquired the land. This not only included the City Jail (1830), but also a yard behind the jail itself, and the Lancastrian School (built on the same lot belonging to the city in 1816). The lack of any lot lines in this part of the 1809 Richard Young Map has given the impression that this was just open land, but a larger property transferred from Turpin to the city in 1799, including the future site of Shockoe Hill Burying Ground, are not shown either. The explanation becomes clear after looking the larger map. Young only drew lots and streets on city land. The land on which the jail and school were built was not annexed to the city until 1810 and was officially laid out in streets in 1812. This is why lots are not shown in 1809 but are on the map of 1817.

These illustrations show the 1830 jail at the time of the execution of a notorious murderer in 1885 [Courtesy of Shockoe Examiner blog]. The jail is a the left, concealed behind high walls that mask its flanks. The jailer's residence to the right.
 
A New City Jail

In the years before 1830, the county and city shared operating and repair expenses at the jail beside the Henrico County Courthouse. Henrico carried out all local executions until 1830, when Richmond built its own jail. At first, executions took place on a temporary gallows erected on the north side of Broad Street in or near the Negro Burying Ground, and either the Negro Burying Ground or a possible adjacent potters field served as the place where executed criminals of whatever race were interred. As we have seen, one contemporary witness, Christopher MacPherson, implied that they were the same.

The city shifted its priorities in 1812. The sharing of the Henrico County Courthouse and Jail was drawing to an end.  At first the city council or common hall was of a mind to spend $1,000 to rehabilitate the upper floor of the Market House to accommodate a relocation of the city's Hustings Court.  An entirely new and grander conception intervened: on 18 May 1812, the common hall rescinded that vote and began the search for a new courthouse, the one eventually completed to the designs of Robert Mills in 1819.

As we have seen, the city owned a largely inaccessible tract at the base of Shockoe Hill that contained the Powder Magazine, but also likely held the gallows groundand the Burying Ground for Negroes. Here they decided to place a new jail, on the same day that they voted to demolish the cage or lockup beside the market house.  In 1816-17, the Common Hall, prompted by complaints from the jailor, considered building its own jail and jailors houseand selected the tract belonging to the corporation, opposite to the Lancastrian School[Records of the Common Hall, 20 Oct 1817]. 

The southern half of the citys land is labelled City Jailon the c1817 map by Richard Young, although the jail would not be built for fourteen years. The city even had plans for the jail drawn up by Robert Mills (serving at that time the architect of the Richmond City Hall) and Otis Manson (architect of the Union Hotel) [Records of the Common Hall, 17 March 1817]. The new jail was to be built at about the same time as the opening of the new Court House or City Hall on Shockoe Hill, but in the end the city decided to join with the county to build a new jail at the county court house [Records of the Common Hall, 17 March and 6 May 1818].
 

Prison Bounds of 1830, showing where trusted prisoners were allowed to go, including Monumental and First Baptist churches (Ruggles report)

 After the city had annexed the land west of the creek in 1810, the common hall authorized an extension of Marshall and Clay streets through the existing, irregular lots, including the land belonging to the corporation on which the magazine lately stoodand the land of John Adams, commonly called Fleishers Garden[Common Hall, 18 May 1812 and 20 July 1812.  At the same time, a newly created 15th Street was created to run north and south though the section. It seems that Shockoe Creek had already been straightened and pushed to the east to permit this new land to be opened for development.  As a result, the eastern edge of the land belonging to the corporation, which would have corresponded to the curving bed of the creek, was straightened and the size of the tract reduced.

 

Roughly aligned composite map illustrating the discussion. Shows current
conditions overlaid on the Mijacah Bates map of 1835.The burial ground, wherever it was placed on the public land, could have projected to the east as far out as the curves of the old bed of Shockoe Creek permitted. North is to the top.

 

Richmonds new City Jail occupied a terrace that comprised the entire southern section of the citys property, about an acre in size. The commission advertised for bids and awarded the contract for the jail to Curtis Carter, who completed it in the early months of 1830 [Common Hall Minutes, 14 July 1828]. The only alterations to the contract were the need to remove earth from the uphill side of the Jailors Lodgeand the paving of the yard within the walls of the jail and the jailors lodge. Jeffrey Ruggles introduced the testimony of Ernest Walthall, who wrote an unusual memoir in 1908 called Hidden Things Brought to Light. 


 

In talking about cemeteries Walthall states, In digging foundation for old city jail there were signs of a burial place, and the bones were so large they were classed giants.The jail was built in 1830, and Walthall was not born until 1848, so this is a story he heard from others.
 
Walthalls account probably understates how many bones were found. Old City Jail was located on Marshall Street, just west of 15th. There was much digging when the jail was built. During the 1820s and 30s, as Richmond became more urban, a number of terracing projects were undertaken on the slopes of Council Chamber Hill and Shockoe Hill to create lots for development. One was for the jail. The site preparation required that part of the hillside be dug away for the structure, and then more excavation carved out a jail yard. On the west line of the jail lot a tall stone wall held back the hillside, then the wall turned and went a ways east on the south line of the lot [Jeffrey Ruggles, “The Burial Ground: an early African-American site in Richmond: Notes on its history and location,2009].

New Uses for the Public Land

On 18 June, 1810 sundry persons of colourpetitioned the Common Hall for new ground for a graveyard. The request was delegated to a committee to prepare a report. The Common Hall received the report and granted the request several months later [19 Oct. 1812]. It doesnt appear that any action was taken until 1816, when the city established a new Negro Burying Ground (later shown as Potters Field) in a location near the Almshouse and what became Shockoe Cemetery.  An inadequate and delayed response to the petition of 1810, the new burying ground included separate areas set aside for free blacks and slaves [Minutes of the Common Hall, Richmond, Vol. 5, p. 23 ; Richmond Enquirer, 22 Feb. 1816, cited in Jeffrey Ruggles, Burial Ground, 2009]. The venue for public executions moved along with the new Burial Ground in 1816.  Later, a new powder magazine was built nearby, completing what seems to have been a full recreation of the earlier site.

All across the nation, African Americans of all conditions were forced indiscriminately into potters fields,the traditional name for a graveyard for outsiders and paupers, together with indigents and criminals. Pressing for improved burial conditions was one of the first ways in which African Americans attempted to give an independent voice to their political aspirations [Archaeological Investigations of the Mother Bethel Burying Ground http://www.phila.gov/ParksandRecreation/PDF/Bethel%20Burying%20Ground%20Appendices.pdf]. In Richmond, free blacks followed a pattern familiar to other cities, when they used their only avenue for redress and asked the Common Hall to provide a dignified place for burial.

The building of the Lancastrian School in 1816 and the selection of the tract as the site for a new jail coincides precisely with the establishment of the new Negro Burying Ground. There is no record of what happened to the remains of those buried in the burying ground. If their remains were mostly confined to the area of the jail and school, then they were either deposited with the fill that was removed or perhaps moved to the new pottersfield. This seems to expand on Christopher McPhersons prediction in 1810 that, since many graves are on private property adjoining, [they are] liable to be taken up and thrown away, whenever the ground is wanted by its owners, (this is owing, either to confined space, or want of knowledge of what was public ground).

A group of six free blacks had made a similar request of the Philadelphia government to consider establishing a burying ground separate from the common potters field as early as 1782. As many as a dozen of these burying grounds have been identified in Philadelphia, most of which were ignored by later development. The abandonment of potters fields without relocation of the graves was widespread in densely settled cities. With no advocate able to defend their memories, only a few were exhumed and reburied.

The new land was no more suitable for burial than the former: a contemporary account by Frederick Law Olmstead describes its location along a crumbling bankand its graves ascending in irregular terraces up the hill-side[Olmstead, Cotton Kingdom, 1861, quoted in Veronica A. Davis, Here I lay my Burden Down: A History of the Black Cemeteries of Richmond, Virginia (Richmond: Dietz Press, 2012)].
 
 






Paths to Tradtional Architecture

$
0
0
We were pleased to find ourselves in company with some of our favorite architects, urbanists, and craftsmen this month, with the publication the month of an excellent set of profiles in Traditional Building Magazine. The article, compiled by architect Paul A. Ranogajec, details in brief the professional trajectories of a number of classical practitioners across the country. Here is the entry we submitted- we encourage you to read the others to see the variety of ways designers have rediscovered and revived aspects of the traditional and classical city.



Richmond, Virginia's City Docks: Antebellum Gateway to the City's Commerce

$
0
0

Richmond's City Docks, completed between 1816 and 1819, were a significant feat of engineering that provided the city with a large body of quiet water unaffected by tides, high water, and most storms, and that was accessible by ocean-going boats.
This important civic improvement helped Richmond maintain its place as one of the world's sources of fine flour and tobacco. Both were renowned for their quality and shipped around the world. Part of the City Docks still survive near the Great Ship Lock Park along the route of the present-day Kanawha Canal tour boats.



The Old Dock at Liverpool (1709-1715), shown in 1723, protected from the tides by wooden gates, was built to the designs of engineer Thomas Steers. It was the first commercial dock [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Dock].
A dock in contemporary British use was an enclosed area of water created by enclosing a natural tidal pool or stream mouth with an embankment or by excavation. When the level of water was controlled, it permitted quicker turn-around of cargo and dramatically increased the potential volume of trade.  Such docks had  first appeared in Britain with the opening of Thomas Steers Dock (the Old Dock) in Liverpool in 1715. This dock, key to the citys commercial success, was the world's first commercial wet dock, It was provided with gates at the entrance to keep the water level  and protect ships as they were loaded and unloaded. The dock was surrounded by warehouses and could hold as many as 100 ships.



Detail of 1738 plan of Town Dock, Boston, Mass., Boston Public Library.
The idea caught on in the colonies. Boston, Massachusetts had a Town Dockprovided with a wharf next to the market as early as 1738, created by partially enclosing an inset known as Bendells Cove.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Hull#   Maps showing the Old Dock in the city of Hull (1774) and later interconnected docks opening off the River Humber.

West India Docks: this engraving was published as Plate 92 of Microcosm of London (1810). It shows one side of one of the three large docks, lined with ships and five-story warehouses [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_India_Docks].
In 1773, the Corporation of the City of Hull and city merchants organized the "Dock Company" on the east coast of England. An act of Parliament gave the Hull organization authority to raise capital, making it the earliest dock company in Britain permitted by statute. Soon after, Georgian London and other British ports were marked by the expansion of docks, many of which  were surrounded with walls to prevent theft of goods.


The Richmond Dock Company

As Richmonds position as a center for manufacturing and trade improved in late eighteenth century, conditions for shipping and warehousing goods remained primitive. At early eighteenth-century Richmond, a miniscule port in comparison to Boston, small boats had long been accommodated at the well-known Rock Landing, located on the upstream side of Shockoe Creek just below the falls. Boats probably also could land behind the shelter of Chapel Island in the old channel of Shockoe Creek, which was reserved for the use of citizens as the commons of the city.The principal deep-water port was at Rocketts, immediately downstream from the city.

 

The Byrd Plat of 1737 shows Shockoe Creek (the narrow creek to the left of the town) flowing parallel to Cary Street, following the channel that would later be enclosed and edged with a stone embankment to form the City Dock of Richmond.

 


Youngs Map of Richmond, 1809. The map shows the mouth of Shockoe Creek near the west end of Chapel Island at the Rock Landing, the highest point where boats could land in the period before the construction of the City Dock. Here, boats were loaded with tobacco from William Byrds warehouses, located on the west side of the creek, beginning in the 1720s. The 1737 section of the city seen above is to the right side of this image.
Richmonds smooth functioning as a port was foremost in the mind of the Virginia General Assembly when it adjusted and expanded the rules governing the trustees of the town in 1773. The first duty of the trustees was to meet as often as they shall think necessary for appointing a public quay, and such places upon the river for public landings as they shall think most convenient, and if the same shall be necessary, shall direct the making of wharfs and cranes at such public landings for the public use[An Act, to establish and enlarge the power of the trustees of the town of Richmond, in the county of Henrico, and for other purposes. March, 1773, Ch. 6, 8 Stat. Lar. 65.5.] 


In 1780, the same patterns held: access to the Rock Landing, referred to variously as the Shockoe,upper,or WarehouseLanding, much obstructed of late by freshes, and by the natural course of Shockoe Creek being altered  by banks of sand which, if not quickly removed, may render the navigation to the upper landing uselessfor the profit of both the citizens of the town and the agricultural producers of the back country, was to be reopened by a company authorized to raise private investment for that purpose [An Act, for locating the Publick Squares, to enlarge the Town of Richmond, and for other purposes. May, 1780]. After the opening of the James River Canal in 1790 expanding the potential for shipping through the city, the limitations of the arrangements for loading the produce directly onto ships became increasingly apparent.

John Williamson, Part of plan of the city of Richmond embracing lots in basin of James River Canal and adjoining lots, 1793. Board of Public Works, Library of Virginia. This shows alternate paths for the canal to the new basin below Shockoe Hill and the steep outfall, not long before it was utilized as a power source by the Haxall Mills.
 The James River Company, chartered in 1785, ensured that tobacco, iron, coal, wheat, stone, lumber, and pork from the plantations to the west could be brought by boat directly into the heart of the city at the Great Basin. The canal permitted direct transport around the Falls of the James River for the special cargo boats called "batteaux". All produce that was brought around the falls was unloaded here and placed in warehouses, from which it could be taken by wagon through the city to the wharves downstream where larger ships could be tied up.

Addition of a great canal basin in 1793-95 had not only provided a location for shipping warehouses and wharves, but also supplied water to what would soon become a series of huge merchant flour and lumber mills, beginning with the opening of the massive Haxall Flour Mills in 1798. These produced fine white flour transported around the world as a result of an increase in wheat production in competition with tobacco in the areas west of Richmond.    


In 1816, flush economic conditions at the close of the war with Great Britain encouraged the city to consider improving access by sea-going ships, most of which at this time anchored just downstream at the city seagoing port of Rockets. Direct transfer by water of the citys flour and tobacco products could only be assured by the creation of an artificial harbor or wet dock.

In the European tradition of building sheltered docks to foster water transport, the Virginia Legislature passed a bill in 1816 permitting James River to be cleared from Rocketts as far asMayos Bridge, and to admit boats into Shockoe Creek and as high in the river as Haxalls Mills [Christian 93]. At this time Ariel Cooley, a canal builder from Springfield, Massachusetts, who had been involved in developing navigation along the the Schulkyll in Philadelphia, was engaged to make locks between the basin and the river. According to Samuel Mordecai, he underestimated the power of the water that he set loose to open a channel to the river and the 13 rubble stone and wooden locks and gates for which he was paid $49,000 were so poorly made that they were sealed shut. New stone locks were opened in 1854 [Mordecai, Richmond in Bygone Days, 1856, 235-6].

The Richmond Dock Company opened its books to investors that same year, 1816, a year of great economic excitement in the city. The citys Common Hall purchased 1,000 shares in the company at a cost of fifty dollars per share. The dock appears to have been completed by 1819. Although the original vision of the James River Canal had been to link the canal terminus at the basin between Eighth and Eleventh Streets with the tidal river and the sea, this was not accomplished right away. The north-south streets of the city were extended south to the docks and a row of new squares laid out on the former city common, suitable for the construction of warehouses on the edge of the wharf. These were named for local and national figures such as Byrd, Washington, Franklin, Carrington, and Henry.

 

 
Detail, Plan of the Richmond Docks and James River from Rocketts to Warwick, 1818, Virginia Board of Public Works, Library of Virginia. The design for the new city dock is at the top and the port of Rockets at the bottom.  Mayos Bridge can be seen crossing the basin on its way to the south. Shockoe Creek appears to run under the basin and 18th Street passes over it.  The lower lock is parallel with 24th Street. North is to the right. The plan varies somewhat from what was built.
The new City Dock was laid out by an expert in canal construction who was personally familiar with the latest developments in British dock design. It was designed by the Board of Public WorksPrincipal Civil Engineer Loammi Baldwin, Jr. (1780-1838). Baldwin was the son of Loammi Baldwin (1744-1807), an important early figure in American civil engineering and especially canal building. He designed and built the Middlesex Canal in Massachusetts between 1794 and 1803. Loammi Baldwin, Jr. assisted his father with the Middlesex Canal and soon after 1807 traveled to England to view public projects. He was active in Virginia between 1817 and 1820. The plan seen here was prepared by Baldwin in 1818 for the Board of Public Works shows the dock before construction began.  The dock consisted of two basins fed by a feederfrom upstream and a canal to the south that entered the river by a series of locks. The was created by placing earthen embankments around the former route of Shockoe Creek on the north side of a strip of land known as Chapel Island, but originally connected at it west end to the north bank of the river.  Three basins, Upper, Middle, and Lower, were extended to the east and west with canals connecting to the Haxall Mill race above and the James River Below. A great deal of fill was required to extend the main dock basins out into the river in front of the old Rock Landing.
 
 

 
Youngs Map of c 1817 showing the proposed canal locks (at bottom center left) connecting the Upper, Middle, and Lower Basins of the City Dock (seen at left) with the Haxall Mill Canal, bringing water into the docks and permitting access to the flour production of the citys principal mill. The old (curved) and new (straight) paths of Shockoe Creek are both shown.

This proposed design for a new, larger dock between Mayos Island and the existing dock involves adding a new locks [one is shown at right]. The drawing documents the existing City Dock, the locks leading to the Canal Basin, and Mayos Bridge (and its bridge over the canal) in detail. North is to the bottom.  [Survey of the James river between the dock and the island, Virginia Board of Public Works,1829, Library of Virginia]. North is to the bottom of the drawing.

Detail of the City Dock as built showing how Shockoe Creek entered directly into the dock basin (bottom center) but was provided with a spillway on the opposite side for overflow during high water. [Survey of the James river between the dock and the island, Virginia Board of Public Works,1829, Library of Virginia].
The James River and Kanawha Company
The state assumed control of the James River Company in 1820. The James River and Kanawha Company, organized in 1835 to connect the trans-Appalachian West with the Chesapeake Bay by means of a canal, took control of the canal above the falls at Richmond. The canal was extended to Lynchburg in 1840 and the Valley of Virginia in 1851.  The canal scheme was under constant pressure to expand the access for both shipping and water power below the falls. The Virginia Board of Public Works undertook a study for another unexecuted enlargement of the docks in 1836 to accommodate as many as 120 ships in a great new dock beside Mayos Bridge. This dock, protected by an earthen wall, was kept filled by ponding the entire river behind a dam that extended across the river parallel to 16th Street. A wide ship canal led from the south side of the pond to enter the river at Warwick, where the river allowed passage for ships of greater size. The plan for a ship canal was never executed.

The canal was enlarged in several stages, from an average initial depth of 3 1/2 feet and width of 40 feet. The canal as far as Lynchburg and including the portion running through the city, was expanded in the late 1830s to five feet in depth and fifty feet in width. Water management and sufficient supply remained a contentious factor between the canal company and the manufacturers who leased the rights [Michael Raber et al., Historical and Archeaological Assessment, TredegarIron Works Site, Richmond Virginia, report for the Valentine Museum and Ethyl Corp, 1992].



 Detail, Map and Profile of a Ship Canal from Richmond to Warwick Being the Proposed Plan for the Connexion of the James River and Kanawha Improvement with Tide Water, 1841.  Virginia Board of Public Works. Library of Virginia.
In1841,the canal company purchased the Richmond Dock Companys property. New plans drawn up in 1841 called for a new canal to run from the arsenal along a new embankment at the river edge, bypassing the old basin and suggesting that the north side of the river would be extended farenough to the south to encompass Mayos Island.  This was never executed.


Map of Part of the City of Richmond showing the James River and Kanawha Canal, 1841, Board of Public Works, Library of Virginia. A proposed route for a branch of the canal is through Mayos Island.    
Instead, the canal company improved and enlarged the city dock to accommodate larger ships by 1845. The ship canal was lengthened and the lowest lock moved east to 26th Street. From 1849 to 1851, the dock was greatly enlarged, five granite locks replaced the old wooden locks in a line paralleling Canal Street up the steep hill to the Great Basin of the canal (the fourth and fifth survive in place). Turning basins were added between 9th and 14th streets; the Great Ship Lock was built further east of the dock, in line with 28th Street, between 1850 and 1854. The new facilities greatly improved transportation to and from the city.  Between 1855 and 1860, the Richmond Dock Company reported that the number of vessels leaving the dock increased from 1,377 to 2,337, including packets for New York, Boston, and Baltimore.

Mijacah BatesMap shows the form of a portion of the City Dock in 1835., including the entry lock next to 26th Street. Comparison with earlier maps indicates that the original ship canal ended in a lock at 23rd Street, where the canal widens. This map makes it clear that the canal was lengthened and the ship lock rebuilt between the initial construction and the rebuilding about 1850 (see below).


 
Map showing the fully developed City Dock complex of pools, locks, drawbridges, and basins just before the Civil War [Adams, I.H. Map of the City of Richmond, Virginia, 1858, published 1864].
As part of the new design, Shockoe Creek can be seen to pass in a culvert beneath the canal. The former site of the Rock Landing is where the Gas Works is shown. At about this time, the area at the north end of Chapel Island as far as the mouth of Shockoe Creek was expanded into the river. It incorporated a small island called Mayo Island and Toll House Island on the Board of Public Works plans of 1818 and 1829, as well as the riverside ground occupied by the Vauxhall pleasure garden. The edge of the reclaimed land was protected by a substantial granite embankment and housed the Richmond and Danville Railroad yard and terminal.


New warehouses were built into the bank beside the renovated stone wharf of the City Dock, beginning in the mid-1840s, to receive goods and produce. In particular, a series of fourteen large brick warehouses was built between the dock and Cary Street, just as in other urban docks, by a private investor, John Enders, for lease or resale to others. The three that were used for the famous Libby Prison were at one end of the long block, most of which burned soon after they were built. Enders and Gen. J.B. Harvie were active in the building of the dock. Other warehouses and tobacco factories were constructed on nearby blocks, which was transformed into an industrial district. When, after 1880, the train replaced the canal along the north bank of the river, the industrial tissue was renewed on a larger scale with the long row of tobacco factories filling the squares between Main and Cary Street.

Libby Prison (one of Enders Warehouses) and the City Dock from Benson J. Lossing. Harpers Encyclopedia of the United States, vol. 7, 1912.

Detail, A. Hoen and Co, City of Richmond, Virginia from Manchester ,1876. A range of boats in various positions are seen behind the embankment of the City Dock. The gap towards the right is the outflow of Shockoe Creek during periods of high rainfall [Valentine Museum].

Enders Warehouses in the City Dock after the Civil War.

This view from Harpers Magazine in 1863, shows the dramatic slowdown in traffic during the war years. Mayos Bridge and the mills are seen in the distance.
 

Another view of boats pulled up at the wide wharf along the north side of the City Dock also shows the line of warehouses to the north and the vast mill structures to the immediate west [Richmond Quay, London Illustrated News 1862].

The Virginia Steam Sugar Refinery was opened at 17th and Dock Street on the City Dock in 1860. Boats, both steam- and sail-powered, are seen taking on cargo in this advertising card published many years later in a city paper, c. 1938.

Detail, Beers Map of Richmond, 1876. Mayos Warehouse is seen here next to the railroad depot.

The City Dock in the late nineteenth century, showing a sea-going ship and the revolving bridge that carried 17th Street over the canal [City on the James, 1893].




This illustration shows the opposite end of the 17th Street bridge and the railroad depot that was built on added fill between the river and the dock. It permitted the ready movement of goods between ships and trains [City on the James, 1893].
With the closure of the canal in 1878, the City Dock was acquired by the Richmond and Alleghany Railroad. The railroad later sold it to the William R. Trigg Company, which developed a ship-building industry along the south side of the dock on Chapel Island. The Trigg Compnay specialized in the building of boats for industry and of torpedo boats and destroyers for the government, which they launched from the side into the canal. The company employed two thousand workers and occupied as much as a mile of the ship canal. After the death of William R. Trigg in 1902, with three boats under contract, the business failed and the company went into receivership. The city acquired the dock facilities east of Seventeenth Street in 1912, built new warehouses, and attempted unsuccessfully to re-establish the city as a major port [Mordecai, John Brooke in Richmond, Capital of Virginia, 1938, 274-275, 283-284].  



View on board deck of USS Dale while bring outfitted at Trigg Shipyard, 1902 [Naval Historical Center]. The three-masted schooner John S. Beacham is on the other side of Dale. They appear to be located below the Great Ship Lock.



Launching of a destroyer at the Trigg Shipyards [VCU Library]. The launching of the USS Shubrick in 1899 brought President William McKinley to Richmond.



Richmond Theater Part One- "An Edifice Devoted to the Tragic and Comic Muses:" the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

$
0
0

 
The old Theatre near the Capital’…was so far old, that the walls were well browned by time, and the shutters to the windows of a pleasant neutral tint between rust and dust coloredWithin, the play-house presented a somewhat more attractive appearance. There was box,’ ‘pit,and gallery,as in our day; and the relative prices were arranged in much the same manner.
                                John Esten Cooke, 1854






Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, London, 1813



Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, London,

 

 Like the temple and the palace, the ancient building type known as the theater is, in the most general sense, where the community gathers to remember the great deeds of the past and to imagine the future. From the Renaissance to the early twentieth century theatres incorporated tightly curving plans and raked stages derived from what was known of the ancient theaters of the Greeks and Romans. This tight arrangement allowed each theater-goer present not only to enjoy the spectacle of an opera or play, but to participate in the collective experience of a gathered company. The Renaissance interpreted the form and content of classical drama in ways that continue to affect theater design today, basing their work on surviving texts and the accessible physical fabric of actual theaters.

The theaters of the continental Renaissance had no exteriors presence, since they served the court and were located within the princely palace. As drama became democratized in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the theater emerged from the palace to take its place as a civic building, equipped for this role with the elements of the classical orders.

On the interior, the intention was not to produce a realistic illusion, but instead, through sumptuous music and art to transform and inform the vision of an entire community. American theaters by the mid-nineteenth-century were well equipped, spacious, and architecturally sophisticated. Never simply a place of amusement, theater managers followed a conventional program incorporating in the same evening popular entertainment and dramatic works that stimulated the moral imagination. In order to take its place in the civic order, the theater was given a prominent location and a high level of architectural finish, often including a fully articulated architectural order.

Background

Most American theaters in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, like their European models, were urban buildings in which the height of the stage and auditorium were concealed behind a classical streetfront. While stages tended to be very deep, they did not have tall fly lofts. Lobbies were often minimal in size and scale. Demands associated with the development of the dramatic art and the expansion of building amenities caused a gradual bloating of the structure housing the theater, which continues to this day. The nineteenth-century impulse to present theaters and other buildings as singular temple-form structures became problematic as the secondary features of the theater form, such as the fly loft and lobby, expanded.

The interiors of many of the nation’s most sophisticated nineteenth-century theatres were inspired by Londons Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. This famous building, as rebuilt in 1812, utilized the baroque horseshoe theater or opera house plan, with several tiers of boxes and sloping seats arranged in a horseshoe shape around a central floor or pit.


St. Charles Theater, New Orleans of 1843 shows the familiar form derived from the Theatre Royal, Drury lane.

Theater in Early Virginia

The first documented theater in British North America stood on the east side of the Palace Green in Williamsburg. It was built between 1716 and 1718 and was used for amateur and student plays until it was sold to serve as a city court building. It was replaced by a new structure just beyond the eastern end of town in 1751. This new theater was built for the Murray-Kean Company, a troop of actors whose first performance in Williamsburg was of Shakespeares Richard III. A new group of actors, probably the first professional theater troop in the colonies, arrived in Williamsburg in 1752. The London Company of Comedians, managed by Lewis Hallam, arrived in the colony and purchased and improved Williamsburg's theater building. After a season of plays, including the Merchant of Venice and the Anatomist, or Sham Doctor, the troop departed. Soon after the theater was seized to satisfy Hallams debts and converted into a house. The troop returned under different management in 1760 and built a new theater, used sporadically by the London Company and others over the following twelve years. The theater or playhousebecame a popular social center and was patronized by colonial leaders like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.  There is no evidence that the theater was used after 1772 and by 1780 it had been demolished.

Archeology at the site of the 1752 theater shows it to have been an earthfast frame structure measuring about 72 feet in length and 44 feet in width and built of posts spaced about eight feet apart. Traces of a brick foundation at the west end indicated some sort of brick entrance. A large excavation at the center, bounded by a low brick wall near the center of the building, would have been the pit  which held much of the theaters audience. The stage took up approximately half of the theaters volume,

 

According to Lisa E. Fischer, whose "Douglass-Hallam Theater: Excavation of an Eighteenth-Century Playhouse," produced for Colonial Williamsburg, documented the early theater,
These itinerant companies developed a touring circuit and, whenever possible, presented their plays in actual theater buildings, sometimes even constructing their own prior to their first scheduled performances in a city. Typical Colonial theaters were relatively large structures, measuring at least 70′x30′, and resembled provincial theaters found in England at the time. The interior of the theater would have exhibited a large stage area on one end, possibly taking up as much as half of the building. An unusual characteristic of eighteenth-century stages was that they were commonly lined with a set of iron spikes designed to discourage audience members from getting onto the stage to disrupt the performance. The seating within the theater was divided into three sections. In front of the stage, sunk below the ground would have been the pit, crammed with benches. The most expensive seating was in the boxes around the sides and back of the theater. The cheapest seating was in the gallery located around the theater above the boxes. . . .An evening at the theater in the eighteenth century would have consisted of two plays, a longer opening play and a shorter and lighter concluding one, and possibly several entractes.                                   
Virginians were never long without access to theatrical performances.  A single thread of theatrical endeavor was nearly continuous with the colonys urban history, beginning in 1718 and corresponding closely to the annual gathering of leaders associated with the legislative function. Theater was, however, temporarily discouraged by the authorities as frivolous during the Revolutionary War.

Theater in Early and Antebellum Richmond

The capital was moved to Richmond in 1779.  Clearly, one of the essential urban building types that moved with the capital to Richmond was the theater, direct heir of its predecessors in Williamsburg. Indeed, the second act of the Common Councilof the newly formed City of Richmond at its meeting on July 3, 1782 was to require that Mr. Ryan, the theatre manager, account for the number of performances since the last settlementand pay the required tax. The first theater building for which there is a record stood on Main Street near the market. This old theaterwas mentioned in 1788 [Christian, 1912]. A large frame school building was built in 1785 on the Academy Square, in Turpins Additionon the eastern slope of Shockoe Hill. After the academy failed to prosper, the building, known as the New Theatre,was leased to Hallam and Henry, a successor to the English company that had previously put on plays in Williamsburg.  According to early historian Samuel Mordecai, Hallam and Henry converted the Academy into a theater, "and here the tragic and the comic muses first bestowed their tears and smiles — in an edifice devoted to them — on a Richmond audience."The BeggarsOpera was performed in 1787.  This building served for theatrical purposes until it burned in 1802.



The Academy (Theater) Building shown at the letter "P" on the Young Map of 1809.

This diagram of a 1788 English theater (The Theatre Royal in Richmond, Yorkshire)
shows the typical relationships between stage, boxes, and pit seating in a provincial theater of the period [Richard Leacock, Development of the English Playhouse. Methuen, 1973]. Trap doors provided entries for supernatural effects and tracks in the floor permit the sliding of set panels into place.

In 1798, Benjamin Henry Latrobe prepared a design for a ground-breaking theater/hotel to replace the academy building at this key nodal location where the main route (Broad Street) turned to descend the hill. The plan was never executed. Had it been built, it would have represented a new and unique building type, but it still employed a pit, boxes, and a gallery as seen in the section below.

Latrobe's extraordinary drawing of the disorderly state of the Green Rom at the Richmond Theatre in 1798


Section through Latrobe's Theater
 
After 1802, plays were performed in the hall over the market house and in Quarriers Coach-shopat Cary and Seventh streets until a new brick theater was built in the rear of the Academy or Theater Squarein 1806. It was this three-story building that burned, with terrible loss of life, in 1811 and was memorialized by the construction of Monumental Church on the site.


 
Engraving of the Richmond Theater Fire. The theater is depicted as a three-story building with windows in the front area. A central door is apparently flanked by doors to the upper floors, while windows in the body of the building are few. The building to the rear (the west front of First Baptist Church) is shown inaccurately, so the drawing cannot be treated as completely reliable, but the form is similar to theaters from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
 
According to several accounts, Richmonders abandoned theatrical endeavors for a time after the disastrous 1811 fire. A new theater was built in 1818 on the southeastern corner of Seventh and Broad on Shockoe Hill. In 1838, it was remodeled and named after Chief Justice John Marshall [Kathryn Fuller-Seeley, Celebrate Richmond Theater (Richmond: The Dietz Press, 2002)]. An evening there was remembered by the editor of the Richmond Daily Dispatch. His description of the night provides clues to the form and fittings of the theater, which seems similar to that of the eighteenth-century examples mentioned earlier. A evening at the theater in 1820 included a performance of Virginius,followed by a farce called High Life Below Stairs.We believe we half exhausted our power of laughing that night; for we never have been able to laugh as we did then, from that time to this. We roared, we shouted, we screamed, we fairly danced in the box, until we attracted the attention of everybody in the house. We leant over, as though we were ready to jump into the pit [Daily Dispatch on 5 Jan 1862].

Management and funding for the theater were always a problem, but in spite of that Richmond saw about three hundred different plays, some repeatedly, in the years between 1819 and 1838, including fourteen of Shakespeare's. Twelve of these were written in Richmond [Agnes Bondurant, Poe's Richmond, 1942]. During this period Richmond was a major theatrical center, typical in its tastes and requirements to other cities up and down the eastern seaboard. 
 
The Marshall Theatre, of which no image survives, burned in 1862, likely as a result of arson. Losses included the valuable scenery, painted by the elder Grain, Getz, Heilge, and Italian artists employed by George Jones; all the wardrobe and "property," including some costly furniture and decorations; rich oil paintings and steel portraits of celebrated dramatists; manuscript plays, operas, and oratorios, all are involved in the common destruction. . . in addition to the whole stock wardrobe. . . [while] the orchestra lost between $300 and $400 in instruments and sheet music[Richmond Daily Dispatch, 6 Jan 1862]. The company and theater were managed by Gilbert. Junius Brutus Booth appeared there in 1821 in his first appearance on the America stage. The Marshall saw appearances by many of the great actors of the day, including Edwin Forrest, Charlotte Cushman, John Drew, and Joseph Jefferson, as well as Edwin and John Wilkes Booth.   
Although no image of either the interior or the exterior survives, it seems likely, based on examples in other cities, that the auditorium included, in addition to the central pit filled with benches, a proscenium flanked by classical columns, perhaps similar to the 1798 Park Theater in New York, seen below.


The Park Theatre in New York, built in 1798, occupied a stone structure.


Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9 Oct  1938

While there was enough business for only one theater for the city's first century-- from about 1782 until 1886, it was not the only assembly hall. At first, public events were held mostly in the Masons' Hall of 1787 or the Market Hall of 1794. As the nineteenth century progressed, other venues for shows, concerts, lectures, and meetings were built across the city, often on upper floors to serve a primary purpose as meeting rooms for various organizations. Corinthian Hall on Main Street was the site of Adelina Pattis concert in 1860. Odd Fellows Hall was used for public events from 1842 to 1858. Metropolitan Hall was opened in 1853 with the adaptation of the former First Presbyterian Church building of 1828 for secular audiences. It stood on the northeast corner of Fourteenth and Franklin streets. According to Mary Wingfield Scott, it was used for lectures, theatrical entertainments and political conventions, and later as a rather questionable variety-house.Mechanics' Hall included a lecture room in 1857 to assist young men learning the useful arts.  

Drama was important to the doomed, crowded Confederate capital city. The burned Marshall Theater was rebuilt as the Richmond or New Richmond Theater at the height of the Civil War, opening in 1863. It closed in 1896 [Christian 452], a tired and down-at-heel veteran of many scenes. It seems likely that the Richmond Theatre reused at least a portion of the walls of the Marshall, since few structures were built in the city in 1863. The Greek Revival elements of the building are, however, unlikely to have been features of the previous theatre, built in 1819. Other theatrical venues prospered as well during the years that Richmond served as the Confederate capital. According to one source, these more popular venues included the Metropolitan Hall, the Richmond Varieties, a bawdy precursor to vaudeville, and the Richmond Lyceum [Kathyrn Fuller-Seeley. Celebrate Richmond Theater (Richmond: The Dietz Press, 2002). 



 
Richmond Theatre seen on the 1876 Beers Map of Richmond.

The Richmond Theatre, which was about 160 feet deep (the size of a Richmond lot),  stood four stories tall. The regular windows on the front and west side do not give any clue of the varied rooms within (some windows on the west side may be false windows, but light was needed on the interior for work associated with preparing for the plays). Like most fully equipped theaters of the time, the Richmond Theater did not have a fly loft for raising sets above the stage.


 
Richmond Theater shortly before demolition in the 1890s.

As an important civic building, the Marshall Theater was given the full form of a temple. The building was detailed in the Greek “Tower of the Winds” Corinthian order with fluted three-quarter engaged columns on the inset front flanked by pilasters called “antae,” which continue along the west side separating every second window bay. The ornate Corinthian order was appropriate for a building used in the pleasurable festivities associated with drama. Entrance was through five openings in the first floor front, which was detailed to provide a basement to the temple front above.


The interior of the Richmond Theatre soon after the Civil War. The illustrator appears to have increased the dramatic value of the political meeting depicted by combining a view of the proscenium and boxes from the seats with a view of the auditorium from the stage.   http://richmondtheatres.tripod.com 

The images of the interior shows that it was similar to other antebellum American theaters and that it continued the tradition of a central pit surrounded by raised horseshoe seating. Like other theaters derived from English models such as the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, the angled boxes to either side to the stage were flanked by colossal fluted Corinthian columns.


 
Interior of the Richmond Theatre, 1890, Valentine Museum. The flats for the scenery can be seen behind the painted stage curtain. Before electricity, theaters needed windows for illumination when a play was actually not being staged.
The history of theater in Richmond did not end with the burning of a significant portion of the city, in fact the Richmond Theatre wasn't harmed at all and the plays continued. The late nineteenth century saw the further diversification of entertainment. Increased disposable income among the urban working class encouraged the breakdown of theatrical productions into high- and low-brow and the introduction of competition among a growing number of theaters, although entertainment in Richmond at all levels continued to have a decidedly "Southern" plot and cast of characters. 
 
This account is continued in Part Two.
 
 


Richmond Theater II- Diversification in New-South Richmond: 1870 to 1920

$
0
0
The principal venue for drama in the post-Civil War city, the Richmond Theatre, was augmented in the 1870s by the cheaply-built, tabernacle-shaped Mozart Hall. Academy of Music, which was designed for concerts and lectures. The low side walls supported a vaulted wood roof.   “A large audience has gathered for a discussion of the causes and treatment of yellow fever, which had swept through the South and Midwest the previous summer. Mozart Hall was a popular theater for entertainment as well as a gathering place for educational and political events” [Francis Simpson Blair entry, Encyclopedia of Virginia].Lily Langtry appeared here in “An Unequal Match” and the Christine Nilson, known as the “Swedish Nightingale,” gave a concert, as did Emma Abbot and her opera company.
 


 
Interior of first Mozart Hall from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 7 December 1878].
 In 1886 a new Mozart Academy of Music was built, which eclipsed the Richmond Theatre as a venue for drama as well as music. This new theater was located on Eighth Street between Grace and Franklin on the site of the former Federal Reserve Bank Building, now the Virginia Supreme Court Building. It had similar interior arrangements to previous theaters in Richmond, but, it seems likely, with one important distinction. After the emergence of variety shows, American theater divided firmly into several streams, ranging between high-brow and bawdy. Instead of accommodating the tastes of the entire theater-going population, as did the old Marshall and Richmond theaters, the Richmond Theatre and the Academy of Music kept the more serious or high-toned works and the place supplied by the old farces and musical entr’actes found new homes in specialized "variety," and later vaudeville, theaters.
Plan of the Academy of Music from the 1924-25 Sanborn Map.


Interior of the Academy of Music (from City on the James, 1893

 

 
Interior of the Academy of Music

At the same time, the audiences for conventional plays became more polite. Instead of a pit for the lowest paying customers overlooked by more expensive balcony seats, the pit was provided with comfortable seats and, transformed into the orchestra, became the most desirable part of the house. Otherwise theaters at the end of the nineteenth century retained a traditional horseshoe form and box seats surmounted by a "peanut gallery." 

After the closing of the Richmond Theatre in 1892, the Academy of Music became the city’s principal venue for concerts, opera, and “legitimate” theatre, as opposed to popular entertainment, although it was deployed for a wide variety of production types after the turn of the century, in the midst of increased competition from vaudeville and film. Until it burned in 1927, the Academy staged performances by the leading actors and actresses of the day, including Maude Adams, Henry Irving, John, Lionel, and Ethel Barrymore, Eva La Gallienne, Otis Skinner, and Katherine Cornell [Nadine Wilson Ward, “Music and the Theatre,” in Richmond, Capital of Virginia: Approaches to its History (Richmond VA: Whittet and Shepperson, 1938)].  

The development of variety theater in the 1850s and afterwards showed a demand for theatrical entertainment made up of short, separate acts of singers, comics, and dancers. Variety first made its appearance in Richmond during the Civil War. When the Marshall Theatre burned in 1862, the acting company met in the vacant Trinity Church on Franklin Street, which had been renamed the Richmond Varieties. Interest in the largely disreputable variety productions would later contribute to the spread of “polite vaudeville” as a popular form of entertainment that linked the antebellum world of theatre with the twentieth century motion picture phenomenon. 
Just as in the eighteenth-century, the small size of cities like Richmond precluded their developing a resident theater company. Richmond just another stop among the other growing cities and towns of the region. Local venues depended on interstate “circuits” or interstate companies to provide traveling shows and acts. According to one account, during the period “from 1886 until the [First] World War, every city of any size and quite a few smaller towns throughout the State boasted of their theaters. Richmond and Norfolk were week or half-week stands. Dramas, comedies, farces, musical comedies and minstrel shows of varying degrees of merit made regular tours through Virginia.” [Thomas C. Leonard. “The Theatre and Its History in Virginia: Rise of Drama in State Traced by Writer” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9 October 1938].
As many as six small variety theaters catered to Richmond’s theater-going population during the 1880s, including Barton’s Grand Opera House at Broad and Eighth, Thomson’s Musee Theatre in the 900 block of East Broad, the Casino Theatre nearby, and the Pavilion Theatre near Broad and First. Broad Street, as Richmond’s “Great White Way,” remained the center of the theatre business [Kathryn Fuller-Seeley, Celebrate Richmond Theater (Richmond: The Dietz Press 2002) 12]. These theaters, however, eventually failed, due to difficulties in procuring acts in the South, where audiences had little in common with humor and cultural expectations in the urban north.
Economic progress in Southern cities was hampered by historical factors involving transportation, social conservatism, racism, and lack of capital, among other problems.  Growing city populations like those in Richmond had no experience of widely available popular entertainment. Variety shows and motion pictures represent, to some historians, a principal way in which aspects of modernity were brought to the traditional Southern city. “The disparity between the venues‘ target audiences, the entertainment provided, atmosphere, and affordability was exceptional, and the absence of any moderate alternative kept many of Richmond‘s emerging middle class and new amusement seekers at home, starved for new outlets of entertainment. The Richmond Dispatch indicated that the city offered a theatrical drawing capacity of nearly 125,000 spectators, and other localities ―half the size of Richmond― supported [more than] two theaters” [Eric Dewberry 54].


 The former Barton Opera House, reopened by Jake Wells as the Bijou Theatre of 1899, from Richmond Virginia: The City on the James, Richmond Chamber of Commerce, 1902. This became the Colonial Theatre in 1905.
Vaudeville in Richmond
Jake Wells, a former baseball player with the backing of two partners, helped transform the way that Richmonders understood entertainment and how they made use of the theater. In 1899, he opened a large, architecturally distinctive new venue, billed as “the Bijou Family Theater,” in the former Barton Opera House and introduced “polite vaudeville” to the city. Elsewhere in the nation, vaudeville had been derived from earlier forms of showmanship like medicine shows and burlesque shows into a popular and well-developed entertainment industry. While variety tried for a foothold in Richmond, lack of infrastructure and capital investment in the South and the strength of its traditional culture, made it difficult to sustain this type of mass entertainment.

In the last decade of the nineteenth century, “boosters” of Richmond became aware a need for entertainment venues. At that time, there were only two significant theaters in the city, the high-toned Academy of Music and Putnam’s Theater, an “illegitimate burlesque house in the city’s ‘red light district.”
Jake  Wells
Jake Wells assisted, locally and regionally, through his business and organizational energy, to the transformation of Southern theatrical habits during the period when popular entertainment was changed from variety shows appealing mostly to adult males into programs that attracted families. Eric Dewberry, in his excellent dissertation based around the figure of Jake Wells, has cast much valuable light Richmond’s theatrical history, some of which is incorporated here [Eric Dewberry, “Jake Wells Enterprises and the Development of Urban Entertainments in the South, 1890-1925,” diss, Georgia State University, 2010].

The new Bijou Theatre of 1905 together with the Lubin Theatre of 1909 (later Regent, Isis, and Park) on Theatre Row.
In 1905, Wells, with significant financial backing, built a new Bijou, a large and architecturally significant theater. He also transformed the previous Bijou, located on the same block, into the Colonial, the city’s first theater to combine vaudeville and film. Unlike the older theater, the new Bijou presented a highly ornamented facade encrusted with shallow balconies, applied sculpture, and electric lights. For all of its naive details, it looked much more like the Jefferson Hotel of 1893― the city’s grandest exercise in academic classicism― than the dowdy Academy of Music Theater of 1882 or the much older Richmond Theater, by this time hoary with age.

Theaters advertised good ventilation, an asset in the humid Richmond climate. The circular openings across the tall frieze at the top of the Bijou’s facade were part of a convection exhaust design to remove heated air from the interior. Thanks to Jake Well’s championing of “clean entertainment,” the new Bijou and a few other vaudeville houses were given equal treatment with the Academy by theater reviewers and their advertisements mingled with those for plays and concerts at the Academy.

 
New Keith Theatre, Boston, 1893

Benjamin Franklin Keith, a small-time huckster who pioneered a clean version of variety in Boston in the 1880s and eventually, with his partner, Edward Franklin Albee, controlled the nation's top vaudeville acts by his death in 1910..

As the popularity and affordability of popular theatrical entertainment spread across the nation, increased capital became available for theater construction. Vaudeville theater owners were able to present a heightened level of seriousness to the public, rivaling that of conventional theaters and concert halls. The “founder” of respectable vaudeville, Benjamin Franklin Keith, opened the New Keith Theatre in Boston in 1894 to give new legitimacy to vaudeville performances. The theatre used the opulent styles of European opera houses to create a sense of vaudeville as spectacle. He employed marble, mural paintings, and gold leaf to transport the patron beyond the everyday experience of urban life.  These theaters still, however, resembled earlier American (and traditional European) houses in the use of a central floor― now furnished with seats and called the orchestra― surrounded by stacked galleries and boxes arranged in a horseshoe form. Richmond vaudeville theaters like the Empire and the Lyric were not as opulent as the New York houses, but managed to add comparable features such as decorative sculpture that would help raise the local profile of popular entertainment.  
The seating prices at vaudeville houses were lower than those at legitimate theaters and the range of prices was tighter, but there was still a hierarchy of seating. Vaudeville appears to have appealed to customers from a wide variety of income levels, with a special appeal to white-collar workers. The boxes and orchestra were the best places and the gallery or upper balcony held the cheapest seats and the most raucous patrons. At this time, in both Northern and Southern cities, the highest seats were reserved for African-Americans [M. Alison Kibler, Rank Ladies: Gender and Cultural Hierarchy in American Vaudeville (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina Press, 1999) 27-28].
Ticket prices for plays at the Academy of Music in Richmond were higher than for vaudeville, but varied with the fame of the performer. On 23 March 1899, the Academy reserved seats were $1 for a Lyceum lecture on “Manila and the Philippines. The Bijou, the Academy’s only competitor, was showing a number of vaudeville acts at a range between 15 cents and 50 cents. On Saturday January 5, 1905, Richard Mansfield in the title role in Beau Brummel commanded a wide range of ticket prices- from $3 in the orchestra to 50 cents in the gallery [while tickets to see Howard Kyle in “the Charming Poetic Drama, Mozart” on Friday ranged from 25 to 50 cents]. One the same day, Jake Wells’ Bijou was offering the “Scenic Melo-Drama, The Ninety and Nine, Introducing a Full-Size Locomotive in Flight Through a Forest of Fire,” presumably for a somewhat smaller admission scale [Richmond Times-Dispatch31 December 1905].
Film Challenges Vaudeville
The first movie theatre in the city was the Dixie, a nickelodeon at 300 E. Broad, which was opened in 1907 by entrepreneur and “Picture Queen” Amanda Thorpe. Affiliated with her at the beginning of cinema in Richmond was the young Walter J. Coulter, whose theater experience began in Charlottesville working for vaudeville  theater owner with F. W. Twyman [National Exhibitor 20 Dec. 1928]. Coulter went on from this modest background to develop increasingly important Richmond entertainment venues, including the Byrd Theatre (1928) and the well-known Tantilla Garden ballroom (1934). As many as twenty small theaters had joined the Dixie on Richmond streets within the next two years. In 1909, the same team opened the Rex Theatre on the NE corner of Broad and  Seventh streets [Dewberry 2010, 84].
Wells’ Bijou wasn’t the only film/vaudeville combination theater in town. Siegmund Lubin (1852-1923), an early film pioneer, equipment manufacturer, and distributor, opened the small Lubin Theatre in 1909. Its exuberant appearance was typical of the more than 100 theaters that made up his east coast theater chain. His theaters tended to have cheaply made but very elaborate facades with inexpensively produced sculpture, ornamented with extensive bands of electrical lights. The ornamental elements of these kinds of theaters could be ordered from catalogs. The Richmond Lubin featured a semi-circular pediment flanked by female forms and surmounted by a large head emitting rays of light. The theaters featured, besides live acts, films made by Lubin’s studio in Philadelphia and (often pirated) films of other emerging studios.  
In 1912, the Bijou and Lubin’s, featured acts (such as a comedy sketch or blackface act, a comic song or dance, and a juggler or funmaker”) interspersed with film shorts, could be seen by purchasing tickets ranging in price from 5 to 10 cents. Jake Well’s Colonial and Empire theaters charged 10 and 20 cents and offered five acts and films with several short films [Richmond TImes Dispatch 16 June 1912]. The Bijou, which charged 5 cents for all seats at evening shows, might be seen as a harbinger of the single-rate movie theaters to appear in the next decade.

From its base in Richmond, the Wells, Wilmer, and Vincent Corporation developed a large circuit of theaters across the South, emulating the success of powerful Northern vaudeville theatre barons. Most of their performers came via an agreement with the popular Keith-Albee vaudeville circuit. In spite of difficulties in obtaining high quality performers in the South, Wells became a force at the national level. The transition from live entertainment to film took years, but the development of the feature-length film in 1913-1914 hastened the change. In the words of Eric Dewberry, Wells’ theaters “paved the way for the 'picture palaces’s' emergence in the region- a signal that film had become the preeminent form of popular culture and applying a coup de grace to the dominance of live theater” [Dewberry, 2010, 80].

Empire Theatre (later Stand) exterior c. 1929 [Dementi]

Empire Theatre interior today [Virginia Rep]
 
Jake Wells was joined by other entrepreneurs looking for a profit from theatrical productions. The Empire Theatre of 1911 presented both legitimate theater and vaudeville, perhaps because the Academy of Music seemed out of date by this time. The Empire, opened by Moses Hoffheimer on West Broad, was the scene of appearances by well-known actors and companies. Contemporary advertisements show that it also featured film and vaudeville as early as 1912. Hoffheimer also opened a small motion picture theatre next door next door in 1912, called the Little Theatre [Library of Virginia, Richmond building permit files].
Like the Bijou, the Empire’s exterior, conceived as a triumphal arch executed in wood and stucco and flanked by winged figures, incorporated isolated classical details less as a considered design than as part of an applied advertising scheme. The pedimented window surrounds and the paired Composite columns supporting a pediment were outlined in electric lights bulbs. The interior was elegant, with a traditional horseshoe plan ornamented with Adamesque relief panels. The theater is said to have had an early air conditioning system supplied by blocks of ice, probably aided by the large circular ventilators seen open at the top of the house above the main cornice. The Empire closed and was reopened in 1915 under Jake Well’s control as the Strand Theatre, a vaudeville/film combination venue.
The construction and decoration of theaters for vaudeville and film was largely governed by commercial considerations. An article in Architecture and Building in May, 1911 detailed the design criteria for small and medium-sized motion picture and vaud-film houses. For the larger houses, heating and cooling should be provided by means of a “blower system of the plenum type.” This system, in which underfloor ducts exhausted the air through floor openings placed under the seats, was used in the Empire and in most theaters built thereafter. The writer advised that, “since the spectators will be passing in and out at all times,” the floor should not be stepped.” According to the author, “the exterior decorations are generally made very gaudy, in order to attract attention; and as a rule, this is one of the requirements fixed by the owners. . . and a highly ornamental proscenium is desirable.” Owners required brilliant exterior illumination, and the article recommended “outlining the mouldings with lights, spaced 8, 10, 0r 12 inches apart” just as at the Bijou, Lubin, and Empire. After WW I, as film increased its respectability as an art form, movie theater owners adopted more sober facades and more expensive and elaborate interior forms and decorations.
In 1908, Wells had entered into partnership with vaudeville promoters Sydney Wilmer and Walter Vincent.  By 1912, the Bijou, the adjacent Lubin’s Theater, the Empire, and the Colonial had become the city’s principal mixed “vaude-film” venues. During this period, however, Wells' dominance of the local scene made it possible for him use theaters interchangeably for stock theater, burlesque, and vaudeville, as he decided how he would respond to the changes in the larger entertainment industry. The resulting unpredictability produced some frustration. A local reviewer summed up the future of local theater at the end of the season of 1913-14:
It may, of course, be assumed that the Academy of Music [apparently closed] will be opened again in due time to road attractions of the higher class, but no other assumption may be relied upon with any degree of confidence. It is not certain which theatre will be occupied [next season] by Mr. Newing’s company [a stock company just ending a record-breaking run in the city]: probably the Bijou will again be its home, possibly the Colonial. If the Colonial is used as a stock house, in all probability the Lyric will offer popular vaudeville. If popular vaudeville is again presented at the Colonial, it is possible- not probable, but possible- that the Lyric will be utilized as the home of that artistic and elevating form of entertainment known as “burlesque.”  
If burlesque is not introduced, if popular vaudeville is shifted to the Lyric and the stock company is housed in the Colonial, what will be done with the Bijou? Nobody knows, except Jake and Otto Wells ad Mr. Neal, and they won’t tell [Richmond Times Dispatch 28 June, 1914].
Apparently, the stages of Richmond theaters were interchangeable. Burlesque was introduced by Wells at the Bijou later in 1914, and it caused a sensation. At the end of the run, Wells, weary of the complaints and investigations, was understood to have declared that it would not return. The Times Dispatch’s reviewer gave them a bitter send-off:
Gone will be the fearful dialect that formed the chief stock in trade of the men who formed triangle of slapstick comedians; departed will be the prima donna with the voice of a siren- a steam siren; no more will be seen the soubrette singer of adapted rags. And - woe! woe! - vanished from the groaning stage will be the sixteen maidens of the “beauty chorus” and all their bathing-girl and Salome costumes. Packed away in their little hand-bags will be their ball gowns, their fish-scale suits of armor and their red wigs; into their make-up boxes will go their gorgeous complexions, and hidden away in little chamois bags will blink unseen the near-glitter of their phony jewels. . . And the name of the Bijou shall be Ichabod, for its glory has nearly departed. [Richmond Times Dispatch 2 December 1914].
By 1915, Wells had converted most the theaters in his chain to strictly feature-film venues, where the newly developed multiple-reel film became the central item in the program that still included live music, either by an orchestra or a theater organ [Dewberry 2010, 113]. In 1916, his company controlled the Bijou, Isis (formerly the Lubin), Colonial, Strand (formerly the Empire), and Little theaters, all showing feature films, in addition to both the Lyric and the Academy of Music, which continued to show stage productions.


 
The Lyric Theatre, 1913.
Jake Wells constructed the Lyric Theatre in 1913 at 9th and Broad streets to serve as the main venue for the big-time variety acts controlled by the Keith-Albee vaudeville circuit. The architecturally undistinguished exterior made little attempt at monumental detailing, unlike like its predecessors the Richmond and Lyric theaters or its successors among the city’s motion picture palaces. It was concealed behind an office building built at the same time. The theatre and office section were both designed by architect Claude Howell. The interior was more lavish than the exterior and included a classic layout with two balconies wrapped around a central orchestra, box seats flanking an arched proscenium, and lavish applied ornament.



Grand Opening of the Lyric Theatre, 1913
At its opening on August 25, 1913, the Lyric featured a Keith vaudeville lineup of comedians, singers, blackface artists, trained dogs, and female acrobats.  The Lyric charged evening ticket prices ranging from 15 to 75 cents. The show included a film newsreel for the week, produced by Pathe News in England [Richmond Times Dispatch August 24, 1913].

Segregated Theaters

The first major theatre for black audiences in the nation was the Howard Theatre, built in Washington, DC in 1910. For Richmond, it appears likely that most theaters permitted African-Americans to be seated in balconies. Segregated seating was probably available at most Richmond theaters during the period leading up to the Civil War. The Amusement Theatre, under the direction of J. A. Allen, put on a minstrel show in the spring of 1853. Admission included Dress Circle (25c), Second Tier (12c), Centre Gallery (25c), Eastern Gallery (12c), and Colored Gallery (12c) [Daily Dispatch 3:197 (4 Junee 1853), p 3]. Slaves and free Blacks did attend plays at the Richmond Theatre of 1806, and probably sat in the gallery of the Richmond Theatre of 1863 after the Civil War. The Empire Theatre, built on the edge of the Jackson Ward neighborhood to house first-rate stage plays (although it was used for vaudeville as well from an early date), seated black patrons in the balcony after its opening in 1911.

Interestingly, the Empire (by this time known as the Strand) had been purchased by 1921 by a group of African Americans associated with Richmond Planet newspaper editor John Mitchell, Jr. for $113,000 in cash [Monroe N. Work, ed, The Negro Year Book: An Annual Encyclopedia of the Negro, 1919-1921. Tuskegee Institute, 1922]. Although they probably hoped to develop it as a black community resource, they leased it to Jake Wells chiefly as a venue for white audiences. Under Jake Wells’ management (as the Strand), the theater did hold some private events for the black community organizations to which whites were invited [Dewberry 2010, 192].

In the light of their purchasing power and pent-up demand for access to popular entertainment, white theatre developers were quick to provide separate theaters for African-Americans. The Second Street area evolved at the turn of the century into a segregated business district catering to the African-American population, sometimes called “the Harlem of the South.” Nickelodeons on Broad and Second Street catered to black patrons at an early date, and white theater-owners provided vaudeville and films for segregated audiences in several downtown and later suburban theaters.

According to movie theater pioneer Walter J. Coulter, he was responsible for relocating the city’s first nickelodeon, the Dixie, from its leased storefront accommodations to a new site on Broad Street at Brook Turnpike soon after 1909 [Richmond News Leader, Dec 22, 1928]. At its new location, the Dixie became “the oldest and best located colored vaudeville and picture house in the city” [Richmond Times Dispatch 1 Aug 1913].

Amanda Thorpe, in association with Walter Coulter, built the Hippodrome Theatre on Second Street in 1914, which featured both vaudevillle and motion pictures. It appears to have been built to replace the Dixie as the flagship theater catering to Richmond’s African-American population, since Walter Coulter advertised the Dixie, a “colored vaudeville and picture theatre. . . now running and making money,” for sale at the same time that they were building the Hippodrome [Richmond Times Dispatch 1 Aug 1913]. The Hippodrome, for which the plans were drawn by Fisher and Rabenstein, Architects, featured a handsome pedimented facade. It was a major stop for popular entertainers such as Billie Holliday, Duke Ellington, Ray Charles, and Louis Armstrong.


The Hippodrome in 1959
The  Hippodrome was purchased, along with the Dixie, from Coulter (who had acquired full ownership) by Charles A. Somma in about 1918. He operated it until 1937 as part a local chain of African-American theaters. The Globe, which operated on Second Street from 1909 to 1955, was another important stop on the black vaudeville circuit. Somma owned several other theaters, including the Rayo and Fifth Street theaters and the Casino Theatre in South Richmond. Coulter and Somma went into business as the Bluebird Theatre Company after 1918 [The National Exhibitor, December 20, 1928]. Films and acts were booked by the Coulter-Somma Circuit, for which Somma arranged the productions at four Richmond theaters- the Brookland, Byrd, Hippodrome, and Globe [Yearbook of Motion Pictures, 1935].
The Hippodrome today (1914, rebuilt 1947)

The city’s practice of racial segregation was reinforced in 1926 by the Virginia Public Assemblages Act, which required the “separation of white and colored persons at public halls, theaters, opera houses, motion picture shows, and places of public entertainment and public assemblages.” By that time, few theaters in Richmond were permitting mixed race audiences in any form.

The Empire -Strand Theatre reborn as the Booker T Theatre in 1933.

As movies took over from vaudeville, the Strand Theatre, which had been damaged by fire in 1927, reopened in 1933 as the Booker T. It was operated as a movie house for African-American audiences by the Lichtman organization, District Theatres, Inc., based in Washington DC. The Little Theatre next door was reopened in 1936 by Lichtman as the Maggie Walker Theatre. By the late 1930s, Lichtman which operated at least four movie houses in downtown Richmond, including the Booker T., the Walker, the Robinson, and the Hippodrome [Edward F. Sinnott, Jr.papers, Virginia Historical Society].
 
 
 
 



Richmond Theater- Part III- Vaudeville to Cinema- 1920-1940

$
0
0
This is the final part of a three-part overview of theater and theater architecture in Richmond. Part One can be found here and Part Two can be found here.

The “motion picture palace” has its roots in the vaudeville palaces that preceded it by as much as  two decades. Both the Colonial (1919) and National (1920) were more architecturally significant and luxuriously furnished than any earlier theaters in the city.
 
 





Colonial Theatre, Library of Virginia. The unusual curved ceiling of the lobby is
caused by the tiered seating extending overhead.

The interiors of each were treated with spare, restrained, Neo-classical forms. The Colonial was designed for Wells, Wilmer, and Vincent by Richmond architects Carneal and Johnson. An astylar facade covered with diapered stonework was topped by an Ionic cornice. A central bay held a tall blind loggia. The Colonial had no balcony but tiered seating that rose to the rear. Box seat on the sides were surmounted by Adamesque panels and the ceiling was given an elegant geometrical form and a shallow saucer dome to correspond. The Colonial and the National incorporated sophisticated use concealed lighting and other “effects.” The National had colored lights that could be combined to create dramatic interior shading [NR form]. 
Both the Colonial and the National differ from the design of earlier theaters in the city. Designed for use with film, they no longer exhibit the horseshoe shape typical of earlier buildings. Provision of a single, deep balcony without columns supports and extending over the lobby gave a less restricted view of the stage and better visibility and acoustics from each seat. Marble stairs gave dignity to the balcony seating. The provision of nearby theaters for the use of the African-American population and increased regulation meant that many of the new theaters were not designed with segregated entrances and seating areas.
 

The Bluebird, 1917 (the Grand
Theatre after 1933).
The pioneering “motion picture queen” Amanda Thorpe, together with W. P. Kline and Walter Coulter built a modest movie theater at 620 E. Broad Street in 1917. Coulter eventually purchased this theater, called the Bluebird, from his partners along with its sister Bluebird Theatre in Petersburg. The Bluebird specialized in first-run western films for many years [Richmond News Leader, Dec 22, 1928]. Like the Bluebird Theatre in Petersburg, this modest film theater, as seen in an historic photograph, looks like a reworked storefront. It originally had a large electric sign depicting a bluebird opening and shutting its wings.  Since there are no building permit documents preserved for this theater, details are sketchy. Coulter sold a half interest in both Bluebirds to Charles Somma and the two formed the Bluebird Theatre Company. Coulter and Somma were planning more costly investments to come, such as the Brookland and the Byrd. 

At the same time that vaudeville and film were developing side by side, theatre design, construction, and decoration became codified and even industrialized in step with the architectural era known as “the American Renaissance.” New approaches to engineering, fabrication, and assembly made possible the huge spans, complex details, advanced mechanical, electrical, and projection equipment, and “gangs” of decorative craftsmen who could bring a palace to a life in very short order. Theaters in large cities like New York and Chicago set the tone for smaller towns. The provision of “dry” modern cooling (instead of passing air over blocks of ice used at Richmond’s National Theatre in 1922 ), developed by the Carrier Engineering Corporation, was pioneered at the Rivoli Theatre in New York in 1925. Like the Rivoli (1917) and other earlier palatial theaters designed by New York architectural impresario Thomas W. Lamb, the National has restrained, elegant Neo-classical interiors, rather than the ornate Baroque interiors that he popularized in the mid- to late 1920s.



The National Theatre, built on the site of the Rex in 1923.
The National was designed by Richmond-based architect Claude K. Howell, who had previously designed a number of theaters across the South in connection with the chain of vaudeville and film theaters supplied by the Keith-Albee circuit, including Jake Well’s Lyric. It was developed by owners John Pryor and Frank Ferrandini in connection with the highly respected First National vaudeville and film circuit. The 1,300-seat National was generously planned and lavishly decorated. The deep-bracketed eaves of the “Italian Renaissance” facade sheltered terra cotta figural bas reliefs. The lobby, decorated with Adamesque reliefs, had a circular opening giving views of a second-floor dome. The building included a billiard parlor in the basement and a nursery theatrical office on the second floor. The auditorium has a flat, Adamesque form with a pilaster order surmounted by a frieze of bas relief panels. Three arcaded box seats symmetrically flank the elliptically arched proscenium. The flat ceiling carried on beams and supports a small oval dome. 

A key figure in the creation of Richmond’s many theaters, Ferrucio Legnaioli executed the decorative plasterwork for most of them. Legnaioli came to Virginia to execute ceiling designs of McKim Mead and White in Garret Hall at the University of Virginia. His work brought to life the designs of the Empire (1911), the Lyric (1913), the Colonial (1920), the National (1922), the Capitol (1926), and the Byrd (1928).
 
As the film industry developed, Southern theater magnate Jake Wells was squeezed by new distribution networks and the studio system. Although he sold thirty of his theaters to a national chain in 1919, he managed to keep chain theaters out of Richmond entirely. With the help of his partners, Wilmer and Vincent, he purchased the National. By 1925, Wells controlled the programming at all of the major movie theaters in Richmond, including the National. Unable to keep up the quality of the films and accompaniment at the National and other theaters, Wells reputation as a promoter soured. Under pressure from the city’s merchants, and faced by the announcement in 1925 that Loews intended to build a major theater in Richmond, Wells sold all of his shares in the Richmond theaters to Wilmer and Vincent [Dewberry]. His theaters ended up as part of the Paramount chain.


Neighborhood Theaters






 
The Brookland Theatre, exterior and interior, 1924
In the mid-1920s, the focus of the major movie theater chains on the downtown movie patron meant that local theater developers saw opportunities in potential movie-going in the residential suburbs.  By this time, the increasing popularity of movies meant that many grand theaters, particularly those in suburban locations, were designed exclusively for film. Even as the Loews and Paramount chains made their appearance in downtown Richmond, the provision of theaters for Richmond’s suburbs remained a local concern. According to a contemporary article, Jake Well, who controlled the downtown theaters, “hesitated and yielded to protests not to establish a motion picture house in the residential section in which the Brookland was built. Four suburban theaters were built in the 1920s.


In 1924, Walter J. Coulter and a new partner, Charles A. Somma, left behind Broad Street and vaudeville entirely. Their firm, the Bluebird Theatre Company, built the 574-seat Brookland Theatre, the city’s first neighborhood “movie palace,” in the streetcar suburb of Brookland Park. The small, but elegantly appointed theater was equipped with a Wurlitzer theater organ played by virtuoso Carl Rond, who would move to the greatest of the neighborhood venues, the Byrd Theatre, four years later. As the possibility of talking pictures became a reality, movie theaters were quick to adapt by adding sound systems. The theatre organ, needed to accompany silent films, would recede in importance, but a few, notably at the Loew’s and Byrd theaters, remained in use for concerts between the shows.


The Capitol Theatre, built in the city’s West End in 1926. I
nterior (above) and exterior (below)




A smaller, but no less elegant theater with a resident organist was built in 1926 across from Broad Street Station where it could serve the nearby residential sections along Monument Avenue and adjacent streets. It took the form of the city’s first atmospheric theater, which simulated the appearance of an outdoor courtyard. The exterior, designed by Richmond architects Carneal and Johnson for Neighborhood Theaters Inc., headed by Morton G. Thalhimer, was one of the most elegant sole-purpose movie houses in the city.  It showed the city’s first talkie movie [http://richmondtheatres.tripod.com].

 

The Venus Theatre, Hull Street, Manchester, 1926
 
The Venus Theatre (834 seats) was commissioned by Amanda Thorpe from Fred Bishop, who had designed the Brookland earlier for her previous associate, Walter Coulter and his partner, Charles Somma.  The Venus made motion pictures easily accessible to southsiders who lived nearby or along the streetcar line that passed through Manchester. The Venus had a expensive stone facade befitting a civic institution as much as a commercial establishment, lending moral seriousness to the daily matinee shows.




Loew’s Theatre, 1928, exterior above, and interior below

Richmond’s Loew’s Theatre, part of the Loew’s chain associated with MGM, was also built in 1928. It represented the first inroad of that theatre chain in the city. It was designed for theatre magnate by John Eberson as a representative of a new type of motion picture palace in which he specialized, the atmospheric theater, which simulated an exotic outdoor setting. The atmospheric theater, designed to represent an exotic courtyard in Italy or Spain, represents the perfection of the movie theatre as a new theater type breaking with the past. Air conditioned and lit by artificial stars, the artfully aged stucco walls and irregular skyline transported the viewer directly into an illusory stage set, supporting and extending the intimate physicality of the film image.  A massive theatre organ provided accompaniment to films until the advent of sound and continued in use for concerts between shows until c 1970.   



 
Mosque Theatre, 1926, Exterior at top and interior below

A few years earlier, in 1926, the massive 4,600-seat Mosque Theatre was introduced in the West End. It was built as a performing arts venue containing in a hotel/convention center by the Acca Temple Shrine and was designed by Marcellus Wright,Sr. in association with Charles M. Robinson and Charles C. Robinson. The theater was built in a Moorish or Middle Eastern style with elaborate murals, a large dome, and Moorish grille work. Also equipped with a Wurlitzer organ, the building began by showing movies on a regular schedule, but this did not continue for very many years.  Acquired by the city in 1940, the Mosque (now the Altria Theatre) served as Richmond’s principal municipal auditorium for many years, housing the city’s ballet, symphony, and opera performances.


Byrd Theatre 1928, exterior (above) and interior (below)
Just as talking pictures were introduced, the Byrd Theatre was opened as an architecturally elaborate film-only venue in the city’s West End in 1928 by the partnership of Coulter and Somma. It took its decorative program from European opera houses of the previous century, but as translated by big-city vaudeville and movie houses of previous years, like the vast Chicago Theatre, built in 1921 to the designs of  architects Rapp and Rapp in the “Neo-Baroque French Revival style” with elaborate mural paintings or the 5,000-seat Roxy Theatre in New York conceived by film producer Herbert Lubin, Chicago architect Walter W. Ahlschlager, and decorator Harold Rambusch and completed in 1927. 


Behind its restrained “Empire” facade, the Byrd’s interior was intended to astonish Richmonders accustomed to the cool Neo-classicism of the city’s principal theaters. Most viewers responded positively to the lavish lobby and auditorium: “from the moment of entering the lobby, wainscotted with Grecian marble in tones of brown and buff, with its bronze doors and stair railings, it unusually well-executed frescoes and its beautiful crystal fixtures, one is impressed with the feeling of luxury the promoters of this enterprise have tried to provide- not costliness merely, but beauty, comfort and refinement” [Helen De Motte, “At the Theatres: New Byrd is Place of Beauty,” Dec. 25, 1928].

Byrd Theatre Lobby
Like the Brookland, Coulter and Soma’s earlier effort in Brookland Park, the Byrd was designed by Richmond architect Fred Bishop. When it was built the Byrd Theatre was intended to impress. The architect emulated the best of French Empire theaters, seen through the reality of American commercial theatrical entrepreneurship. Because of the fully developed construction industries and decorative techniques that had evolved over the previous decades, Coulter and Somma were able to achieve an architecturally unified building that embodied the complexity, if not the delicacy, of its European models.

In a move seen at the time as similar in significance to the $1.8m sale of Jake Wells Richmond theaters sale in 1926, Coulter announced just before the opening of the Byrd that he had purchased Somma’s interest in the Byrd, the Bluebird, the Brookland, and another theater in Petersburg for more than $1m [“Local Theatre Sale Involves over $1,000,000: Coulter buys Sommas Interest in Richmond and Petersburg houses,” Richmond News-Leader, Dec. 22, 1928].

Large new theaters were built for many years after the financial crash of 1929. The first four neighborhood theaters were followed by at least eight more around the city in the 1930s. These include the Bellevue and Ginter theatres across from each other in Northside, the Robinson in the East End named for movie star Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, the East End Theatre on 25th Street, the Westhampton on Grove, the Westover in Forest Hills, the Carillon on Cary Street, the Lennox in Fulton (built in 1909 as the Star and rebuilt as the Lennox in 1948), and the Henrico in Highland Springs.  Many of these incorporated the new architectural detailing associated with modernism, particularly the modern or Art Deco forms.



Belleview Theatre, 1937



Ginter Theatre, 1937, closed 1939


 
The Robinson Theatre was built in 1937. The Moderne-
style building designed by Richmond architect,
Edward F. Sinnott served an African-American
community in Richmond's East End.

 

Henrico Theatre, Highland Springs, 1938

East End Theatre, 1938

 
Lee Theatre, West Grace Street, 1935

Westhampton Theatre, Grove Avenue, 1938

After the construction of the Byrd, Loew’s and the Mosque theaters on the eve of the Great Depression, there were no more grand, architecturally expressive theaters to take their place on the streets of Richmond. After the demolition of the Lyric in 1963, Richmond never built another stand-alone, purpose-built theater for stage plays and concerts. Instead, the city has relied on the rehabilitation of a small stock of existing, architecturally significant theaters that were built between 1910 and 1950 for stage plays, vaudeville and film. These fully functioning theaters include the Empire (Sara November Theatre), the National, the Mosque (Altria Theatre), Loewe’s (Carpenter Center), the Robinson Theatre (1937), the Henrico (1938), and the Hippodrome (1914/1945).
Post-War II theater and movie viewing became a much more personal experience. Architecture that prevented imaginative immersion in the program was avoided. The Virginia Museum Theatre (1955-2003) was an important venue, but it had no visible exterior and a purposely plain interior designed to draw maximum attention to the stage. The Richmond area has seen the creation of places for performance in other building types, such as rehabilitated taverns, department stores, and firehouses, or in shopping-mall movie houses. However, the grandest film theater of them all, the Byrd, has, from its suburban location, resisted alteration. It has adapted to changing practices in the film industry for 85 years without losing its focus on film, popular entertainment, and architectural and musical spectacle.  
  
 

 
 
 
 


  

The Richmond Almhouse and Hospital: Early Provisions for the Poor and Infirm

$
0
0

Virginia, like other jurisdictions operating under British-derived legal systems, had from an early date a locally-based system for caring for those who could not care for themselves. The church was allied with the state, not only for the inculcation of moral norms, but for the distribution of charity. The vestries of the church in Virginia inherited from English law the care of indigent or infirm adults or children within the local parish unit, which in Virginia corresponded generally to the county. Many of the poor were farmed out to private homes in return for a fee. By the second half of the eighteenth century, many parishes had established institutions known as almshouses, where those who had no resources were housed, fed, and given work to do as far as was practicable. These almshouses were descendants of the local workhouses established under the poor laws in Elizabethan England and under the charge of the church.

In 1785, Virginia's General Assembly, with the privatization of religion that followed separation from Britain, transferred responsibility for the poor to a new county-based secular body known as the overseers of the poor, but the system of care and its application remained intact. In most counties an almshouse, poorhouse, or poorfarm was set up at some point during the following century, in the charge of an official known as the superintendent of the poor.
 




 
City Poor and Work House carefully placed just outside city limits on
Youngs Map of 1809 (top center). Detail of the Poorhouse from the same map below.



The City Poorhouse (before 1809)

The city of Richmond does not appear to have had an almshouse before the end of the eighteenth century. The city purchased 28 1/2 acres near the north end of Third Street in 1799. Five years later the council built an almshouse, or poorhouseappropriately located on the edge of town. Youngs Map of 1809 shows that it was carefully placed in alignment with the outside of the city limits. The Virginia Mutual fire insurance policy of 1814 shows a remarkable building with domed cupola surmounted by the figure of a man with a sword. The three-story brick building was entered in the gable end. It was the largest building in the city, after the Capitol and the State Penitentiary (1800).

Four acres of the land was enclosed in 1820 to form the Shockoe Burial Ground, intended to replace St. Johns Churchyard as the citys official cemetery for whites. It had a section for indigent whites. This had been preceded by the free Negroes of the city, who had petitioned for a cemetery there in 1811, and the Jewish residents of the city two years later [Scott 1950, 285]. The new Negro Burying Ground, known as the Potters Field, was established in 1816 on sloping land above Bacons Quarter Branch. It was originally to be divided between free and slaves. Soon after, the gallows and powder magazine followed it from the old site and the burying ground became the gallows ground as well.





Richmond City Poorhouse, 1805 [Virginia Mutual Assurance Society policy 438, 1814].


Cities like Norfolk and Richmond took a strict position about
poor relief, springing from perceived realities associated with urban poverty. Unlike the rural parts of the state, Richmond's leadership tended to favor Whig ideas of government-funded schools and vigorous charities. During a period of remarkable prosperity due to Richmond's position as an industrial and transportation hub, the city fathers chose to invest a substantial sum in the construction of this up-to-date civic amenity. 

The Richmond Almshouse represents the practical outworking of a collective set of deeply embedded ideas of the importance of Christian charity and civic order with Enlightenment convictions about the importance of personal moral responsibility. The Richmond Almshouse might be best understood in its context in the traditional city rather than the motivations of contemporary secular public welfare.
   
As part of their pursuit of moral reform, the authorities at the Richmond Almshouse required adherence to rules and profitable use of time. The almshouse was referred to as aworkhouse, or House of correction for the safe keeping, employment, and reformation for the idle and dissolute,” and frankly modeled its operation on the new State Penitentiary, designed to transform and not merely punish its inmates.


Two rooms on the fourth floor of the Almshouse were set aside as "solitary rooms of confinement"for those who did not abide by the rulesof the institution, in keeping with the most progressive theories of moral improvement. These were to be provided with iron gratings of venetian blinds be placd on the outside of the building, so as to admit air, and partially to obstruct the light, preventing those within from amusing themselves with passing objects, and thereby induce them to exercise their minds on their former conduct, which may eventuate in their reformation. 
 
 
According to the regulations of the Richmond Almshouse, designed to improve the residentscharacters, the residents rose at dawn and reported to their assigned work. Residents were required to observethe order and quiet of the House during meals and visiting hours. Any sort of disorderly behaviourcould result in solitary confinement with reduced food, lashings, or expulsion [James D. Watkinson, Rogues, Vagabonds, and Fit Objects: The Treatment of the Poor in Antebellum Virginia,Virginia Calvacade, Winter 2000].

Robert Greenhow, president of the Richmond Overseers of the Poor, described the boards duties in 1820: The trust imposed on us is, indeed, an important one. We are the constituted almoners of the City; we are the nominated guardians, fiends, and protectors of the destitute and forlorn, the Widow & the Orphan, & we are invested with the power of administering to their necessities as . . . applicants for relief, in our opinion, deserve. He cautioned members of the board about the need for discretion in dispersing the citys charity: Thickly colored deceptive tales of woe, painting in dolorous terms the wants and deprivations of the solicitor, [which] your ears will be frequently assailed with and every means to excite your sympathy will be practiced. Fallacious too often have these have been proved to be. You must turn a deaf Ear to them; and proceed to investigate them.  

In 1834, the city passed an ordinance to reorganize the Overseers of the Poor, electing a Superintendent and appointing a physician manage and oversee treatments at the Poorhouse for the better government and employment of the poor committed to their care: Provided, that their annual expenditures shall in no case, exceed the annual appropriations made by the Council, for the support and maintenance of the Poor of the City of RIchmond. This law repealed the former Ordinance providing for the establishment of a Poorhouse, Workhouse, and House of Correction, for the City of Richmond,passed in 1842.


Richmond Almshouse and Shockoe Hill Burying Ground, 1865 [LOC]. The windows have been blown out by an explosion at the Powder Magazine. The view is from the City Hospital. The overgrown landscape of the Shockoe Hill Burying Ground is typical of cemeteries before the days of mowing machines.
 


Mid-twentieth century site plan from City Department of Public Works and National Register form. The main building is
seen at the lower right. The Colored Almshouse of 1909 (West Building) to the center left, appears as a reduced version of the main building.

The Richmond Almshouse

Social and health reform movements of the antebellum era bore fruit in this "prodigious" building designed by City Engineer Washington Gill, Jr. [NR form]. The city's Common Council authorized its construction in 1859 to serve the growing poor population of the city, both black and white. The new Richmond Almshouse, when completed in 1861, was one of the largest and best equipped in the state. The start of the Civil War meant that it wasn't fully complete for five years.

The war also caused a delay in the intended use of the building, which was, instead, used as Hospital #1 for wounded soldiers and later as a temporary home for the Virginia Military Institute. The massive brick building has survived to the present, unlike some other large masonry buildings from the period such as the Richmond Female Institute. 

The Italianate structure features a five-part plan, with a three-story central pavilion linked to similar end pavilions by two-story links, arch-headed windows, and plain pedimented fronts. The pedimented porches on each of the pavilions were probably intended from the first, but were not built until after the end of the war.

William Strickland, Blockley Almshouse of 1838, Philadelphia
The design of the building is not unlike that of the main building of the Blockley Almshouse in Philadelphia, designed by William Strickland and built in 1832.  The York County Pennsylvania Almshouse, built in 1859 to the designs of Edward Haviland, had a similar plan, not unlike his designs for a related building type, the hospital for the insane, such as the Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane of 1841. In each of these buildings, the wings were segregated by sex, as was probably the case at the Richmond Almshouse.

Isaac Holden, Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane, Philadelphia, 1841

The building was divided into male and female departments- the men in the west end and the women in the east, as can be seen in the 1877 map below [Beers Map]. Wards were located in the narrow hyphens between the pavilions [NR form]. These were accessed by open galleries ranging across the back of the building on each floor. Stairs rose in each of the three pavilions. An original ell at the eastern (women's) end of the almshouse housed a charity hospital operated for the benefit of the poor and for the training of students at the Medical College of Virginia. A similar wing of early date is offset from the west corner of the building. A similar early wing offset at the west (men's) end may have served a similar purpose. High brick walls, no longer extant, enclosed exercise yards at the rear of the building.

The Almshouse today seen from Shockoe Burial Ground
The Almshouse was used as General Hospital #1 during most of the Civil War. Towards the end it was rented  to the students and faculty of Virginia Military Institute. After the the end of the war it reverted to use as a poorhouse operated by the union forces. It was damaged by a serious explosion in April of 1865:

THE CITY MAGAZINE. - To the curious, the site of the late city magazine will repay a visit. It will be recollected the magazine was blown up by the Confederates just before sunrise on the morning of the 3d instant - eleven inmates of the city almshouse and one old colored man living on 2d street being killed by the explosion, and thousands of panes of glass in the city smashed by the concussion. We have no means of ascertaining the quantity of powder in the magazine at the time it was blown up, but presume it must have been several tons. 
                               Richmond Whig, 27 April 1865.
 
An account in 1899 describes the almshouse as a handsome three-story building on a commanding site in rear of the Shockoe Cemetery.The property devoted to the purposes of the colored almshouse is situated at the northern terminus of Fourth Street, and was purchased by the city shortly after the restoration of the city government atthe close of the war[Robert R. Nuchols, A History of the Gov. of the City of Richmond and a Sketch, 1899]. As late as 1980, the Almshouse was seen as the largest and most impressive such facility in the state [NR form]. 


City Hospital, 1865 [LOC]. The windows have been blown out by an explosion at the adjacent
Powder Magazine. The white paint on the lower floor was used to help see escaping prisoners
from the city's Confederate prisons. This building, built before 1848, became the city's Colored
Almshouse after the Civil War. It was demolished at some point after the patients were removed to
a new facility next to the main almshouse building in 1908.
City Hospital

The city did not have any sort of permanent facility for the care of persons suffering from serious or contagious illnesses until well into the nineteenth century. However, a smallpox outbreak in 1793 caused the city to set up a pesthousefor the care of persons with contagious diseases. A private house was obtained well away from other dwellings, where inoculations were also available [Records of the Common Hall, 14 Dec. 1793].

A report made to a worried Virginia Senate in January of 1828 indicated that, although there were no reported cases of smallpox with the actual city limits, the Almshouse had seen eleven cases. Each of these had been transferred under guard to a "City Hospital," then located away from settled areas "in a secluded location two miles from the Capitol." The location of this hospital has not been uncovered. 


 
Richmond City Poorhouse of 1805 and City Hospital on the Adams 1858 Map
 
By 1848, when it first shows up on a map of the city, a large brick building called the City Hospital occupied a spot on Fourth Street facing Shockoe Cemetery (McGuire in Richmond, Capitol of Virginia, 1938]. This hospital was likely built to care for those suffering from infectious diseases, in particular the often deadly disease of smallpox. Albert Snead, physician at the hospital, noted that there were four cases of smallpox there in 1854 [Wyndham B. Blanton, Medicine in Virginia in the Nineteenth Century. Richmond VA: Garrett and Massie, 1933].

Richmond. like much of the country suffered from regularly recurring outbreaks and epidemics of smallpox (in spite of the availability of inoculations by 1800 severe outbreaks occurred in 1835-6, 1855-56, 1863, and 1873), influenza (1807, 1815, 1844, 1899), and cholera (first appeared in 1832, later outbreaks in 1849, and 1854). The state enacted a strict law in 1819 imposing quarantines. In 1831 the state authorized localities to set up smallpox hospitals and remove patients to them.  A city ordinance of 1841 To provide for the removal of persons infected with the  Small Pox, and other dangerous, contagious diseases, and for other purposesdirected that persons with smallpox were to be removed to the City Hospital until he or she shall have gone through the distemperor pay ten dollars per day.

By 1866, the city had acquired a farm north of the City in Henrico County for the purposes of growing food for the citys jail and almshouse. At some point, this remote spot on Horse Swamp Creek behind present-day John Marshall High School) became the site of the hospital for infectious diseases, known as the "Pest House."

A frame house was built at the City Farm about 1905 to accommodate white smallpox patients and the keeper's family. An older house was used for the African-American patients. Those of either race who died were buried in an adjoining cemetery. A terrible smallpox epidemic in Raleigh NC affected African-American students who attended Shaw University in that city. The Times Dispatch of March 29, 1905 indicated that "the last student from Shaw University, colored, was released from the smallpox pest house yesterday evening and the quarantine that has been maintained against the Institution for the past two months has been raised. Altogether there were ten of the students affected by the disease. There are still thirteen smallpox patients at the pest-house, all negroes."

The older building had fallen down by 1916, and the black and white patients were housed together in the ca. 1905 building By 1939, the smallpox and infectious diseases were handled as unit of the Pine Camp Tuberculosis Hospital, established on the City Farm in 1910 [City of Richmond, Virginia, Annual Report (1916) p. 311 cited in Pine Camp Tuberculosis Hospital National Register Nomination].
 
Colored Almshouse or West Building today

The old City Hospital on Fourth Street was converted after the Civil War into the citys first Colored Almshouse, the white and black paupers now being fully segregated for the first time. In 1908, probably as a result of reforms advocated by the new State Board of Corrections and Charities, Richmond's city council authorized the construction of a new "Colored Almshouse" for the city's poor black residents. This two-story brick building, now known as the West Building, was built to the immediate west of the main building of the Richmond Almshouse. The old City Hospital building was demolished.


Beers Map of 1877 showing Shockoe Cemetery and the two Almshouses.
 The City Home
By the early twentieth century it was evident to reformers that the traditional almshouse was inadequate to house the numbers of needy in many communities and was too frequently subject to fiscal abuse and physical neglect. In 1908, members of a newly established Virginia Board of Charities and Corrections found 108 county and city almshouses in operation in Virginia. The progressive movement in the early twentieth century resulted from a reattribution of the causes of poverty and illness from immorality and uncleanliness to lack of opportunity and poor living conditions. Emphasis shifted from private charity to organized public relief and concern grew over the abuses, duplication of efforts, and inefficiency of the nation's organizations of assistance. State governments became aware of increased responsibilities to the poor, the "feebleminded," and the insane [Walter L. Trattner,From Poor Laws to Welfare State: A History of Welfare in America (New York: Free Press and London: Collier Macmillan, 1974) 179-190].

A State Conference of Charities and Corrections was organized in 1900. At its third meeting in 1903 several advocates of social service reform addressed the conference, which undertook to promote a new central state authority like those already established in other states [Arthur W. James, Virginias Social Awakening: The Contribution of Dr. Mastin and the Board of Charities and Correctons (Richmond, VA: Garrett and Massie, 1939) 2-3].
As a result of the conferences recommendations,the Board of Charities and Corrections was established in 1908 to provide limited guidance to the many public institutions that had multiplied since the Civil War. After the establishment of the Board of Charities and Corrections, a survey was prepared of the unsafe and unsanitary conditions in many of the state's almshouses. Thirty-three of the smaller institutions were closed during the following decade, but the larger almshouses continued to operate, often with what were seen by contemporary critics as unsatisfactory physical facilities, ineffective management, poor living conditions, and bad dietary standards. In 1918 the Board of Charities and Corrections convinced the legislature to enact a law providing for the consolidation of almshouses into district homes operated by groups of neighboring counties and cities [Arthur W. James, The Public Welfare Function of Government in Virginia (Richmond, Va: Division of Purchase and Printing, 1934) 7, 10-16, 63-64].
In the second quarter of the twentieth century, rural almshouse managers were encouraged by the State Board of Public Welfare (successor to the Board of Chanties and Corrections and now known as the Department of Social Services) to segregate the inmates by sex and race. While contemporary social welfare theory inherited from earlier thought a sense of poverty's being rooted in moral failure, there was a new, pseudo-scientificemphasis among professionals in the social welfare community on genetics. Eugenics, a self-proclaimed science of population control, sought to prevent "incurable, hereditary insane, feebleminded, and epileptic" individuals from reproducing, through institutionalization or sterilization. In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly passed the Virginia Sterilization Act, which codified this practice. By 1939, more than three thousand persons had been involuntarily sterilized at state hospitals [Robert H. Kirkwood,Fit Surroundings: District Homes Replace County Almshouses. (Richmond, VA: Department of Public Welfare of Virginia, 1948) 172].
 
in its first report of 1909, the new State Board of Charities and Corrections described the Richmond Almshouse in favorable terms. Religious services were held several times a week. Those residents who were fit assisted in domestic duties in the building. Some amusements, including visits to the city, were provided to the resident paupers. These privileges were withdrawn when resident failed to obey the rules. The committee recommended strongly that the sexes be separated and dining rooms be provided for both men and women. The plumbing and other amenities were impressive, with electricity, steam heart, and indoor plumbing. 

On January 1, 1910, there were 300 persons in the Richmond Almshouse (including the Colored Almshouse), of which 197 were male, 103 female. Of these, 131 were black. During the year, 1,288 persons were admitted, of which 342 were male, 446 were female. Of these 702 were black. 232 patients died during the year [Paupers in Almshouse, 1910, US Census Bureau].

In the early twentieth century, the City Almshouse was renamed the Richmond City Home, probably to mitigate its reputation as a place of last resort. A one-story infirmary was added at the end of the east wing in 1926 which housed tubercular patients. The open rear galleries were replaced with enclosed brick and concrete porches in 1956.

When the tuberculosis hospital at Pine Camp was no longer needed, after penicillin had proved to cure tuberculosis, the city considered closing either the City Home (Almshouse) or the camp. The decision was made in 1956 to close Pine Camp and transfer the remaining patients to the City Home. Richmond's Almshouse, later known as the Richmond City Home, continued to operate as an almshouse until 1980, when it was closed by the city. It was later repurposed as a privately operated home for low-income residents known today as the Shockoe Hill Apartments. An addition across the rear of the building enclosed the concrete gallery, which is now visible only against the rear wings.

The west wing of the Almshouse from the northeast showing the enclosed concrete gallery along the inner face of the courtyard at the rear.

 
 
 

 





Richmond's Westwood Tract- background information for a nighborhood under assault

$
0
0

T


The 34-acre Westwood Tract has been a valuable civic amenity in the Sherwood Park, Laburnum Park, and Ginter Park neighborhoods. The Union Theological Seminary acquired it from 1901 to 1906 for purposes of future expansion. As the character of residential seminary's changed over time, Union Seminary developed the edges of the tract by building several apartment buildings for the use of married local and international students. They also added faculty residences, a group of residences for missionaries on furlough, a maintenance facility, tennis courts, and athletic fields.
A current plan for the development of 301 residential units on 15 acres on the eastern side of the tract has proved to be very controversial. It packs in too many dwelling units and takes too little account of the existing patterns of the surrounding blocks. Instead, the new development employs a conventional program with central parking surrounded by massive blocks of apartments built of wood, clad with both brick veneer and synthetic siding, and featuring awkwardly designed porches, out-of-scale windows, and offset gables. The way that the development is organized purely to maximize numbers and obscures the front of the historic farmhouse at the heart of the Westwood Tract. Part of the remaining areas will be leased to Shalom Farms which will use it as an urban vegetable garden.   
Plan of the proposed development by the Timmons Group.
 
The bloated designs of Humphey and partners of Dallas, Texas, make no attempt to rise to the high architectural level of its surroundings- the City of Richmond and the National Register listed streetcar suburbs of Laburnum Park and Ginter Park. Instead, it resembles anonymous roadside developments found along commercial strips all around the county.
 
Not least among the features of the tract is the old farmhouse at its heart. The historic house known as the McGuire Cottage has a complex and interesting history, which can be better understood by undertaking research in local institutions. Important facts that have a bearing on its value to the city and region have to do with its greater age compared with nearby buildings and its excellent state of preservation. Although it has sat empty for many years, there is little evidence of moisture-related damage or rot.  The most interesting take-away from our research is that the house took its current form well before its acquisition by Dr. Hunter Homes McGuire in 1887. Instead, the Italianate section facing east appears to have been added in the 1850s.

East front of Westwood (McGuire Cottage) [Style Weekly]
The property known as Westwood began as a 539-acre tract of land “in sight of Richmond” on the Brook Road north of the city.[1]It was acquired previous to 1790 by Dr. James Currie (1756-1805), a Scottish-born physician, who began his long career in Richmond in 1769 or 70. Mordecai in Richmond in Bygone Days says that “at the corner of Broad and Tenth streets opposite the First Presbyterian Church, resided Dr. Currie, a strong contrast to the gentle, kind and graceful physician last mentioned, but he had an extensive practice and accumulated a large fortune, which the other did not, because like many other physicians, he was more attentive to his practice than to his fees, and earned many which were not worth attention.”[2]


Overlay of the modern lot showing possible location of part of the Westwood property in relation to the 1768 Byrd lottery map of Richmond. Each of the lots is about 100 acres in size, so these lots represent about 350 acres, not the nearly 600 acres owned by Currie on the Brook Turnpike. Current Westwood tract shown in light red. The lots ae from the 1850 lawsuit and are numbered from the top, 3, 2, 1 and 8. Additional research could confirm what one deed indicates- that the Westwood tract may have extended to the east side of Brook Road as well.
The tract was similar to others that were owned by wealthy Richmonders who kept farms or villas on the edge of the city, where cool summers could be spent away from the bustle of the city, in addition to town houses on city lots.  Similar “villas” included 400-acre Mount Comfort, the eighteenth-century second home of Samuel DuVal in the area of the present-day Highland Park neighborhood, Col. John Mayo’s retreat at the Hermitage, near today’s Broad Street Station, and the second-quarter nineteenth-century Robinson family summer place of 159 acres in the area of today’s Virginia Museum.
Dr. Currie may well have built the one-story three-room house on a raised basement that survives as part of the Westwood Cottage. That structure, although much altered, shares features, including the floor plan, with other buildings in the Richmond and Petersburg areas that date from the later eighteenth century.  It is interesting that the house does not face towards the Brook Road, but to the south, probably because it predates the current location of the Brook Turnpike. According to the map shown above of William Byrd II’s lottery tracts, the original route of Brook Road (the old road which crossed Upham Brook north of the city) followed a winding path closer to modern-day Chamberlayne Avenue (in fact a section of the “Old Brook Road” still survives east of Chamberlayne Avenue and south of Azalea Avenue). Due to its value as a north-south transportation route, the Brook Road was incorporated as the state’s first turnpike in 1812. It was apparently rerouted at that time to the west of its original location and laid out along the straight line that separated two tiers of the Byrd lottery parcels. 
James Currie’s brother, William Currie came to Richmond from Scotland in 1795. William’s daughter Janetta came to the city two years later. At the death of James Currie without issue in 1805 and of William in 1807, Janetta and her husband Robert Gordon claimed his lands, which included, not only the Westwood tract, but shares in the James River Company, a share of the Dover Mines, and the “Eagle Tavern tenement” on Main Street between 11th and 12th streets.[3]Westwood first appeared on the tax rolls in the ownership of Robert Gordon in 1814.[4]
In 1826, Robert and Janetta Currie Gordon assigned a tract located on the west side of the Brook Turnpike (“now called the Richmond and Charlottesville Plank Road”) to their son Robert McCall Gordon. The elder Robert Gordon had lost part of the Currie estate which his wife had inherited. He honored her wish that the property should go to their son, Robert McCall Gordon by deeding him the Westwood property “on both sides of Brook Turnpike where they both reside.”[5] The arrangement was intended to benefit Robert and Janetta’s other children as well.  The heirs included Janetta M. Gordon, Isabella Gordon (who married James Hastie Brown in 1824), Catherine Flood McCall Gordon (married Nicholas Brown Seabrook in 1842), and Leila T. Gordon.[6]
In 1820, when the value of improvements was first included in the tax records of Virginia counties, the 539-acre Westwood tract included a building or buildings worth $750. This value could represent the three-room, one-story house that survives as part of the Westwood Cottage. In the following year the value of buildings increased to $1,000. In 1825, an additional $200 was added to make a total of $1,200. This value could well represent a substantial frame house like the original part of the house at Westwood combined with other outbuildings and barns. In 1837, Robert M. Gordon deeded what was described as the Westwood property to his siblings Janetta, Mary, and Catherine Gordon.[7]The value for buildings held steady until the mid-1840s, when it increased to $1,300. At the same time the property decreased in size by 4 acres.

Plat of [Some of] the Lots of the Westwood Tract, divided in 1850 by commissioners of the Henrico County Court. Drawn by Thomas M. Ladd. The Brown tract that contains todays Westwood tract is at the bottom of the plat.
Tax records show that the Westwood property was subject to an ownership dispute among members of the Gordon family.[8]The court ordered that is be surveyed and divided into lots. The lots were divided between Janetta, Mary, and Leila Gordon and several of their heirs. Some members of the Gordon family continued to live on a residue of the Westwood property for years. The 1860 census shows Lilias T. Gordon age 33 (b 1827) living in household with Janetta M Gordon, age 55 (b 1805) in the western subdivision of Henrico Co.

The Smith Map of Henrico County in 1853 shows J. Walker in residence at the location of Westwood Cottage, C. Allen near the location of Laburnum, and J [Janetta] Gordon on a small tract south of the farm of John Goddin, similar to the location of her Lot 3 on the 1843 Plat. Westwood apparently extended south from the Goddin place along both sides of Brook Turnpike. Old Brook Road leaves Brook Turnpike near the entrance to present-day Walton Avenue. The road that angles off to the east at the Toll Gate is today’s Ladies Mile Road and enters Brook Turnpike approximately where Brookland Park Boulevard is today. 
The remainder of the Westwood tract was also assigned to Gordon heirs. Other parcels had been sold or distributed as well, including lot 8, a 68-acre tract that was assigned to the Brown heirs.  John Stewart Walker acquired a large portion of the Westwood property in the early 1850s. He purchased the 68-acre Lot 8 from the heirs of Isabella Brown in 1850.[9]

The house on the Westwood tract in the late 19th century, during the occupancy of the McGuire family. The original house is seen at the rear behind the Italianate addition is to the right.
In 1855, Walker sold his 68-acre Westwood tract to Charles J. Meriwether, a veteran of Mexican War.[10]The land book for 1856 shows Walker with 279 acres at Westwood on Brook Turnpike with buildings valued at $1,000, and Charles J. Meriwether appears with 63 acres, also at Westwood, now with $3,000 in buildings. Walker clearly made the improvements that more than doubled the value of the Westwood Cottage and its support buildings from the assessment of $1,300 when the Gordons occupied it in 1850. The early 1850s is likely the period at which Westwood Cottage assumed its present form.

1867 Map of Richmond by Mickler, copied from Gilmer map of 1864. Meriwether is pencilled next to the Westwood Cottage on the map.
Capt. Charles James Meriwether (b Albemarle, 1832-1887 and married his cousin Ellen Douglas Meriwether) shows up in the collection of the Virginia Historical Society. He owned a slave family which he wished to sell to an acquaintance from Lunenburg Co. He wrote the letter from his farm “Westwood” in 1860.[11] The house and other buildings belonging to Meriwether at Westwood were still valued at $3,000 in 1862, the year in which he sold the parcel to Dr. William B. Pleasants, a Richmond dentist, in 1862. After Pleasants purchased that portion of the Westwood tract, the buildings remained valued at $3,000 from 1865-1872.
 

The modern Westwood 34-acre tract in pink with the associated lots outlined in blue from 1850 plat of the division of the Gordon lands overlaid on the 1867 Mickler Map and a 1964 planning map of the city.
In March 1887, Dr. Hunter Holmes McGuire purchased the Westwood tract from William S. Pleasants for $13,500. The tract was centered around the former Gordon home place with its Italianate addition. The nearby farm called “Sherwood” was owned from 1862-1873 by Wellington Goddin and contained 73 acres. Hunter McGuire died in 1900 and his widow sold the Westwood tract to an entity called the Westwood Land Company in the following year. The Sherwood farm was combined with the western half of McGuire’s land to create the suburban residential development called Sherwood Park. The remaining 34 acres was sold to the Union Theological Seminary 1907 as land for future growth.



[1]1814 Henrico Land Book.
[2] A deed for the Westwood property cannot be found- it may have been recorded in either the District or General Court, neither of which set of records exist today. Land along the stage road or Brook Road about 2 miles north of Richmond show up as early as 1790 [DB 3, 272]. The Henrico land tax records for 1799 show that Currie owned a 511-acre tract.  Land books for 1802 and 1803 show that Currie owned tracts of 571 acres, 181 acres (land on Meriwether’s Branch bought from William Miller in the preceding year), and 28 acres in Henrico County. The 571 acres probably represents the land that would become the Westwood Tract. He added an additional 500-acre tract in 1802-03, purchased from William Randolph.
[3]Henrico Deed Book 10, p 455. A legal case that grew out of the inheritance revolved around a determination whether or not William and Janetta could inherit- and if they actually were naturalized citizens- went all the way to the Supreme Court. Robert and Janetta Gordon won the case, which remains an important part of immigration case law.
[4] 1814 Henrico Land Book.
[5]Henrico Co DB 28, p 408.
[6] Marriages Performed 1815-1828, 1836-1842 at St. John's Church.
[7] Henrico County Land Book 1837.
[8] Gordon vs Gordon in 1844.
[9] Henrico Land Book 1850.
[10] Henrico DB 66, p 185.
[11] Letter at Virginia Historical Society.

Richmond's Mason's Hall

$
0
0

From The History of Mason's Hall, 1887
“The Masonic Hall deserves to be mentioned among the “ancient and honorable” edifices, though of comparatively of modern date. Its proportions are creditable to the architect, as its good preservation is to the brethren.”                                         Samuel Mordecai, Richmond in Bygone Days, 1856, 35
Richmond's Masonic Hall can be seen as the town's first assembly hall. Although built by a private organization with a membership that tracked closely with the city's business and political leadership, the hall, as the building changed over time, provided the city with a place for plays, shows, and meetings. The masonic ritual was kept separate from the public use, mostly by restricting the public use to the ground floor. Masonic Hall, in spite of  its complex early building history and later alterations, clearly joins Philadelphia's Carpenter's Hall and New York's Federal Hall as an exemplar of the eighteenth-century tradition of the urban hall.  
The traditional architectural descriptor of a “hall” can refer to a private or government-owned civic building characterized by a single large room which is used for a variety of purposes. Sub-categories include town or city halls, market halls, assembly halls, and craft halls. Descended from the great hall of the Middle Ages, and adapted as a courtroom, meeting room, or council chamber, these buildings, funded by public or private civic bodies, served multiple purposes in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century American cities. Examples of privately funded civic halls include Carpenters’ Hall (1775) and Philosophical Hall (1789) in Philadelphia, Masons’ Hall (c 1775) in Williamsburg, the Custom House or Exchange (1771) in Charleston, and Hamilton Hall, a two-story brick assembly room in Salem Massachusetts, (1805).



Carpenters' Hall, Philadelphia, 1774



Old City Hall, Philadelphia, 1791.
 
Federal Hall, New York, New York, 1788 
 

Charleston County Courthouse (1790-92)
 
Ripon Town Hall, Yorkshire, England, 1799.
Carpenter’s Hall, an elaborate two-story brick building completed for the primary use of a craft guild in 1775, contained a large room that doubled as an important meeting place during the formative years of the government of the United States, housing the First Continental Congress. Hall were usually built for a specific purpose, but in order to fund their construction and maintenance, the owner often included rental for public use from the start. It is also likely that the need for places to accommodate gatherings of citizens, whether political, religious, benevolent, or social in purpose, actually encouraged organizations that were, like the Masons, made up of prominent citizens, to erect a hall.   
In most cases where the economic success of the community permitted, the hall was a permanent masonry building. The leaders of Richmond’s Masonic lodge, who were in many cases also the members of city commissions and the governing council, are thought to have intended a brick building, but were forced by circumstances to use a frame structure clad in weatherboard. In many cases the halls proclaimed their civic role by inclusion of a central pedimented pavilion crowned by a carefully proportioned bell-tower, that spoke (rather literally) of the regulatory oversight of the civic authorities.  

In Richmond during the 1780s, and until the Market Hall was completed in 1794, there was no place for large public and private gatherings other than the church, the courthouse, and the temporary statehouse. Masons’ Hall, completed in 1787, must have been an impressive structure that dominated the nearby Market Square during its first decade. Throughout the 1790s, there was no other building with an appropriate tower from which a bell could signal important events and emergencies.In 1793, the Governor loaned a bell belonging to the Capitol to be used as a public bell in the cupola of the nearby Masonic Hall to call alarms and signal the opening and closing of the market.

According to one source, Masons’ Hall was “the most popular place in the city.” With the exception of the courthouse, it was the only building east of Shockoe Creek in which public meetings could be held. The large room on the ground floor was in frequent use as a place of amusement, for public and political meetings, and for religious worship. Three times a week “Monsieur Capers” instructed the ‘youth of both sexes in the most approved court dances, and the latest and most popular figures and steps;’ here the citizens assembled to instruct their delegates to the convention on the absorbing topic of the adoption of rejection of the Federal Constitution; here grand balls were given on the 4th of July and also on ‘the 22nd of February, the anniversary of the birth of the illustrious General George Washington, whose exertions, under the smile of heaven, have been productive of freedom, happiness, and glory to a grateful people;’ here the Hustings Court of the city  was held when the General Court was sitting in the courthouse, and John Marshall, as recorder, was having his first judicial experience; and here, on Sunday afternoon, ‘dissenting ministers’ proclaimed the new era of religious freedom, and preached the gospel of Christ“ [“Ancient Lodge Celebrates Anniversary in Old Hall.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 30 October, 1906, 3].
Williamsburg Masonic Lodge, (c 1775) photographed in the early 20th century,
 
As we have seen, Masonic lodges typically began by meeting in the public rooms of taverns and coffee houses. When they were ready to build a hall, Masonic lodges frequently chose to partner with a tenant or tenants to help pay for and maintain the building. The Williamsburg Lodge No. 6 appears to have occupied its own building by 1775. The small, T-shaped frame structure measured 16 by 32 feet. It held a lodge room on the second floor and rental apartment on the first [Paul Buchanan and Catherine Savedge, "Masonic Lodge Block 11 Building 3 (Not Owned) Colonial Lot #13", 1971].
In 1817, Alexandria’s Masonic lodge was incorporated into the new brick combination city hall and market hall. In much the same manner, the public spirited citizens who belonged to Randolph Lodge No. 19 appear to have designed the first floor of their new building as a public assembly room. It was used for balls, plays, schools, and religious services. Its place was augmented for the same purposes when a large room was opened above the new City Market in 1794 to house the city government, which formerly met in the Henrico Courthouse. The delegates from Virginia to the constitutional convention are said to have met in Masons’ Hall before travelling to Philadelphia in 1787.
Richmond Lodge No. 13, founded in Williamsburg’s Raleigh Tavern in 1784, purchased a Richmond lot on 12 August 1785 from Gabriel Galt. The committee in charge consisted of George Anderson, Alexander Nelson, Foster Webb, Jr., Alexander McRobert, Patrick Wright, Samuel Scherer, and John Groves. According to a comprehensive history published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch in 1906, the lodge laid a cornerstone on 29 October of the same year. A lottery, authorized by the state was advertised in March of 1786 to raise 1,500 pounds “for erecting Mason’s Hall” under the direction of the Common Hall of the city [Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 30 March 1786].
With confidence in the lottery, building commenced on the structure under the direction of contractor William Booker. The lottery languished for several years without much success and the lodge did so also, rendered unpopular by the failure of the lottery scheme. In spite of the setbacks, the building was completed above the basement in wood instead of brick on December 10, 1787. The same source says that the building was temporarily halted and a roof installed over the basement room, so it is hard to say for sure when the building was actually completed.
With encouragement form John Marshall, a new lodge was chartered (Richmond Randolph Lodge No. 19), the lottery reconstituted, and 400 pounds successfully raised toward the cost of the building. The lottery drawing was made in the building on 10 June 1788. Contractor Booker sued for his remaining 247 pounds in 1791. The contractor was finally paid by a loan from a wealthy member and its trustees installed about 1794. This could mean that the building was not fully completed until that date or it could mean that the debt had been unpaid since 1787 and the building was not received until after it was paid for. The hall was the home of the Richmond Lodge No. 10 and the Grand Lodge of Virginia until 1878. For most of its history, Mason’s Hall has also been home to the Richmond Royal Arch Chapter, No. 3, which meets in the main room on the first floor.
Mason's Hall, Richmond, Virginia Mutual Assurance Society policy, 1802
 
One confirmation that the upper floors were added to an existing foundation is the existence of the architectural device, invisible on the interior, of a slightly projecting pavilion containing the three bays corresponding to the central entrance hall. He only two images of the building from before the late nineteenth century are a façade sketch on a Virginia Mutual Fire Assurance Society policy dated 1802 and a photograph of the top of the building showing the roof, pediment, and cupola, taken in 1865 [LOC]. The pediment and cupola are very similar to what is shown on the 1802 policy, while the wind vane appears identical in form.
In the early years the hall was in regular use. Since there was no Presbyterian Church in the city before 1812, the Rev. John Rice preached to the members if that denomination regularly in the Masonic Hall [Thomas P. Atkinson; “Richmond and Her People as they were in 1810, 11, and 12,” Richmond Whig 47:66 (18 August 1868) 1].  In 1808, Captain Price’s Artillery Company celebrated the Fourth of July and “partook of a soldier’s dinner at the Mason’s Hall, at which the utmost hilarity prevailed, [many] TOASTS were drunk with much enthusiasm, music, and the discharge of cannon” [(Richmond) Enquirer, 8 July 1808, 3]. 
The use of the ground-floor room of Mason’s Hall for meetings, religious services, exhibitions, and other events appears to have tapered off in the nineteenth century as other, larger venues became available.  By the 1850s there were several such venues, including Metropolitan Hall, a former church, which advertised itself as a “FIRST CLASS PUBLIC HALL, on much lower terms than any other Hall of the same capacity. . . for Operas, Concerts, Lectures, or Public Meetings” [Richmond Whig, 36:11 (8 February 1859) 3].
Non-masonic use is rarely attested to in the newspapers of the antebellum period. One such event was an exhibition of the painting by Benjamin West called Christ Healing the Sick in the Temple, painted in 1817 for the Pennsylvania Hospital [(Richmond) Enquirer, 17 December 1845, 3]. The painting was wildly popular and was viewed by 30,000 visitors in its first years of display in its own dedicated “picture house.”  Tickets were $.25 [Richmond Whig, 23 December 1845, 2].  
 
It appears that the lower hall was the one used by non-masons for events. In 1848, the Masonic brethren invited Generals James Shields and John A. Quitman, heroes of the Mexican War, to Richmond, where they gave addresses to the masons in the lodge rooms. “The Lodge rooms were then thrown open and the guests taken to the lower room, where from 3 until 4 o’clock Generals Quitman and Shields received the visits of a great concourse of ladies and gentlemen, during which time many tunes were played by a fine band under the direction of Signor George [(Richmond) Enquirer 1 Feb 1848, 4].   
 
Detail from the 1865 panorama of the city of Richmond looking west from Church Hill [Library of Congress]. The cupola of Mason's Hall is center left. The market and its bell tower is seen behind it.
Among the many prominent citizens who belonged to the lodge, merchant and banker, Jacob I. Cohen “built up a reputation for stern integrity and was honored by his fellow citizens in many ways. At the August term of the County Court of Henrico, 1794, his name appears in a decree, together with that of John Marshall and others, who were to receive as trustees the Masonic Hall. During those days the building was the most popular place in the city. Public and political meetings, and religious worship, conducted in the large room on the ground floor, attest to this fact.  Besides, mention should be made of grand balls, given here on George Washington’s birthday and the fourth of July; also, that on three evenings in each week a Frenchman taught dancing to the young men and women of the community” [Herbert Tobias Ezekiel, The History of the Jews of Richmond from 1769 to 1917,19].
Another prominent Jewish merchant of the city, Joseph Darmstadt was elected Grand Treasurer of the Grand Lodge of Virginia in 1794, the same year in which the hall was received by it trustees.  At that time “a considerable sum was due on the Masonic Hall and the contractor had filed a lien. Darmstadt, with exceptional liberality, assumed the burden and soon after advanced the money to meet the debt” [Herbert Tobias Ezekiel, The History of the Jews of Richmond from 1769 to 1917,27-28]. 
Contemporary Photograph of Mason's Hall from 1906 article concerning the fire in the adjacent building [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 18 Dec. 1906, 14].

Mason's Hall Postcard, c. 1910


Detail from 1886 Sanborn Map, showing Mason’s Hall at upper left. This is the earliest detailed map.

It appears that the hall was altered very little in first 90 or more years after its construction. The roof and cupola are clearly depicted in a panoramic photograph taken in 1865 from the nearby top of Church Hill. It is clear that the cupola, cornice, and weathervane were similar to those shown in the Virginia Mutual Fire Assurance Society policy sketch from 1802. The Lodge, however, decided to update the building in 1872. This work was detailed in an article dated November 5, 1872 in the Richmond Whig. According to a later article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the reason for the repairs in that year was a fire in a neighboring building [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 18 December 1906, 14].
Old Mason’s Hall Repaired: Richmond Lodge, No. 10, and Richmond Randolph Lodge, No. 19, of Free Masons, in conjunction with Richmond Commandery, No. 2, Knights Templar, have completed their repairs to the old Mason’s Hall, on Franklin Street, between Eighteenth and Nineteenth, and the first meeting in the building since the repairs will be held this evening by Richmond Lodge, No. 10.
This is one of the oldest buildings in the city, having been erected previous to 1790, and has been ever since used for Masonic purposes.  The associations which cluster around it are, therefore, peculiarly sacred to the brethren of the “Mystic Tie,” and it has been recently remodeled and renovated, inside and out, with a view to its preservation. The windows, which were heretofore old-fashioned and small, have been removed and enlarged, and large lights substituted for the old eight by ten lights. The old handrail and balusters have been removed and elegant new ones of walnut and oak put in their place. New floors have been laid in the refreshment and reception rooms, and the former, with the lodge room, has been wainscoted. The refreshment hall has had its accommodations much enlarged. The building has been recently painted and carpeted and supplied with new gas-fixtures. The stoves have been removed, and a hot air furnace heats the whole building be means of pipes.
In addition to this, the entire building has been repaired throughout and a fine porch erected on the front or Franklin entrance, giving it an elegant modern appearance.  Many conveniences have been introduced and changes made, which render this one of the best buildings for the purposes for which it was designed to be found in the entire South.
Richmond Lodge, No. 10, meets there tonight and invites all brethren to unite in celebrating her return to the old home after an absence of several months.       
An adjacent building again caused damage to Mason’s Hall in 1906. On 12 December of that year, the stable next to Mason’s Hall burned and the fire nearly destroyed the structure. According to a newspaper article, “the damage done by the McDonough fire is not serious, and repairs will be made in a short while” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 30 Oct. 1906]. A history written in 1927 reproduces material from the 1906 newspaper article, itself condensed from The History of the Mason’s Hall: The First House Erected for and Dedicated to Masonic Use in America (1785), Written by Worshipful Charles P. Rady, Historian of the Lodge, 1887.
Today the Hall remains in use as a Masonic Hall, owned and operated by Richmond Randolph Lodge No. 19, chartered in 1787. According to the Lodge's website, "Masons’ Hall is noted as the oldest continuously operating Masonic building built for Masonic purposes in the Western Hemisphere." The lodge request contributions for its preservation:
Masons Hall should be saved.  It is in dire need of repair and restoration.  Preliminary estimates exceed $2.0 million.  It should be restored and made available to the public so future generations may visit this exciting and important structure and learn about those who served freedom and tolerance during times this nation was born and strived to survive.  Masons Hall 1785, a Charitable Foundation, was established as a tax-exempt foundation by Richmond Circuit Court Judge James B. Wilkinson to preserve Masons Hall.  For additional information, visit the links on the side of this page.  To make a tax-deductible contribution and help us Save Masons’ Hall, please click here.  All donations go directly to preserving this historic structure.

 
 
 
 
 

TAVERNS OF RICHMOND

$
0
0



An artists reconstruction of the Swan Tavern in its late
eighteenth-century heyday.
The demand on the part of travelers and visitors for food and overnight lodging has usually been met by the provision of rooms (or beds) rented by the night in buildings provided by private enterprise, unless capital for that purpose exceeded local resources. In that case, institutions or landowners would provide guest lodging.  Over time, the building types that served travelers changed in response to changing levels of prosperity and demand.  The American luxury hotel, typified by Richmonds Jefferson Hotel of 1895, had its origins in the early nineteenth-century taverns and hotels financed by merchants and developers to ease travel, promote business interests, and answer civic and social needs.

Taverns, ordinaries, and hotels served Richmonds visitors and residents as places of residence and resort. Virginias public social life, often associated with consumption of spirits, was largely led in taverns and drinking establishments operated in specialized buildings or in rooms licensed for the purpose in dwellings.  Upper floors were divided up into sleeping rooms. Licensing of such multiple accommodations and the sale of alcohol ensured their reliability and profitability, while providing income for the city in the form of fees and taxes.  Such accommodations were little more than dormitories or small rooms arranged along corridors. Taverns and, later, hotels and motels, tended to be built at transportation nodes or near places where visitors gathered or disembarked from wagons, trains, or automobiles.

In the earliest days, the tavernsentertaining rooms, although privately owned and managed, were often the only available venue for public meetings and official transactions. Over time, the accommodations ranged from small and inexpensive to what amounted to a kind of civic institution. The grander hostelries were provided with architectural form and ornament and were the sites of important civic banquets and social events. Whether modest or grand, taverns and hotels express the social and aesthetic yearnings of cities for a kind of public palace, a civic building available to all who can afford to pay for what it provides.

Richmonds urban form allows for few axially placed buildings.  Churches and commercial structures occupied conventional lots in the overall grid plan. As might be expected, only official buildings like the Henrico Courthouse and the Capitol, and to a lesser extent, City Hall and the Custom House, are located in axial positions at the urban scale. Institutional buildings like churches and schools are generally freestanding, while hotels and taverns, like other commercial buildings, are placed in line with adjoining structures at the edge of the street.  

Accommodations for visitors, licensed sales of liquor, and settings for social conviviality were supplied throughout the colony and state in private establishments known variously as ordinaries, taverns, and houses of public entertainment. These businesses, often known as ordinaries during the earlier part of the eighteenth century, were located near seats of government and catered to the need of rural Virginians to spend one or more nights in town during court sessions or when conducting business. The term tavernsupplanted ordinaryfor the better sort of facility at the middle of the eighteenth century. As transportation routes improved, taverns were spaced along post roads and turnpikes to provide for travelers and to supply changes of horses for stagecoaches. The term hotelcame into being at the end of the eighteenth century to distinguish the best accommodations in urban areas. Inn and public house were rarely used terms in colonial Virginia [Lounsbury, Courthouses, 265].

While many taverns were housed in the dwelling of the proprietors, others were purpose-built. All, however, partook of a domestic character and also served as the home of their operators.  In spite of their private status and often modest scale, taverns and later, hotels, provided, other than the parish church, the closest approximation of a public building that most developing Virginia towns could muster. For instance, meetings of Petersburgs court and common hall were held in a tavern for the first years, until a courthouse could be constructed. Taverns and coffeehouses were the primary gathering places, accessible to all who could afford to pay, where the work of political compromise, commercial trade, civic celebration, and business dealing was carried on. They were used throughout the nineteenth century for meetings of a private and semi-private character. Hotels took over this function on a grander scale, and provided rooms for traveling salesmen, private parties, and the offices of commission merchants, including even slave traders, all within an architecturally articulated setting that emulated the appearance of the public buildings.
 
In Richmond, according to Samuel Mordecai, the earliest tavern (probably mid-18th century) was the Bird-in-Hand, located on Main Street at the foot of Church Hill. It was operated by old Burgess and his wife, round and rosy.The early town saw a succession of taverns, the older taverns growing old-fashioned and being replaced by larger and more comfortable facilities as new owners and investors saw an opportunity. Mordecai joked that taverns like rogues change their names when they lose their characters.
The City Tavern, originally one of the citys best accommodations, burned in 1858 [Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution, 1855]
 
The Bird-in-Hand was joined by the City Tavern, also known as Galts Tavern, housed in a frame building on the northwest corner of Main and 19th streets. This popular tavern was kept by Gabriel Galt in 1780. Like most city taverns, this building had a prominent porch along the front from which residents could take in the street life. The porch doesnt show up in the view below, made years after the hotel had ceased to operate. It does show arch-headed doors and windows and a dentil cornice, marks of an important building in the mid-eighteenth century. The building also appears to have been expanded from a conventional dwelling form to accommodate more guests. Nearby was Coulbys Tavern, later known as Tankards Ordinary, in the block east of the Henrico County Courthouse [Ward and Greer].

Most inns built after 1800 were constructed of brick and they almost all had a wide front porch. The porticoof the Globe Tavern was judged by the city Common Hall to impinge on the street and was ordered taken down in 1817 as part of a general regularizing of the street [Records of the Common Hall, 20 Oct. 1817].

According to historian Benson. J. Lossing, who visited in the late 1840s, the City Tavern served as a headquarters in the brief captivity of the city in January 1781 by British forces under the command of Benedict Arnold. Arnold and Simcoe made their quarters at the Old City Tavern, yet standing on Main Street, but partially in ruins, when I visited Richmond[Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, Vol. II, Chap. IX].


The site of the Falling Gardens and the Bell Tavern, shown in the lower left corner [Virginia Mutual policy, 1809].

As the town grew, taverns were built in a section of Main Street west of the Shockoe Creek Bridge, convenient to the old, county town and the newer capital city growing on the hill above. Bowlers Tavern, housed in a one-story frame structure, was hosted by an old-fashioned tavern-keeper known for his short britches, cocked hat, and red wig. To the rear of his business and home, the Major Bowler cultivated the Falling Gardens,a landscaped pleasure ground for public use in good weather. It occupied a hillside between the tavern and Shockoe Creek at the western end of the Market Bridge. It was succeeded on the same site by a succession of popular hostelries: first the Bell Tavernand much later the City Hotel, renamed the St. Charles Hotel[Mordecai]. Lafayette and Washington were entertained at the Bell Tavern in 1784.
 
This land on which the Bell Tavern and Falling Gardens were located had been part of a tract leased from William Byrd and known as Younghusbands tenement. Thomas Jefferson had enjoyed drinking at Mrs. Younghusbands Tavern in 1775, during the Virginia Convention at the Hernico Parish Church [Jon Meacham, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, 2012, 80]. It seems likely that this is the same tavern later known as Bowlers and the Bell. Another tavern, The Rising Sun, took advantage of the traffic on Main at Fourteenth Street near the Old Capitol.
There were seven taverns in the city in 1782 [1782 Census Report].  They are listed here by ward:

-First Ward (west of Tenth Street)
  • Will Johnson, age 60, Inn Holder, (also Jona Gordon, 17, barkeep). Location unknown.
-Second Ward (east of 22nd Street). One of these two taverns was the Bird-in-Hand.
  • John Roper,  35, Ordinary Keeper
  • Stephen Tankard, Ordinary Keeper
-Third Ward (east of Shockoe Creek as far as 22nd Street)
  • Gabriel Galt, 33, tavern keeper, (also Richard Bowler, 21, barkeep and John Mantonia,                              40, gardner). This is the City Tavern.
-Fourth Ward (west of Shockoe Creek as far as Tenth Street). One of these is likely the forerunner                        to Bowlers Tavern.
  • Lerafino Formicola, 39, Tavern Keeper
  • Richard Hogg, Tavern Keeper
  • Samuel Jones, 37, Boarding House
In a day when there were few public buildings for entertainment, taverns played an important role in the civic events. The Washington birthday parade in 1788 closed with a dinner at Manns Tavern and a ball at the Union Tavern. The Eagle Tavern was for many years after the Revolution the citys most important hostelry. It was located on the south side of Main between 12th and 13th streets. It housed a ballroom that was the site of dinners, seasonal race balls, and other important social events. Washington was entertained at the Eagle in 1791 and Winfield Scott in 1817. Lafayettes visit in 1825 was celebrated at the Eagle [Christian].


The two-story Globe Hotel (formerly Mrs. Gilberts Coffee House) is shown here in an 1809 Virginia Mutual policy.
It was equipped with porches across the front and rear.

 Mrs. Gilberts Coffee House occupied a large wooden building farther to the west on Main (opposite the Exchange Bank) in the 1790s. It was a very popular gathering place, later known as the Globe Tavern.  Lynchs Coffee House served as a kind of exchange, located two doors below, beginning about 1810. It was a place where politicians and traders gathered and where stock auctions were held. The Virginia Inn was placed on Governor Street midway along the climb up Shockoe Hill from Main to Broad Street. Major Daviss Tavern was positioned to be convenient to Byrds Tobacco Warehouse. Goodalls Tavernor The Indian Queen, operated by Col. Parice Goodall, was located on the west side of Capitol Square on the north side of Grace Street [Mordecai 85].
 

This detail from Richard Youngs c 1809 map of Richmond shows the Henrico County Courthouse (B), the old City Tavern (E), the Market House (H), the Bell Tavern (K), the Rising Sun Tavern (L), the Eagle Tavern (R). and the Union Tavern (Y, seen just to the left of the Eagle).
In 1809, Youngs Map shows the most important taverns and hotels in operation at that time. There were seven. Five were found in the lower part of town:

  • The old City Tavern (E), on the north side of Main Street,two squares east of Shockoe Creek
  • The Rising Sun Tavern (L), on Main Street west of the creek
  • The Bell Tavern (K), also on Main Street west of the creek
  • The EagleTavern (R), west of the creek
  • The Union Tavern (Y), which had opened more recently on the south side of Main Street between 11thand 12th streets.

Accommodations were needed in the immediate area of the Capitol as well and the last two on the list stood on Shockoe Hill:

  • The Swan Tavern, on the north side of Broad Street
  • The Washington Tavern, located on the corner of Ninth and Grace streets at the gate to the Capitol Square.

 

The Swan Tavern in later years. It is said to have been built in 1771, was later known as the Broad Street Hotel and continued to operate during the Civil War years.

The Swan was considered the tavern of highest repute for good fare, good wine, and good company,patronized by the lawyers and judges of Shockoe Hill [Mordecai]. Thomas Jefferson stayed at the Swan Tavern in 1809 [Christian]. Nearby,, stood the Washington Tavern, formerly the Indian Queen, later as the Central Hotel, and after the Civil War as the St. Clair Hotel stood nearby on Grace Street.  The Indian Queen was opened by Parke Goodall in 1797 [Scott 1950, 97]. This site, directly across from St. Pauls Church, was continuously occupied by a tavern or hotel for nearly a hundred and fifty years. Its successor, designed by John Kevan Peebles, was the nine-story Hotel Richmond. This fine brick hotel, opened in 1904, is now a state office building.
The Indian Queen/Washington Tavern, which served as a temporary home for many legislators during meetings of the General Assembly, occupied a large brick building that underwent numerous changes as its owners sought to keep up with demand and guest expectations. In 1809 it was a three-story structure, 40 feet square in plan, with a tile roof and long, one-story, covered porches raised above the sidewalks on both the east and south fronts.  A brick wing to the north side contained a barroom conveniently placed along Ninth Street. A three-story addition to the west linked the tavern to a former private house that was also incorporated into the complex [Virginia Mutual Policy, 1809]. 



The three-story Washington Tavern is shown here in a Virginia Mutual policy of 1809, with its wrap-around porch and barroom. A kitchen and large brick stable were nearby [north is to the bottom].

The Washington Tavern at Ninth and Grace was later incorporated into the St. Clair Hotel, seen here in the later nineteenth century.

Goddin's Tavern, Brook Turnpike at Bacon's Quarter Branch. What appears to have formerly been a central arch has been filled in.
Taverns were also needed at the nodes where traffic from the areas around Richmond collected- on Broad Street where wagons from the Salt Works, the Lead Mines, and the produce of western counties entered the city preparatory to descending the hill to trade in the town. Richards Tavern was a frame structure on Board Street west of Sixth Street [Mordecai]. Goddins Tavern stood just outside town at Bacons Quarter Branch, where stock drivers could rest before entering the city with their herds. It also served as a popular place of resort and official entertainment. The tavern was opened by Martin Baker in the late 18th century and operated in later years by Capt. John Goddin. 

Photographs show that the original building was a long brick structure that paralleled the turnpike and was fronted by a two-story porch. This appears to have been penetrated at the center by an archway that led to a yard at the rear that contained a famous spring of cold water. When two-story brick sections were added at each end, they defined an inset courtyard in the front.  The shutters on the upper porch in the well-known historic photograph were added by the nuns who operated it as the Hospital of St. Francis de Sales in the 1860s.     

In the Antebellum period, the city's taverns continued to operate at a variety of scales in cities across the nation, but a new building type joined them- the Hotel, which was more architecturally ambitious and luxurious in its fittings than the traditional tavern or inn.

Hotels of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries will be covered in Part Two.
 
 

HOTELS OF RICHMOND

$
0
0




The Union Hotel, Main at Nineteenth
streets, built in 1817 to the
designs of Otis Manson.
This is the second part of a series on the Taverns and Hotels of Richmond. The first part is found here. The demand on the part of travelers and visitors for food and overnight lodging has usually been met by the provision of rooms (or beds) rented by the night in buildings provided by private enterprise, unless capital for that purpose exceeded local resources. In that case, institutions or individual landowners would provide guest lodging.  Over time, the building types that served travelers changed in response to changing levels of prosperity and demand.  The American luxury hotel, typified by Richmonds Jefferson Hotel of 1895, had its origins in the early nineteenth-century taverns and hotels financed by merchants and developers to ease travel, promote business interests, and answer civic and social needs.

This new building type appeared in Richmond in 1817.  The Union Hotel, located at Main and Nineteenth streets, was built for Dr. John Adams and designed by architect Otis Manson, who was associated on at least one project with architect Robert Mills (he and Mills prepared plans for a new Richmond City Jail that wasnt built at about the same time [Records of the Common Hall, 17 March 1817]). It represented a more architecturally sophisticated response to the demand for overnight accommodations, the first to rise above the primitive level of inns and taverns[Scott]. 




The Union Hotel from Charles H. Corey, A History of Richmond Theological Seminary. Richmond VA: Union University, 1895. Probably originally part of hotel promotional literature.
Its architectural form responded to the development of the first-classhotel as a civic amenity in major American cities. The most notable example of the new hotel was the Exchange Coffee House in Boston, a remarkable seven-story structure, designed by architect Asher Benjamin, that provided 300 rooms, banquet halls, and other public amenities. Its destruction by fire [in 1818] was a civic calamity[Daniel Boorstin, The Americans, 1966, 136].
 

The Exchange Coffee House in Boston [Wikipedia].
Like the Boston building, the Union Hotel featured an applied exterior architectural treatment and unprecedented height. Dr. John Adams must have intended that the new Richmond hotel serve a similar role in the city. The row of tall windows on the main floor suggests two entertaining rooms on the interior.   Manson provided the four-story hotel with a tall piano nobile with arch-headed floor-length windows that was topped by a two-story row of applied Doric half columns fronting the bedroom floors. The walls, stuccoed to resemble stone, were terminated in a pattern book Doric entablature featuring carved paterae between the triglyphs. The building was sheltered under a shallow hipped roof with a balustraded deck. A three-story wing stood to the rear. The cupola in the advertising lithograph shown above was probably added by the artist to improve the view, which was intended to show how large the building was.
 
Detail of the Union Hotel's cornice, 1865.
 


The Union Hotel in the period immediately after the Civil War [VCU archive]. Like many earlier taverns, it featured a wide portico across the front.
As Bryan Clark Green has observed, Richmond hotels, beginning with the UnionHotel, had about a twenty-year life-span before they appeared outmoded [NR form, Ninth Street Office Building]. By the early 1840s, when the Exchange Hotel was built, equipped with toilets, central heat, and running water, the Union Hotel was no longer fashionable. Although it was returned to use as a hotel, it was rented as the site of the predecessor of the Medical College of Virginia when the school was opened in 1838. It was used as barracks in 1847 during the Mexican-American War, but was back in operation in 1850, when it was visited by President Zachary Taylor [Christian]. It was purchased in 1870 by the trustees of the Richmond Institute, forerunner of Virginia Union University, as the colleges main academic building. In much the same way, the Exchange was replaced in favor by the Spottswood Hotel, new in 1859-60 and the favorite of Confederate politicians and officers.

In spite of the ostensible twenty-year rule, the ancient Eagle Tavern maintained its superlative reputation for decades, even in competition with newer hostelries. In 1825, Lafayettes dinner at the Eagle Tavern was matched by one at the newer Union Hotel. John Tyler was entertained at the Union Hotel in 1827 (and again in 1836), but John Randolph was feted at the Eagle in 1827 and the Washington birthday ball was held there in 1832. The Eagle, by this time known as a hotel, burned in 1839 [Christian]. No image survives of this popular place of entertainment. According to one source, a popular song in Richmond during the antebellum period included the lines I dined at the Union, got drunk at the Bell, and lost all my money at the Eagle Hotel[John K. Trammell. Travelers to War-time Richmond, Americas Civil War, Sept 1996, http://www.historynet.com/travelers-to-wartime-richmond-sept-96-americas-civil-war-feature.htm].


Exchange Hotel with the second bridge to the Ballard House.




The elevation of the Exchange Hotel can be seen in this 1845 Virginia Mutual policy at the top and the central courtyard can be seen in the 1851 Virginia Mutual policy below.
 

The cupola of the Exchange Hotel can be seen seen here from the west in a detail from an 1865 panorama [center right, Library of Congress].
 
The Exchange Bank opened in June 1841 and the new Exchange Hotel the next month. The name Exchange is a clue to the buildings proposed use by merchants and dealers to further their business. It was built near the tobacco warehouses at the foot of Shockoe Hill for a stock company of Richmond businessmen. Their intention was to encourage commerce by providing visitors to the city with a luxurious and even palatial hotel. After that date, most entertainments were held at the Exchange, including one for Charles Dickens in the following year [Christian]. The front was ornamented with four colossal, engaged, Ionic columns supporting a massive entablature and flaked by tall narrow, bow-fronted bays. The building was topped by a cupola resembling a circular Roman temple. The interior featured marble floors, a large vestibule ornamented with statuary, a great hall,a ladiesdining room, a gentlemens drawing rooms, a dining room accommodating 300, reading rooms, and a ballroom, all surrounding a landscaped central courtyard [Bryan Clark Green et al, Lost Virginia: Vanished Architecture of the Old Dominion, 2001: 175].
 

The St. Charles Hotel can be seen to the far left and the Exchange Hotel to the right in this 1860s panorama of the city looking west from Church Hill.
 

 

Byrds Warehouse, site of the Exchange Hotel, in 1835. The trapezoidal site became available after the warehouse burned. Like the warehouse, the hotel was well placed at the foot of the hill between the lower commercial city and the upper capitol.

The Exchange Hotel and Ballard House seen on the 1876 Beers Map. The central courtyard of the Exchange was improved with paths and a central element such as a fountain.

The Exchange Hotel represented a new version of the first-classhotel taking shape in most of the nations major cities. Beginning with Isaiah RogersTremont House of 1827-30 in Boston, American hotels borrowed from the monumental forms of  public buildings.  The Tremont House gave an unmistakable impression of elegance and public purpose, for which the Greek-revival orders, stylish in that day, were, of course, admirably suited. . . [and] confirmed a feeling as different as possible from that of the 18th-centry inn[Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The National Experience, 1966] RogersAstor House in New York (1832-36), Jacques Bussière de Pouillys St. Louis Hotel in New Orleans (1838), and C.H. Reichardts Charleston Hotel (1839) had extensive reception rooms, fully expressed orders, and central rotundas [Pevsner, Building Types, 175-76]. These were comfortable, even palatial, buildings that employed the architectural orders on both the interior and exterior to create a sense of grandeur and importance for the commercial and social transactions that took place within. 

When Alexander Macay, an English lawyer, visited New Orleans in 1846-47, he remarked that with us hotels are regarded as purely private property, and it is seldom that, in their appearance, the stand out from the mass of private houses around them. In America they are looked upon much more in the light of public concerns, and generally assume in their exterior the character of public buildings.Daniel Boorstin observed that lacking a royal palace as a center of Society,Americans created their counterpart in the community hotel. The Peoples Palace was a building constructed with the extravagant optimism expressly to serve all who could pay the price. . . . From the early days of the 19th century, hotels were social centers. . . . The hotel lobby, like the outer rooms of a royal palace, became a loitering place, a headquarters of gossip, a vantage point for a glimpse of the great, the rich, and the powerful[Boorstin, 1966, 135].
 


The Ballard House was built across the street from the Exchange Hotel in 1855-56 [1865, LOC].

The five-story Ballard House was built by hotelier John P. Ballard in 1855-56 as a more modern hotel across the street from the Exchange Hotel, which Ballard had purchased in 1851. As can be seen in the photograph from just after the end of the Civil War, the Ballard was a plain tripartite building which relied on the shapes and details of the fenestration to enliven the facade.  Ballard connected the two buildings by a bridge at the second floor level allowing them to share facilities. The first floor of the Exchange was leased out to stores and the cellars were rented for storage. The hotels survived the evacuation fire and were refitted, but were unable to compete with the new Jefferson Hotelafter 1895, the Exchange was demolished in 1900 and the Ballard House in 1920 [Virginia Historical Society, A Guide to the Exchange Hotel and Ballard House Records, 1865-1889].  


The main section of the Powhatan House (later Fords Hotel) on Broad Street in the post-Civil War period [Shadows in Silver].

The Powhatan House (later Fords Hotel) seen in a post-Civl War post card, at Eleventh and Broad Streets.http://[mississippiconfederates.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/lines-on-the-back-of-a-confederate-note/]
The Powhatan Boarding House, a four-story brick hotel, fronted on Broad Street north of the Capitol.  It began as a row of commercial structures facing Broad Street and known as Southgates Buildings, which housed shops on the first floor and a boarding house above. In 1831, James McKildoe enlarged Southgates Buildings to make the Powhatan House, which Mary Wingfield Scott says it was the most popular hostelry in the city before the construction of the Exchange Hotel. It was popular with politicians like Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. It was much enlarged over time. When President Millard Filmore visited in 1851, he was put up at what was by then known as the Powhatan Hotel, from which he visited the Constitutional Convention then in session [Christian 173]. In its expanded form, it was later known as Fords Hotel from the 1870s until the early twentieth century [Scott, Old Richmond Neighborhoods, 97]. Like the other taverns and hotels, it featured a wide portico on which guests could watch the activities in the street. The hotel featured a luxurious lobby, dining room, and the usual barroom and barbershop.

Fords Hotel struggled to compete with more modern hotels as time passed. It was closed temporarily for renovations in 1903: from to-day forth the hotel will be known as The Powhatan, a return to its antebellum name. The rates of the renovated and rehabilitated house will be fixed at from 12 to 13 per day, according to accommodations desired. It will be conducted on the American plan. Baths will be put in, everything brightened and renewed and its cuisine and service will be made a feature hereafter [Times Dispatch, 1 October 1903]. The structure was demolished in 1911-12 to be the site of a new city courthouse that was never built [NR form, Ninth Street Office Building and John K. Trammell, "Travelers to wartime Richmond had a wide choice of luxurious hotels, inns and taverns,Civil War Times Sept 1996. http://www.historynet.com/travelers-to-wartime-richmond-sept-96-americas-civil-war-feature.htm].


Many of the hotels of the time are shown on this detail from Ferslewss Map of Richmond (1859) including the Powhatan House , the St. Clair (northwest of the Capitol), the American, the Exchange , the St. Charles , and Union Hotel (in lower right corner).
By 1859, the citys taverns had all been transformed into hotels. Most of these hotels were located in a circuit around the Capitol and few were left in the older part of town east of Shockoe Creek. The citys principal hotels, listed on Ferslews Map of 1859, were as follows:

-The American Hotel (a five-story structure south of the Capitol, at Twelfth and Main, built c 1840). It was rebuilt soon after the war and was later known as theLexington Hotel. 

-The Exchange Hotel (the hollow square to the right of the center, built 1841)

-The Powhatan House (northeast of the Capitol, 1831)

-The Broad Street Hotel (on the northwest corner of Broad Street and Ninth near the RF&P Railroad Depot)

-The Central Hotel (an enlarged version of the old Washington Tavern west of the Capitol)

-The Columbian Hotel (on the east die of Shockoe Slip)

-The St. Charles Hotel ((labeled City Hotel, southeast of the Exchange, a four-story building at Fifteenth and Main, converted into Confederate Hospital #8, built c 1846)


A view of the American Hotel in 1858 at the corner of Main and Twelfth streets.


The Spottswood Hotel opened just before the Civil War. Seen here in1865 at the SE corner of Eighth and Main. It burned in 1870 [LOC].

Spottswood Hotel, 1865

Hotels built in the late antebellum years, like the Ballard House, tended to be much less exuberant on the exterior, but even more luxurious and comfortable on the interior.  The new five-story Spottswood Hotel, built at Eighth and Main, was like an elongated version of a Richmond commercial building with no discernable main entry and no colonnade above its cast iron storefronts. Not until 1895, with the opening of the Jefferson Hotel, would Richmond hotels again join civic buildings and churches in employing elaborate architectural detailing. In spite of its plain exterior, when it opened in 1860 the Spottswood Hotel became the citys most popular destination for travelers. Competing against the famous Exchange/Ballard Hotel, it was the favorite hotel for official visitors to the Confederate capital. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis both took rooms there until permanent homes could be found for them.  

A view of the American Hotel in 1858 at the corner of Main and Twelfth streets.

Immediately after the Civil War, the old hotels were refitted and reopened for business. New hotels, such as the second American Hotel, tended to follow the old patterns with new stylistic flourishes like arched cast iron window heads. 

Not until the 1880s was Richmonds economy recovered sufficiently to think of building a great new hotel to symbolize its joining in the renewed growth of the New South. Lewis Ginter (1824-1897), a extremely wealthy tobacco manufacturer, played the role of civic philanthropist toward the end of his life.  Ginter was a leader in a plan which originated as early as 1882 with the city's chamber of commerce, to construct a modern hotel in the western part of the city, augmenting the superannuated accommodation available downtown [Christian, 1912, 419, 446]. The Exchange Hotel of 1841, and the Ballard Hotel of 1856 undoubtedly appeared to him to be progressive or modern. By 1892 Lewis Ginter had personally taken up the hotel scheme, determined to act as a benefactor and tastemaker to his burgeoning adopted city.  The projects extraordinary scale, complex plan, and high cost suggest that other factors, including the effective boostingof Richmond, outweighed practical profitability among Ginters intentions.


Jefferson Hotel [Department of Historic Resources].
The rectangular site selected by Lewis Ginter for the hotel occupied approximately one-half of a square or block west of downtown Richmond, between Franklin and Main streets, in what had been the city's most fashionable residential neighborhood for many years. The pressure of postwar industry and commerce in the citys old center sparked new construction in the old residential areas to the west. The Franklin Street front was intended from the start to appeal to an elite clientele by its relationships of scale and form to its fashionable residential setting, while the flush Main Street front, which served as an entrance for commercial travelers, responded to the commercial functions located along Main Street and the streetcar line that ran its length.



The Jeffersons Pompeian-style Palm Court with the central statue of Jefferson.

Jefferson Hotel Rotundabefore the fire of 1901 that destroyed the south end of the hotel [Cook Collection, Valentine Museum].
The most direct inspiration for the Franklin Street front would seem to have been the Casino at Monte Carlo by Charles Garnier (1878-79). Visitors entering on the Franklin Street front found themselves in a central foyer, called the Marble Hall, detailed in the Doric order. A central archway opposite the entry gave a glimpse of the glazed Palm Courtbeyond, detailed like a Pompeian peristyle court. A grand staircase led down to a two-story glazed court known as the "Rotunda" or "Office Rotunda" on the lower level which gave access to amenities intended for the hotels male visitors and city residents,  such as a bar room, grill, billiard room, and barber shop. Remarkably, Carèrre and HastingsRotunda recalled the sculpture court of 1820-39 at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, as roofed with glass in 1867 [see our commentary on the Ecole here].  The architects even imitated and elaborated the slender iron colonnettes that were added to support the gabled glass roof at the École.

Casino de Monte Carlo, Concert Hall, Charles Garnier, 1879

Jefferson Hotel

 
The young firm of Carrère and Hastings evoked the full depth of French academic classicism at this important project in the opening phase of the American Renaissance. The complexity and originality of the design grew out of the Jefferson's relatively small scale, generous capitalization, expansive functional program, and the personal direction of its developer.  Few commercial enterprises then or later have embodied such an ambitious effort at using art and architecture to fill a social and civic role.
 
Additional hotels were built in the years following, including Murphy's Hotel, the Hotel Richmond, the William Byrd Hotel, but none equaled the Jefferson, which, in spite of a disastrous fire in 1901, still operates in a substantial part of the original structure.    
 




Richmond's Civic Markers III: Fountains as a symbol of the Civic Good

$
0
0


"Consuls, emperors, and popes, the great men of every age, have found no better way of immortalizing their memories than by the shifting, indestructible, ever new, yet unchanging, upgush and downfall of water. They have written their names in that unstable element, and proved it a more durable record than brass or marble."
Hawthorne, The Marble Faun, 1860

 [Fountains] are sited throughout [Pompeii], all very similar to one another and none very elaborate. While clearly more utilitarian than decorative in form, their siting is a different matter, for as we have seen, they so clearly contribute to the general urban structure that we must conclude that their placement took more into consideration than the utilitarian demands of the hydraulic engineers.   
                                         C.W. Westfall, Learning From Pompeii, 1998.



Richard Worsham, Proposed fountain for 17th St Market
Springs and fountains can be placed in a distinct category of civic amenity, but one that merges with the subset of monuments. Like monuments, fountains have been used to mark nodes along significant urban routes.

From a purely functional perspective, Richmonders, from the earliest date, relied on springs and public wells for water. As the nineteenth century passed, Richmond joined other traditional cities in the intentional use of water to mark out the public realm and to reinforce the city’s relationship with a tamed and ordered nature, while at the same time providing access to element required for life by both people and animals.  

The city's access to water began at a very basic level. Public wells at street corners and a spring located south of Main Street sufficed for the town’s water supply in the eighteenth century. By 1808, however, the city, following national trends, used ingenuity to improve the purity and volume of the supply. Water was now conveyed in wooden pipes to the market at Seventeenth Street from a spring near Libby Hill. The resulting terminal fountain at the City Market must have been a familiar and significant destination for farmers, patrons, stall-holders, and their thirsty draft animals, not to mention the residents of all sorts that relied on that and similar public sources of water placed throughout the town.  

Richmond's City Hall, site of a public well in the early nineteenth century.

The city was constantly expanding and improving its rudimentary water system. As technologies became accessible, the city applied them to the acquisition of addition supplies of water for drinking and fire prevention. In 1816, the common hall (city council) agreed to sink a well in Broad Street near the new Courthouse, which was located at the site of the current Old City Hall [Common Hall, 27 May 1816].

By 1830, Richmond’s water supply "consisted of public wells at the street corners and several public hydrants with water conveyed in wooden pipes from a spring near Chimborazo Hill and from one in the Capitol Square” [Christian, 1912, 115]. In 1827, the Common Hall had issued an order forbidding tampering with the city’s public water supply, including wells and pumps along H Street (Broad Street) installed at the city’s expense and the wooden pipes, placed by “sundry liberal and deserving inhabitants. . . [who] have at their own expense, placed wooden pipes through which water is conveyed from the Basin of the Canal, through the Main Street of the said City as far as Shockoe Creek, and have erected fountains or jets in different parts of the said pipes, whereby many Citizens are supplied with water, and in case of Fire in that part of the city, great advantages may be experienced from the water supplied at the said Fountains or Pumps. . . .” [Ordinance for keeping in repair the Fountains in the Main Street of the city of Richmond, 16 Nov. 1827].   

In 1829, the City proposed an expanded "watering" of D and E streets (Cary and Main) from the Basin at 11th Street to Shockoe Creek, using iron pipes, at a cost of $5,631.64 [Common Hall, 28 May 1829].  A pump on Fourteenth Street was also proposed for use by fire companies. In the same year, Nicholas Mills ceded to the City a twenty-five foot-wide street through his lot from 7th to 8th street, giving access to a tract containing Gibson’s Spring, guaranteeing "open access to the said Spring . . . reserved for public purposes” [Common Hall, 8 June 1829].

A new system was opened in 1832, supplied by a water-powered pump with a capacity of 400,000 gallons of poorly filtered canal water per day. This system served to fill a 4,000,000 gallon reservoir. Water was distributed through twelve miles of pipe to both public and private locations. The first private hydrant was in the yard of Corbin Warwick on Grace Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets [Christian 1912, 115]. 


Detail from 1865 view of Castle Thunder showing an iron hydrant on the NE corner of
18th and Cary Streets. The hydrant was detailed like a fluted Doric column.

In ancient times, the provision of water in cities had been delivered at regularly placed urban nodes. From Pompeii to Paris, water outlets minimally required for the civic good have been harnessed to the larger urban project, underlining, by their sensory contributions, the significance of selected urban intersections and plazas. In Richmond, as elsewhere in the region, fountains or basins were provided at major entry points to the city for the watering of draft animals and herds. Hydrants were found at certain street corners for use in filling pitchers, tubs, and fighting fires.  

The value and provision of water to city populations was one of the many topics that exercised the minds of early-nineteenth-century planners. In thinking about public water supplies, educated persons as a matter of course compared their plans to improve hygiene with the public fountains and baths of ancient Rome. They also tried to effect the most scientific and economical provision of water for the public. 
Latrobe's Center Square Pump House, Philadelphia (1799-1801)
Benjamin Henry Latrobe, an English architect who began his American career in Richmond, was an advocate of public waterworks in Philadelphia, where outbreaks of disease had decimated the city. Such epidemics were sometimes associated with impurities in the water supply. Latrobe completed Philadelphia's public water system in 1801. In postscripts to his proposal for the waterworks, dealing with fountains and public baths, Latrobe displayed his characteristic interest in the effects of and correction of local climatic conditions and his studied opinion that the value of water justified the imitation by Americans of the indulgent practices of despotic European countries (by which he meant imperial Rome). 

According to one study, Latrobe asserted that "the fountains, which would supply the poor of the city with free water, would also provide the 'only means of cooling the air.'Air cooled by the agitation of water was, Latrobe asserted, of the purest kind.' While it is most likely that Latrobe was referring to physical purity (here significant because miasmatic theory charged impure air as a source of disease), the word recalls a classical climactic tradition, which emphasized air as the medium which communicated the specificities of the environment to the human body"[Jennifer Y. Chuong "Art is a Hardy Plant": Benjamin Henry Latrobe and the Cultivation of a Transitional Aesthetics, Thesis, Cornell University) 2007].


Godefroys' landscape st the Capitol Square included cascades that occuied the gullies
to each side of the Capitol [Mijacah Bates, Map of Richmond, 1832].

One of the most significant ornamental uses of water were the cascades provided in the early nineteenth century by Maximilian Godefroy in the place of the former spring-fed ravines that flanked the Capitol. These aided in the transformation of a disordered landscape into the city’s first ornamental park, a suitable setting for its earliest monumental public sculpture. Later in the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century the language of fountains became more elaborate and the functional fountain was joined by the purely ornamental. When John Notman redesigned the square in 1850, he added tiered fountains at the bottom of each of the two dells that took the place of the former ravines. 

1850 Capitol Square Fountain seen in 1960 [RTD, Valentine].

The city developed as part of its amenities a series of artesian springs in parks and green belts on the city’s periphery for public use. These also had a significant ornamental role, using water as a powerful symbol of the public good, organized and given form by the city. The water works at Byrd Park were developed in the 1880s, and the significance of the huge reservoir was later dramatized by a miniature cascade placed at the southern end of the great urban cross-axis of the Boulevard.    


Cascade at the Southern end of the Boulevard axis. The fountain represents the
public water supply housed in the large reservoir just behind.  



Monroe Park Fountain, Post Card, c 1905
[VCU Special Collections]
When Monroe Park was first landscaped in 1872, its center was marked by a naturalistic fountain made in the form of a pyramid of rocks, the city’s first ornamental fountain outside Capitol Square. It was later replaced by the current iron tazzo or tiered fountain. This fountain was used for a wading pool during periods of intense summer heat. The Monroe Park fountain is still fed directly from the city’s public water supply. Like most of Rome’s fountains, the fountain in Monroe Park contains clean, living, water. Current plans for the revitalization of Monroe Park call for it to be replumbed with a recirculating fountain, as if the supply of water in the James River, used to water all the lawns of Richmond, including the automatic sprinklers in the park, was too precious to trickle from the fountain’s graduated bowls.  

Fountain erected in Byrd Park by the Women's Christian
Temperance Union as a memorial to the work of the WCTU and a
 successful crusade in Ohio in 1873, the beginning of the
movement that led to the 18th Amendment banning of the sale
of alcohol in 1919.
Drinking fountains were a favorite civic gesture of temperance societies in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Richmond's temperance fountain, located near the reservoir, provided drinking water to visitors in Byrd Park and was supplied with a mounting block for children. It takes the form of an elegant Roman wall fountain. The upright tablet is supported by carved granite volutes. The basin is edged by an ornamental molding resembling a wreath of bound reeds suggesting the resolution and unity of the uncompromising band of donors.  The inscription reads: "This fountain is erected by the Women's Christian Temperence Union of Richmond and Henrico County and their friends in Memory of the Crusaders of Hillsborough who went out December 19th 1873 with the weapons of prayer and faith in God to overthrow the liquor traffic."
Fountain at the Intersection of Brook Turnpike with West Broad Street [Shorpy]. The fountain has
dog water basins at the bottom. It still serves the police horses at a
location behind the Bill "Bojangles" Robinson statue on Brook Turnpike.  

Capt. Charles S. Morgan gave this marble fountain to serve draft horses at the
center of the city's tobacco warehouse district. It is inscribed
"In Memory of One Who Loved Animals." 
The fountains that provided water to animals entering the city included an ornate cast iron one, now gone, in Manchester and the plain stone structure that distributed water to both large and small animals at the point where Brook Turnpike entered Broad Street. It was later re-located to a site now behind the Bojangles Robinson statue where it serves police horses with fresh water. A third fountain for horses and oxen, made of marble, still stands at the center of the Shockoe Slip in 1905, where tobacco was deposited in one of the city's huge warehouses. Its setting has been marred in recent years by unnecessary foundation planting.


The Monroe Park fountain was followed by similar structures in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including a one depicting a heron in front of the Governor’s Mansion (unfortunately replaced with a very conventional iron one during the Robb administration).  

Wayside Spring, Forest Hills Park
[https://foursquare.com/v/wayside-spring/4c73a7667121a1cda29a65d1]
Richmond residents who preferred spring water to the municipal water supply or didn't have water piped to their houses could get water that welled from the ground in artesian springs that were opened and maintained in parks around the city. These included Byrd Park, Wayside Spring in Forest Hills Park, Fonticello Park (now Carter Jones Park), where the spring has been modernized and still flows. A spring also flowed into a concrete trough along the side of Richmond Henrico Turnpike in Barton Heights. The spring water, which once poured through three lion's heads, is no longer running.
Kanawha Plaza Fountain, located as part of a plaza designed by Robert
Zion of Zion & Breen, completed in 1980

More recent fountains, such as those at the Kanawha Plaza at the James Center, installed during urban improvement projects in the mid-twentieth century, replace the conventional allegory of nature projected by earlier fountains with a literalism that fails to convince the viewer of either its natural origins or its cleanliness. 

Libby Hill Fountain, 1990s.
In contrast, the conventional iron tazzo (tiered) fountains added in recent years on Libby Hill have a much less focused connection with water as a carrier of civic meaning. They serve merely as park design amenities. These amenities (examples of the widespread rethinking of traditional fountains as superfluous “water features”) which, while they signal renewed pride in the park’s grounds and an improved level of upkeep, largely fail as markers of the public good. Their placement and form, like their recirculating contents, are inadequately related to the nature and history of the site.  
 

Two Public Places Renewed

$
0
0
We here at Urbanismo have been fortunate to work on the designs for two of Richmond's most venerable public places, Monroe Park and the square that was historically occupied by the Richmond City (later Seventeenth Street) Market. The senior of us was employed at 3North, the architecture and planning firm that executed the master plan for Monroe Park in 2008.  Several years later, both of us were employed at StudioAmmons and produced a design project in response to a request for proposals from the City government for the Seventeenth Street Market Square. Although our design solution was not selected for the Seventeenth Street Market, we were hopeful that the final product would be as a sensitive to the underlying context carried by the site as the Monroe Park project turned out the be. Neither of us were involved in the implementation of either park.

Monroe Park, restored fountain looking north

We remain convinced that the best responses to urban interventions involve "excavating" the design solution from the site, carefully examining and weighing the value of the preexisting patterns at the site and making use of those patterns to give continuity and to avoid gratuitously and inharmoniously disrupting healthy urban and architectural patterns for generations to come. By this standard, the Monroe Park project receives high honors and the Seventeenth Street Market project fails miserably.    

The 2009 3North Design for Monroe was largely executed as shown in 2017-18, with the exception of the rill running from the fountain to the lower center.

Monroe Park

The Monroe Park Restoration has been nearly a decade in gestation, but finally opened late last year after nearly two years of being fenced off from the public.
 
Monroe Park soon after opening in October 2018. The restored Checkers House, occupied by a police station and coffee
shop. New lighting, walking surface, and terrace around the Checkers House.



Restored Checkers House from the north, Oct. 2018.

The result is worthy of celebration. The reopened park is truly a restoration of all that is best of a great urban amenity. Major paths are lined once again by allees or rows of matching trees. The concrete and asphalt paving of the park's paths, arranged in the complex radiating plan implemented in 1877 by city engineer Wilfred Cutshaw, has been replaced by firmly packed yet soft-to-the-foot fine gravel. The brick Checkers Building of 1939 has been restored, and a completely new, classical pavilion of openwork bronze has been erected at the SW corner of the park across from the Altria Theatre (the Mosque Theatre of 1927).

Monroe Park as it appeared at its peak in 1896. Seen from the east.
The park, founded in 1851, was one of a series of three “breathing places in the midst of the City or convenient to it,” acquired as essential civic amenities by the common council. Modeled on similar squares in Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York, Richmond's ten-acre "Western Square" was designed to provide an open, green place for the health and comfort of the citizens. It took many years for it to be landscaped and improved.

It was not until after the end of the Civil War and after use as a fair grounds and military camp that it began to be used as a fair-weather promenade and visual amenity in direct competition with the city's original urban park at Capitol Square. The adjutant general of the US Army obtained funding to make modest improvements to the square in the early 1870s. In 1872, he donated a rock fountain at the center of the square. Charles Dimmock, the city engineer, prepared a plan of improvements for Monroe Square in 1871. and its gradual improvement commenced under his direction.

Elm trees and privet hedge along the Franklin Street side of Monroe Park [VCU Library]
It is surrounded (at least on two sides), as it likely was for many years, by American elms. According to the 2008 Master Plan researched by Tyler Potterfield, the planting plan begins an attempt to duplicate the wide range of textures and colors of trees and shrubs within the park. As planted between 1889 and 1904 by the city nurseryman, the park including maples, lindens, poplars, and elms. Some 62 trees representing 26 different tree species that were enumerated in an inventory of 1904 had, by 2008, been replaced by a total of 68 trees representing only eight species. The central "tazza" (tiered) fountain, made of cast iron and installed c 1906, and the statues of Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham (1891) and newspaper publisher Joseph Bryan (1911), as well as a brick World War II monument (1951), continue to face toward the park's periphery.

2004 VCU Master Plan- thankfully unexecuted design for a intensive intrusion into the grounds of Monroe Park
 from the west. Landscape designers and planners often seem unable to resist the desire to 'do something" like adding
 unnecessary plazas and "water features" that wok against the "parti" or design concept embedded in the park
 itself, eroding the clarity of its form 
By invisibly updating the park the city has demonstrated the greatest restraint at a time when subtlety in landscape design is in recession. The park support groups and the late Tyler Potterfield, senior planner, deserve great credit for the general preservation approach for the park. The project treated this great public amenity with the respect owed to the foresight of the designers preceded us. There was no need here for contemporary design features, intrusive public art, and superfluous elements like splash pads that pander to a supposed need to educate or entertain the public in order to convince them to make the fullest use of the park.  




Bryant Park, New York City, plan [above] and photo looking east [below]

The initial design by 3north, headed up by architect and landscape architect Jay Hugo, was to replicate the success of other urban plazas like Bryant Park in New York City, which reopened in 1992 as "programmed" park with provisions for eating, playing, and relaxing, including food, New York Public Library kiosks, boule courts with instructors, loose seating, and a wide range of seasonal activities.

3north- watercolor rendering of rill, 2009. 
Some of the features of the initial design were "value engineered" away, including the "rill," a fountain which ran down the center of the main cross path toward the James River from the central pool- reproducing the Mountain, Piedmont, and Tidewater- the three regions traversed by the river and ending in a pool for sailing toy boats. Also, a series of decorative pylons forming gateways at each park entrance and a low wall to accentuate a sense of enclosure originally provided by a circumferential fence and- a later replacement- privet hedge.

3north- watercolor rendering of the restored Checkers
House and the new café- very close to the project as executed, 2009.
The author was involved in the design of the rill, and also in the restoration of the Checkers House (the original park keeper's station) as a café and police station, and in the selection, with the City's architectural historian, Tyler Potterfield, of the varieties and layout of the recreated allees which line the major paths, based on the original tree layout. The logic of the plantings had been lost over the more than one hundred years since its planting and the park was characterized by a motley collection of trees some of which were unhealthy and, and in the case of the many hollies and magnolias, inappropriate for the use. 

View east through the park. October, 2018
Our connection with the project ended with the design phase and we have observed the slow progress of its realization from afar, hopefully. When we visited one beautiful week day, the park was occupied almost entirely by students from the nearby university, playing Frisbee, reading, or sampling the coffee. The concession operator explained that part of her duties were providing equipment for games, including bocce, chess, and table tennis. We vote this one of the nation's best and most understated park restorations.                   

Seventeenth Street Market

The “Market of the City of Richmond” was founded by city ordinance in 1782. We explored its history here and the threats to it here.

As we have explored in detail in this post, the proposed Seventeenth Street Market Square represents the sixth intervention at the site of Richmond’s historic city market. From its earliest days on the bank of Shockoe Creek, the City Market has been an accretionary, transformative place, changing its character with the changing shape of the city. The Market Square was originally placed on the edge of the settlement. One contemporary remembered the “green pasture” of the town's Common, which extended from the Market House down to Shockoe Creek. Eventually the area around the market was lined with shops and it took on a more enclosed form. 


Richmond City Market in 1814. Detail of Market House of 1794 from
Virginia Mutual Assurance Society policy. The three arches to the right were an addition.
Like its predecessors in Europe, Richmond's First Market Square embeds centuries of change and growth, although over time it assumed the form of a conventional enclosed square. In fact, American public places like First Market Square have traditionally embodied the kinds of urbane social and economic values that we usually associate with European plazas.  
1854 Market Hall

1913 Market Hall
The market, which began in the half-block between Main Street and Arch (Walnut) Alley, was extended over time as far as Grace Street, two blocks to the north. The Market Square was eventually surrounded by brick buildings housing grocers and butchers' shops.By 1853, the market building was judged by a city committee to be inadequate. The main section of the market was replaced an Italianate-style two-story building was likely designed by the City Engineer, W. McGill. This replaced, in turn, by three other structures in succession. The last market building was demolished in 2017 in order to create, for the first time, an open square on the same site.   


Shopping in 2013 for a Christmas wreath with Lucille Allen (seen at right above) and her son. 
With her sister, Rosa Fleming, she sold home-grown vegetables and
hand-made Christmas decorations on the market for more than fifty years. 
As part of the rich, bottom-up, market-driven development that has characterized the area along Shockoe Creek since the late seventeenth century, the area around the Seventeenth Street or First Market is an increasingly vital neighborhood in its own right. Given the loss of the historic market halls, most of what was significant about the market area was embedded in its street layout, its pavement, and its shape. The curbing, street pavement, and sidewalks carried its history as strongly as the buildings that surround it.

Preservation of these urban textures and forms was essential to provide continuity and context. There are subtle formal and historical distinctions that must be made in order to take full advantage of the gifts this valuable civic resource offers to the city. 

This place has been at the heart of commerce in Richmond for over two hundred years. Shockoe Valley, with its growing young population, should retain a vital market function, preferably with a number of traditional permanent stalls, not just temporary shelters. 



In contrast, the project's planners treated the square as a "festival marketplace"- a wide concourse leading from Main to Franklin and beyond. This kind of planning led them to treat the square as if it was just a link in a grand scheme seen from a privileged, bird’s eye perspective.

The square did not evolve as an open piazza. While the edges of the square are formed by building facades on the south, east, and west, there is no closure at the north. It is long and narrow and “leaky” at the corners. The square was meant to be filled with architecture. This does not mean that it couldn't be adapted for use as a piazza designed to serve the civic good. 

Third Building at Richmond’s First Market site plan from Sanborn Map of 1889. Photo of first state
(built 1854) below on left and with second-floor hall removed on the right. Note the arch in the tower at the center.
The Market Square consists of two historic sections. The earliest part of the present square is the southern half. Its legal boundaries laid out in 1792. It contained the two-story building that served as the market house, municipal building, assembly hall, records office, and seat of justice. This building was later rebuilt and expanded to the north as far as Franklin Street.
Detail from the 1865 panorama of the city of Richmond looking west from Church Hill [Library of Congress]. The cupola of Mason's Hall is center left. The market and its bell tower aligned with Arch Alley is seen behind it.
Most importantly, its two main sections were linked by a central archway in the form of a tower that spanned “Arch Alley” midway along the market, permitting movement from east to west across the square. The elongated form of the now-vanished market buildings is defined by the cobbled streets and the granite curbing, each of which dates to the heyday of the market in the nineteenth century. The market gradually extended all the way to Grace Street in a series of shed-like buildings that diminished as they moved north.

Arch Alley looking east before replacement of paving in the market square.
Early conceptual version of the market square design, relating to its proposed role as entrance concourse to the failed ball park scheme.
Design Rendering
As it nears completion in mid-winter 2018, the renovated Seventeenth Street Market Square presents a slickly commercial appeal. Although it is a considerable improvement over the early renderings from 2013, meaningless gestures like the wiggly "water feature" in that design continue to affirm the Modernist bona fides of the designer. Shifting checkerboard squares, each with grass and a tree, punctuate the concrete paving. The old market bell is placed at ground level in a sculptural circular frame. Conventional electric streetlights are overpowered by tall area lights.

Seventeenth Street Market in November 2018 nearing opening day.


Banning cars and trucks from travel along the existing streets through the square was a mistake. As the recent Richmond Downtown Master Plan indicates, areas without traffic do not feel safe, seem empty, and suffer commercially. "Pedestrianization” sounds humane, but, except in certain high density areas, it can be deadly to commerce. Cars underline the activity in the area and parked cars even make visitors feel safer on the sidewalks. 

Seventeenth Street Market Square nearing completion

The pavement in the square has been completely replaced in the name of handicapped access, but it has flattened out the sense of historical associations. As a historic district, existing pavement could have been maintained to the greatest degree possible, not only in the square , but along the adjacent streets where, in some cases, it is the principal reminder of the historic context. 

The organizing elements of the landscape could have been used to reinforce underlying historic patterns. For instance, a central walkway from north to south could represent the central aisle that defined each of the three previous market halls on the site.In contrast paving with one flat plane from one side reminds this visitor mostly of the city's outdoor suburban malls.  

As we said in 2013, by treating the project with the care it deserved, the Market Square could have become, once again, as flexible, serviceable, and exciting as any American public square or Italian piazza of today.  







Emancipation Monument: A Proposal

$
0
0
As is well known, Richmond has been the scene of an extended conversation- sometimes extreme in its terms- about the city's monuments, particularly those placed along Monument Avenue, the city's renowned boulevard traditionally dedicated to Confederate generals. We reviewed the larger monumental tradition in Richmond some time ago, before the topic took center stage. The mayor has been alternately in favor of some sort of retention and removal of the Confederate monuments. The governor has recently come out in favor of removal of the monuments from the street to a museum.   

Richmond's local History Museum, the Valentine, has sponsored a competition and exhibit around proposed solutions to the controversy.  One of the members of my firm, Stephen Hershey, entered a classical proposal in the competition. He proposed leaving some or all of the existing monuments in place and answering them with an imposing new classical structure incorporating monumental sculpture. As might be expected, it was not selected to be shown in the exhibit.   

Here is his description and a proposed set of guidelines, which outline a significant formal representation, in keeping with classical principles, of the sacrifices and achievements of the many individuals who acted in favor of emancipation. It places on the avenue a counter-statement that rises to and perhaps surpasses the old monuments, transforming the meaning of the street for the benefit of the entire city, not just the fraction of its citizens who idolized the Confederate heroes.

 _________________________________________________________________
 
Monument to Emancipation
 
The Monument to Emancipation is dedicated to native Virginians who opposed slavery before and during the Civil War. Abolitionists in Virginia, like Mary Bowser and Elizabeth Van Lew, played a pivotal role as spies during the War, gathering and relaying Confederate secrets to the Union. African Americans from Virginia like William Harvey Carney, the first African American Medal of Honor recipient, played an important role on the battlefront. Often unheralded, the Monument to Emancipation gives these individuals a prominent position on Monument Avenue, filling a gap between the Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee statues. This proposal is intended to help establish criteria for future monuments. The goal is to establish and maintain critical design guidelines that will preserve the beauty of Monument Avenue.
 
Design Criteria for Future Monuments
 
1.  Monuments should represent individuals over a broad spectrum of historical significance.
2. Preference should be given to native Virginians or individuals who made significant contributions to Virginia history.

3. Controversial figures (e.g. Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser) should be represented on Monument Avenue based on their historical significance.

4. Monuments should reinforce the civic order, style, and organization of the street.

5. Monuments should be of similar size and scale to existing monuments. Variety is permitted but in good taste. The Monument to Emancipation is an example of a monument that solidifies its presence adjacent to the polarizing Davis and Lee statues.

6. Monuments should look like they belong to Monument Avenue. The original designers of the boulevard envisioned the future erection of additional monuments.
 


 



 


Villas on the Hill: Richmond's Richard Adams and Adams-Taylor Houses

$
0
0





Richmond Hill, Richmond's ecumenical retreat center, occupies a spectacular site on the forward edge of the city's Church Hill neighborhood, overlooking the downtown to the west and the James River to the south.  The complex of brick buildings is embedded in a beautifully maintained walled garden that dates back to the late eighteenth century. Richmond Hill's history mirrors that of the city. We developed this text as part of a historic structure report for the Richmond Hill community prepared at Glave and Holmes Architecture.
 
Overview
 
The site was first developed in the 1780s by Col. Richard Adams (1726-1800), a member of the House of Burgesses, the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate and was a delegate to the Convention of 1776. In 1769, Adams purchased several squares on Richmond Hill, as well as parcels of land to the northeast, from Isaac Coles, which he called Spring Garden. Over time, members of the Adams family built several houses on the crest of Church Hill which were incorporated into the Richmond Hill complex after the properties were purchased for the Sisters of the Visitation soon after the end of the Civil War. They converted the old Adams houses for use as a convent and school, which they called Monte Maria. Eventually constructed a chapel and dormitory/convent. After years of prayerful life in the monastic tradition, the sisters moved to a new location, opening the opportunity for the ecumenical Richmond Hill community to purchase and thoroughly rehabilitate the complex and garden to serve as a training and retreat center.




The two "squares" or blocks occupied by the Richard Adams and Adams-Taylor Houses as they were probably
arranged in 1820. The lower half each square forms the bluff and drops sharply to the lower part of town. The view
to the James River is to the south.
The same site today, showing the buildings added by the Sisters of the Visitation and the Richmond Hill
Ecumenical Center from 1866 to the present.
 
Site History
 
The northeast corner of the 28-block grid of the town of Richmond, laid out for William Byrd II in 1737, was difficult of access and remained undeveloped for many years. Byrd convinced the vestry of Henrico Parish to place their proposed new upper church at Richmond on two prominently placed, but marginal, lots at the highest point on what was then known as Indian Town Hill, overlooking and dominating the lower town. The grid along the south side of the hill was so arranged that Franklin Street ran along the bottom of the hill and Grace Street at enough distance back from the top that there was room for houses and gardens.

The land around the church was not developed for many years. The original owner of much of the land on the hill was John Coles, (d. 1747) a prominent merchant and planter who emigrated from Ireland in the early to mid-1730s. He owned lots on the hill and two of Byrd's suburban “villa tracts,” totaling nearly 28 acres, located to the north of the town.


In 1769, Coles’ son Isaac Coles (1747-1813) sold his holdings, including 10 half-acre lots, to Col. Richard Adams (1726-1802), a mill-owner and land speculator in Richmond. Adams, born in New Kent County, was said to have been “one of the most enterprising, public-spirited, wealthy, and influential citizens of Richmond”  [Coleman, C.W. Genealogy of the Adams Family of New Kent and Henrico Counties, VA, William and Mary Quarterly 5:3 (Jan. 1897) 161-62]. He hoped to persuade Thomas Jefferson to locate the new capitol on his land on Church Hill and on the tract to the north, which he called Spring Garden, which he had laid out in lots. Legend has it that he was resentful that Jefferson chose Shockoe Hill to the west instead.

Richard Adams House [Scott 1941].

 

RICHARD ADAMS HOUSE (c1790)
 
Col. Richard Adams built a large, one-story frame house on the square south of Grace Street between 22nd and 23rd Streets about 1790. Its exact date of construction is not certain. According to Mary Wingfield Scott, “the seat of a Mr. Adams was mentioned in a travel book published in 1784 [Smyth’s Tour in the United States] probably refers to an earlier house on the north side of Grace, possibly built for John Coles [Scott 1941]. Land tax books as late as 1788 show the lots as unimproved. A Virginia Mutual Assurance Society policy dated 1796 is for a house “all wood. . . two stories. . . .55 feet by 34 feet. . . . kitchen 28 feet by 18 feet northwest of house” [Scott 1950].

The original house appears to have been a one-story, frame, U-shaped center-passage-plan dwelling with a half upper story served by dormers, but the house was enlarged over time to the north. A central porch stood at the south entry. Massive two-story exterior chimneys with tiled shoulders stood at each end (the western chimney was removed when as addition was made to the west). The roof appears to have projected to form matching ells that extended to each side of the north entry, each with an exterior chimney on the north end. At some point around 1800, the space between the ells was infilled with a two-story three-bay north addition with the appearance of a respectable small Federal town house. This addition effectively updated the appearance of the house from the street. The roof of the two-story section fit neatly on top of the eighteen-century portion to give it the appearance of a hip-on-hip roof from the south. The north addition was entered through a delicate, central, three-bay entry porch [photos at the Valentine].

Middle terrace of the historic garden along the south front, looking east.
 

A terraced garden, of the type known as at the time as "falling gardens," appears to have extended along the south and possibly the east sides of the house. Three shallow terraces aligned with the river that survive in the existing garden very likely date from the eighteenth-century Adams garden. The fine quality of Richard Adams’ garden was a memory passed down by the later owners [Goodpasture, 1999]. A sense of the terraces can be seen in the 1889 view of the house (Figure 12). The family grew some foodstuffs on a lot nearby. The will left by his son, Richard Adams, Jr., mentions four enclosed lots that he used as a garden, probably close by the house.

Baist Map of 1889. The Richard Adams House is shown in yellow beside the number 79
and the Adams-Taylor House beside the number 78.
Outbuildings on the site include the two-story, “slave quarters” visible in early photos to the west of the house and identified by the nuns [Sentinel on the Hill, 24]. This is identified as a brick building on the 1889 Baist Map of the city. Other structures that appear on maps from the late 19th and early 20th centuries may or may not date from the Adams period. A two-story brick outbuilding stood near the northeast corner of the lot (near the number 80). Portions of it, including a small tool shed and bricked-up window, still remain incorporated into the perimeter wall. It may have been a stable or carriage house for the Adams or, at a later date, Ellett families.


Until the early nineteenth century, there were few dwellings other than the Richard Adams House and several houses of his children, aligned along the edges of the bluff overlooking the James River and Shockoe Creek. One son, Dr. John Adams, lived to the east. Richard Adams Jr. (1760-1817), a wealthy land speculator like his father, received the original family home. A two-story frame addition was made to the west end of the old house, probably by Richard Adams, Jr.

After the death of Col. Richard Adams in 1802, the Adams family began selling off lots in the neighborhood and new buildings began to appear along Franklin, Grace, and Broad streets. When Richard Adams, Jr. died in 1817, he left the “the old mansion house, and two lots immediately attached thereto and the four lots now used and enclosed as my garden” to his nephew Richard Adams III. He sold the house and lots 79 and 80 to Loftin N. Elliett, Clerk of the Henrico County Court, in 1825.
Casimir Bohn. Richmond from the church hill, 1851 [Library of Congress]. The Adams-Taylor House is shown in the foreground. The view is from the east.
ADAMS-TAYLOR HOUSE (1812, 1859)
 
This remarkable, but much-altered house is usually said to have been built by Richard Adams, Jr., who had been mayor of the city in the 1780s. It appears, instead, to have been built for speculator James Smith in 1812. Until 1808, lot 78, which later contained the house, was listed as unimproved and assessed against Richard Adams at $100. In 1810, the value increased to $500. In the following year Adams’ four lots on the square were valued at the relatively modest sum of $2,000. By 1813, lot 78 was accessed for the large sum of $6,500 against James Smith, who was recorded as the tenant. This undoubtedly represents the value of a grand new “mansion house.” Smith built the house with the backing of Richard Adams, Jr. and his brother John Adams. They had joined Smith in 1814 to insure the expensive new brick dwelling in 1814 for $6,000 [Virginia Mutual policy]. Smith received the title to the property in March of 1814 [Deed Book 10, p. 478].

Conjectural floor plan showing the main floor of the building c 1900, when it was used as the Monte Maria Academy. The original room layout survives along the south front (at top). A passage originally spanned at the center from east to west.
The entry tower at the east side and the stairs in the SW corner were added and the open plan along the north front created
by removing earlier partitions. Since that time, Richmond Hill has subdivided that area once again.
It was acquired for $13,000 by Jacob Galt Ege after Smith’s death in 1817. The severe depression of 1819 brought to an end a period of rampant speculation and price inflation in Richmond real estate. Ege was forced to transfer the property to his mother-in-law, Diana Morgan. Diana Morgan returned the house to Jacob and Jane Ege with the understanding that it would be sold for the benefit of their heirs at their deaths [DB 15, p. 443]. Jacob Ege insured it for $5,000 in 1822 and 1829. The house was sold by court order to William W. Palmer (1801-1870), a native of Maryland, in 1833 [DB 32, p. 95]. It was reevaluated at $3,500 for insurance in 1836 and 1851. It decreased in value in 1858, when once again re-valued. Palmer was a dealer in agricultural implements, seeds and farm supplies, insurance, and banking. He was a director and vice President of the Richmond and Danville Railroad Co. His wife was Elizabeth Walker Enders, daughter of John Enders, a prominent tobacco dealer [Montgomery [Virginia] News-Messenger, 1 July 1976 and gravestone, Hollywood Cemetery].

A wide entry at the center of the north front, now altered, can be seen obliquely in the drawing of 1851. The house may have been intended to face Grace Street, in which case visitors were supposed to be received in a central hall on the first floor at the center of the north front. The north entry was not, however, accessible by stair in 1851. A formal secondary entrance on the east side, facing the older Adams family home, opened into a transverse passage that ran from east to west. The east entry was provided with an elegant Federal frontispiece and accessed by an elegant stone stair with an iron railing (Figure 7). The west end of the house was likely the service end of the dwelling.
 





Historic photo of the Adams-Taylor House, early 20th c. Note how the center three bays on the second floor are grouped together, probably reflecting the

 existing of a large central room on each floor. This may have been a stair hall. A pair of doors has been added to reach the two rooms that occupied that space.
 The porch at the west end may have provided service access. The chimneys that served the northern row of rooms had been removed by this point. Note the
paneled end of the chimney that remains. The two-story former slave quarters between the two Adams houses was still in place.

In 1859, Palmer sold the house to William Taylor [DB 74B, p. 124]. William Taylor, one of the city’s most successful wholesale merchants, purchased the house and greatly enlarged it about 1859. He dramatically increased its value by adding a second story with a central cupola and porticoes on both the north and south. The exterior was covered with stucco. The south portico extended across both floors on massive square columns, a feature that was popular among Richmond's wealthy land-owners, permitting them take the most advantage of shade and air in the summer and of the dramatic views possible on the hills of the city. The exterior openings were much altered in 1859. Only a small amount of original trim remains in the house.

North front of the Adams-Taylor House, 2001 [Frazier Associates]. The added stair/bell tower is to the left. The central cupola was removed but has since been restored.
North Front of the Adams-Taylor House

South front of the Adams-Taylor House 
 
 

Pontoon Bridges across the James River, Detail, 1865, Library of Congress. The Richard Adams House is at the right and the Adams-

Taylor House is near the center. A long two-story frame outbuilding stands to the west end of the Richard Adams House. Separate boundaries
of wood fencing can be seen surrounding both the Richard Dams and the Adams-Taylor houses.
In 1860, William Taylor sold the house to Richard A. Wilkins, a Virginian returning from Louisiana to educate his children in Richmond [DB 76A, p. 1]. A plain one-story porch protected service entries on the west side of the house on the basement and first-floor levels. Two one-story outbuildings were located nearby to the west of the house.
 
 
Adams-Taylor House. Original first-floor door trim between south-central room and southeast room (left) and original stair and rail on east front, now inside entry tower (right).
 
On the interior, some of the Federal-style woodwork appears to have been retained by Taylor. A single door survives from the original house on the first floor. More was probably present until the late-19th-century alterations which made the house into a school. Very little material from this period survives on the first floor. The mantels on the first floor in the south central and southwest rooms were replaced with plain Greek Revival period wood elements dating from this period. On the second floor, the windows and window trim dates from 1858.
CONVERSION TO SCHOOL USE
 
Loftin N. Ellett, owner of the Richard Adams House, also acquired portions of the adjacent lots 65 and 66 in 1861. After his death in 1862, in 1866, his executor sold the Richard Adams property to Bishop John McGill, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond. Bishop McGill had requested that a convent be established in Richmond by the Sisters of the Visitation of Holy Mary to provide the diocese with an important missing element- a cloistered monastery. The Visitation Monastery in Baltimore sent six nuns for that purpose.
 
 
In the same year the diocese purchased the Adams-Taylor House from Richard Wilkins [DB 83B, p. 232]. The bishop's intent was to establish a school for girls to be operated by the convent as a means for supporting their vocation. The interesting story of the Monte Maria Academy will be told in a later post.
 




 







Exploring the Classical Garden at Richmond's Maymont Estate

$
0
0
The principal meaning of the gardens at Maymont, as understood by classically educated people like James Dooley, was that mankind was placed in the world to manage and organize otherwise chaotic natural forces like water and vegetative growth in order to promote the civic good. Gardens, both decorative and practical, were like books that reinforced the lessons of order that were inherent in all cultures and periods, even as they provided the leisure for contemplation of this comprehensible vision of the natural world.    

Aerial photo of Maymont, 1920, Maymont Foundation. The Italian Garden can be seen to the upper left.  


Introduction
 
Maymont, Richmond's great public garden, was built as the landscaped suburban estate of James H. Dooley (1841-1922), a lawyer, philanthropist, and financier, and his wife, Sallie May Dooley (c1845-1925), a social and cultural leader. The 100-acre farm on the edge of Richmond was purchased in 1886 by the Dooleys when Sallie fell in love with the spectacular views of the James River to be had from the central ridge and with the large oaks that studded the grounds. James F. Dooley had studied Roman literature as part of a classical education at Georgetown College, from which he graduated first in his class. Sarah (Sallie) Dooley loved gardening, flowers, and travel.

The Dooleys' travels opened them to a wide variety of garden settings, including the gentle and informal English landscapes, the elaborate terraces and fountains of French and Italian gardens, and the gardens of Japan. The classical past inspired temples and, very likely, the garden's central waterfall, while a love for the Renaissance and Baroque villas on the outskirts of Rome led them to build an American version of an Italian garden that, with its cliff-top terraces and bubbling fountains, would astound friends and visitors. 

No matter that there was no water supply at the top of the hill; with gasoline pumps, anything was possible. They worked from 1907 to 1911 with Richmond architects Noland and Baskervill to base their Italian Cascade on the similar feature at the Villa Torlonia outside Rome, but they added a massive naturalistic waterfall like that at the Villa Gregoriana at Tivoli. At the bottom of the hill, with the waterfall as a backdrop linking it to the Italian Garden, they soon after added one of the nations finest and oldest extant Japanese-style gardens. For that purpose, James and Sallie Dooley are thought to have employed Y. Muto, a Japanese landscape designer, to arrange the rocks and water courses in 1911-12.  

The Dooleys began with modest Victorian landscape features. As their wealth increased, they expanded the scope of their gardening efforts and embraced the growing movement known as the American Renaissance, which took its inspiration from continental European sources. As Dale Wheary has observed, as country places proliferated across the country, so too did the number of fashionable garden styles- Italian, French, Colonial, Japanese, and other thematic styles. Eclectic landscapes included several different types of gardens, much like outdoor rooms,connected by naturalistic areas, such as park-like, English-style lawns.” [1]

The Sublime, the Beautiful, and the Industrial

On closing this general view of beauty, it naturally occurs, that we should compare it with the sublime; and in this comparison there appears a remarkable contrast. For sublime objects are vast in their dimensions, beautiful ones comparatively small: beauty should be smooth and polished; the great, rugged and negligent. . .

                                                Edmund Burke, 1756

Starting in the seventeenth century, British philosophers explored the relationship between Beauty- a controlled experience of light and movement- and the Sublime- an experience of awe associated with a boundless and even threatening natural world. As Richmond expanded in the late eighteenth century, wealthy landowners, merchants, and industrialists built villas on the hills around the city.  Starting with Belvedere, William Byrd IIIs 1758 house west of the city, the elite built their houses on the low bluffs overlooking the broken and dramatic landscape at the fall line. The view of the roaring river, passing over the many layers of granite falls for a distance of six miles, was an object of contemplation and awe, suggesting the limitless power of nature. The setting of the city was highly praised by visitors who enjoyed the dramatic views of the river and the sound of the thunder of the falls. Its noisy, rockstrewn landscape provided an appropriately American setting for Jeffersons Capitol temple set high on Shockoe Hill.

Quarry at Maymont: an industrial feature that was adapted as part of the finished landscape.
Cities have always required places, often on their edges, where order breaks down- games can be played, military companies drilled, leisure time spent in strolling, and where citizens gather to pull their supper directly from the rapidly passing wilderness.  On the edges of rivers, natural forces can be collected and used to fuel noisy, smelly, and often unsightly mills and factories. In Richmond, the land along the river was used for recreational, transportation, and industrial activities.  Quarries exploited the granite outcroppings, mills took advantage of the rapid change in water level at the falls of the James, and canal locks moved boats through the change in elevation.

The altered landscape visible at Maymont at the end of the nineteenth century proved to be an ideal setting for picturesque garden effects. When James and Sallie Dooley reused the former farm overlooking the river and the abandoned quarry operation to create the gardens at Maymont, they were following in the footsteps of generations of wealthy Richmonders. As they and their employees sculpted a garden, everyone involved in the project, from house servants, coachmen, and gardeners to the Dooleys peers in the city, were touched by the ambitious scale of its idea. In a way, the estate as it exists today recapitulates the entire natural, social, and economic history of the region, from wilderness to a farm and from a private ornamental estate to an extraordinarily valuable public asset. Today, everyone is able to participate in the grand vision of the Dooleys and the other philanthropists who have enlarged it.

The Dooleys Vision

According to Major Dooley, his wife fell in love with the placeand beggedhim to buy it. She brought to the project a passion for gardening and considerable knowledge about horticulture. He was involved in the creation of the gardens and probably brought to bear his classical education in the planning of some of the architectural forms and literary references to be found in the gardens design, but Sallie May Dooley is given credit by her husband for much of the energy that went into its realization.[2] Much of the garden derives from its spectacular location overlooking the falls, now concealed by vegetation. Vision, in the sense of gazing out at the natural world, is built into the design of Maymont. The gazebos placed around the garden were stations from which the Dooleys could admire views over the landscape, both wild and cultivated.

Sallie May Dooley experimented with landscape effects and planting patterns in the grounds around the mansion in the 1890s. She and her husband planted an outdoor museum of rare trees among the large oaks that had first attracted her attention. Mrs. Dooley would daily walk the grounds with Mr. Taliaferro, the estate manager, to supervise the planning, planting, and care of Maymonts landscape and gardens” [3] Major Dooley, however, is given credit for the idea of the Italian Garden in an article written in 1908.[4]

Maymont today. The Italian Garden and Grotto are shown at the lower right.

The Dooley's intentions at Maymont are difficult to track, due to lack of documentation, but the larger Maymont landscape seems to inhabit two distinct modes of design. The first is the Victorian, during which the Dooleys began their adventure in country living. The picturesque Ornamental Lawn near the Victorian mansion at Maymont and the surrounding English Park-style landscape and Arboretum reflected the gardening styles popularized in mid-nineteenth-century American publications. The second mode is known as the American Renaissance, which prompted the Dooleys emulation of the great gardens of Renaissance and Baroque Italy. Publications in the 1890s and early 1900s, as well as the success of Chicagos Columbian Exposition in 1893, encouraged a return to classical forms and planning principles. Likewise, the Japanese Garden, which is neatly dovetailed with the Italian Garden, grew from examples at late nineteenth-century worlds fairs. It also showed the Dooleys interest in expanding their horizons beyond the simplicity of the American gardening tradition.

 American Renaissance


The great country house as it is now understood is a new type of dwelling, a sumptuous house, built at large expense, often palatial in its dimensions, furnished in the richest manner and placed on an estate, perhaps large enough to admit of independent farming operations, and in most cases with a garden which is an integral part of the architectural scheme. 

                                                   Barr Ferree, American Estates and Gardens,1904 [5]

The stylistic focus of the Dooleys shifted in the new century along with the tastes of writers like Edith Wharton, who encouraged the adoption of consistent programs of garden design and interior decoration based on classical European prototypes. This movement that spanned across the arts is know as the American Renaissance and it affected painting, sculpture, and architecture, as well as garden design. The Dooleys redecorated their parlors at the Dooley Mansion in eighteenth-century French style and, in 1912, after Grand Tour-style trips to Europe, built and furnished Swanannoa, a palatial summer home in the mountains west of Richmond modeled after Romes Villa Medici. The gardens and house at Swannanoa are closely integrated, as was advocated by proponents of the American Renaissance and the allied American Country House movement. In contrast with Swanannoa, the marked disconnect between Maymonts very Victorian mansion and the Italian- and Japanese-inspired gardens completed nearly twenty years later points out the change in the Dooleysperspective.

As their project at Maymont progressed, the childless couple seem to have decided to expand their private suburban estate, transforming it into a treasure house intended for the cultural education and recreation of Richmonders long after they were gone. They wished for it to serve as a presentation of the fine arts, found alike in the elaborate gardens and the mansion, which they equipped with curios, paintings, tapestry, sculpture, and musical instruments representing the best of the nation's European inheritance. It would appear that as their wealth increased, their program became more ambitious. James and Sallie May Dooley began their relationship with the fashionable architectural firm of Nolan and Baskervill in 1904, when they commissioned a up-to-date new Carriage House.

Aerial view today. Maymont Mansion is located to the upper left, the cascade at the center below the Italian Garden, and
Japanese Garden at the lower center. 
Maymonts hanging Italian Garden and Cascade (1907-1910) and the extensive Japanese Garden (1911-1912) were on a very different scale from the Dooleys previous efforts. These, by their escalation in scale, order, and dramatic effect and by their literary and historical associations, were unprecedented in Virginia. They were capable of engendering strong emotional effects by a cumulative series of spectacles, including waterfalls, complex views of distant objectives, and contrast between a foreground of delicate flowers backed by massed foliage and picturesque structures. The unavoidable impression was of the contrast of ordered civilization in the garden with the sublime, romantic chaos of wilderness, represented by the noisy James River beyond.

There does not appear to have been a fully realized master plan for the landscape. In fact there are few documents that record the intentions of the designers and virtually no accounts of the garden's effect on viewers in the early that have surfaced. Any connections between iconography, the owners' intentions, and perceived meanings is speculative. At the largest scale, a visitor's progress through the gardens, after leaving the house, moved from very formal to picturesque. It began in the rectilinear parterres and tightly organized cascades of the Italian Garden, progressed by means of the Grotto to the studied naturalism of the Japanese Landscape, and ended in a (no longer accessible) rock garden, called the Rocky Overlook, on a granite outcrop at the far east end of the property.

The garden was expanded over a period of four years, but the sequence of construction shows unexpected relationships between sections of the garden. For instance, architectural drawings show that the water supply system was designed from the beginning to serve the Upper Terrace and Cascade as completed in 1908-1909, perhaps, but not necessarily, before the Japanese Garden was conceived.[6] 

The full design for the upper terrace was presented to Major Dooley in early 1908 in a rendered sketch plan and elevation showing elaborate planting beds, Italian cypresses, and other decorative accessories.[7] The Dooleys expanded the Italian Garden over the next three years with two terraces below and in front of the original one, all completed by 1911.


The Via Florum



A minute's walk will transport the visitor from the small, uneasy, lava stones of the Roman pavement into broad, gravelled carriage-drives, whence a little farther stroll brings him to the soft turf of a beautiful seclusion. A seclusion, but seldom a solitude; for priest, noble, and populace, stranger and native, all who breathe Roman air, find free admission, and come hither to taste the languid enjoyment of the day-dream that they call life.

                                                            The gardens of the Villa Borghese, described by Hawthorne, in The Marble Faun


The Italian Garden is separated from the mansion both visually and physically and is reached by means of a path made of roughly finished stones. The route to and through garden (the Via Florum) can be seen to actually begin as the guest exits the Mansion through the porte cochere, where a copy of Canova's statue of Three Graces is placed as an object of contemplation above a small reflecting pool.  Sculpture in the nineteenth century, was often selected as a part of a decorative programin which the subjects of work of art corresponded to the theme or use of the building or landscape. This marble sculpture, a copy of a nineteenth-century original by Canova, begins the progress of the gardenswith a reference to the goddesses of beauty, amusement, and festivity appropriate to gardens. 


Entrance to the Via Florum and the Italian Garden from the west
The garden enclosure is entered through a rough stone gateway, above which is inscribed Via Florum (the Way of Flowers). The term, which reminds us of James Dooley's education in classical literature in the Latin language, appears to be a play by him on the name of the principal road through the Roman Forum, the Via Sacra, or Sacred Way. This miniature triumphal arch provides access to a long rose-covered colonnade or pergola that runs along the upper terrace of the garden. 

The Via Florum is similar to the cool, sheltered, longitudinal avenues typical of Renaissance gardens. The three levels of the terrace are reached by wide granite stairs. The parterres on the upper level are Italian in inspiration but originally made use of plants appropriate to the place and season of use. Since the Dooleys escaped the heated summer season at Swanannoa, the gardens at Maymont focused on spring flowers.


Postcard showing the Via Florum pergola and the large circular temple in the Italian Garden with its original tile roof.  
The Italian Garden has its roots in the ancient world. The Roman writer Cicero enjoyed a luxurious villa in Tusculum, southeast of Rome. Pliny the Elder had two villas, one in the Tuscan hills and the other by the sea. His descriptions, along with the ruins at Tivoli, were sources for later garden designers wishing to emulate the settings of classical villas. As we have seen, James Dooley, had been exposed at Georgetown College to classical and Renaissance literature and was intellectually equipped to imagine such a classically inspired garden [8].


 Detail from Maxfield Parrish, The Cascade, Villa Torlonia, Frascati, from
Edith Wharton, Italian Villas and their Gardens, 1904.



The Cascade

It was in the guidance of rushing water that the Roman garden-architects of the seventeenth century showed their poetic feeling and endless versatility.                           

                                                 Edith Wharton, 1904


The direct inspiration for the Cascade and the Fountain Pool located above it was Carlo Madernos 1623 garden at the Villa Torlonia in Frascati, near the site of Ciceros villa at Tusculum. This was an important and accessible destination in the Dooleys era, but we don't have evidence that they visited it. Their experience may have derived entirely from books. An article in the local paper makes clear the careful study of sources that went into the gardens design: drawings, photographs and measurements of the best specimens of this character of artistic work abroad have been used by the landscape gardeners in charge of the work. . . ”[9] 


Detail, Plan of the Villa Torlonia. Geoffrey Alan Jellicoe, Italian Gardens of the Renaissance, 1925. Note the large pool at the top and the cascade just below. At the Villa Torlonia, the grotto takes the form of a "water theater" at the bottom. 

Maymont Cascade today
Upper Cascade at the Villa Torlonia at Frascati in 1903,
Charles Latham, The Gardens of Italy, 1905

As at Frascati, the cascade at Maymont is fed by an oval-shaped ornamental reservoir and ends abruptly in a spectacular feature which dramatizes the power and beauty of water. There, the water flows into an arcaded theatrein which water is the main actor, centered on a nymphaeum or grotto.  At Maymont, the picturesque waterfall, fed by the cascade, serves a similar role to that of the Baroque water theatre, but with an origin in a later, more picturesque, period of garden design. As we will see below, it is related to a famous nineteenth-century garden at Tivoli with a complex history, built around the falls of the Aniene River. The grotto found at the Villa Torlonia was not forgotten, however, but its counterpart was displaced to the east, where Maymonts Grotto is built into the base of the bluff near the Old Pump House. 


John Singer Sargeant, The Fountain, Villa Torlonia, Frascati, Italy, 1907.


Images and descriptions of the popular garden at Frascati were published by the early 1890s. Edith Wharton said of the Torlonia cascade in 1904, that it is the most beautiful example of fountain-architecture in Frascati. . .  The upper terrace is enclosed by ilexes and in its center is one of the most beautiful fountains in Italy-- a large basin surrounded by a richly sculptured balustrade”[10] According to Henry Baskervills niece, the Dooleys sent him to Italy to acquire garden ornaments and find inspiration, so it entirely possible that he visited Frascati and was impressed by the Villa Torlonia. 

 
The Meaning of the Garden

Whatever its source, the Italian Garden, as built, seems to embody a kind of multivalent narrative structure with a classical underpinning.  Meaning is suggested by the name, Via Florum inscribed as over the entry archway.  The name that could refer either to the rose-covered pergola beyond or to the entire garden as a pathway to an understanding of nature. Garden meaning is here also inherent in the kinds of forms and structures chosen by the Dooleys. Classical architecture, flower beds, fountains, waterfalls, stairs, and grottoes carry an intrinsic meaning.[11] 

Domed summer house at the east end of the pergola


Major Dooley's "Temple"

Temples and Springs


We had quite a loss by the storm also.  Our beautiful temple, that I got in Venice, was blown down and badly broken.  I expect it will cost me some hundreds of dollars to restore it.

                                          James F. Dooley, 1913


One of the few clues we have about James Dooley's vision for the garden is his name for the tiny peripteral Italian gazebo at the eastern end of the Italian Garden, which he had purchased at Venice. He called it "our beautiful temple," and may have seen it as a miniature allusion to the tempiettos placed at the ends of vistas in Baroque gardens. Another classical allusion can be found in the large circular, temple-form "summer house" at the end of the Via Florum pergola- another structure ultimately based in Roman models. Dooley may have intended for these temples to refer to more elaborate temple-form structures in European gardens that carried symbolic and mythological meanings.

Edward Lear, The Waterfall and Temple at Tivoli.

  
J.M.W. Turner, Tivoli, 1826-27 [Tate Gallery]. The painting shows the
Temple of the Sibyl or Vesta perched high above the waterfall at Tivoli.

The Waterfall



The past few days I have been at Tivoli, and have seen one of the first spectacles of nature. The waterfalls there with the ruins, and the whole complexity of landscapes, are of a class of subjects, acquaintance with which is an enrichment of our whole nature to its utmost reach.

                                                                Goethe,1787

The 45-foot Waterfall, the Dooleys most spectacular garden feature, lies between the Italian Garden terrace and the Japanese Garden. The water supply plans documented in 1908 confirm that the waterfall, readily suggested by the bare rock and jagged cliff left behind by the former quarry, was part of the garden concept from as early as 1907, and that it was seen by the Dooleys not only a backdrop for the as-yet unrealized Japanese Garden, but as a key linking element in the overall design garden design. At first the cascade appears to have been relatively small. The volume of the waterfall was increased after 1911, very likely so that it could be more effective when seen from the new Japanese Garden below. The upper part of the falls beside the cascade was at the same time improvedby the creation of a series of ledges, possibly to enhance its appearance from the cascade stairs.
 

Maymont Waterfall with the Italian Garden seen above and the edge of the Cascade to the right.
The context of the Maymont Waterfall, with the circular "summer house" temple placed high above it, resemble the dramatic gorge at Tivoli, where the antique, circular Temple of Vesta is perched at the head of a famous gorge caused by the waterfall of a branch of the Tiber. The gorge in ancient times had been selected by powerful Romans as a site for a series of cool summer retreats. It was developed as a picturesque public park by Pope Gregory XVI in 1843. The park was known as the Villa Gregoriana. Until about 1915, this naturalistic landscape flanking the waterfalls at Tivoli was one of the principal destinations on the Grand Tour. Since the nearby Villa d'Este, with its famous terraces and fountains, was closed to the public during the early years of the 20th century, the principal experience of many visitors of the watery landscape of Tivoli was the Villa Gregoriana. 

The popular Baedeker tourist guide for 1896 said of the Villa Gregoriana:

"Visitors. . . . reach a Terrace planted with olives, whence we obtain a charming view of the Temple of the Sybyl above us, and, below, of the new waterfall (about 330 ft. high). . . We now return to the path, which descends at first in zigzags and afterwards in steps, We descend to the lowest point to which it leads and finally mount a flight of stone steps, wet with spray, to the fantastically shaped Siren's Grotto."[12]
Perhaps more than any other landscape south of the Alps, the Tivoli waterfall was identified by poets and artists with the concept of the Sublime [13]The wild scene, topped by the circular temple, was depicted countless times by painters including Lorraine, Poussin, Ingres, and Turner. At the bottom of the gorge, below the ruins of ancient Roman villas, were several cave-like grottos, identified with subterranean gods and river nymphs, which caught the imagination of visitors. The cliff in the former quarry at Maymont presented the Dooley's with an opportunity to recreate, on a smaller scale, a sense of the sublime like that at Tivoli.  

Hydraulics


Consuls, emperors, and popes, the great men of every age, have found no better way of immortalizing their memories than by the shifting, indestructible, ever new, yet unchanging, upgush and downfall of water. They have written their names in that unstable element, and proved it a more durable record than brass or marble.

                              Hawthorne, The Marble Faun [14]



Water, both still and moving, has been an essential feature of garden design in the West since Roman times. The harnessing of the power of water for the improvement of mankind is symbolized in a garden by its channeling into jets and pools. As constructed between 1908 and 1911, the Maymont waterworks, including the picturesque Water Tower that supplied the fountains at Maymont, relied on established systems of hydraulic engineering familiar from the gardens of Italy and France.[15] The most famous Italian gardens, like those in the hills around Frascati, received their water from copious streams and aqueducts at higher elevations.

In his Italian Gardens of 1894, American architect Charles Platt describes how the fountains worked: one of the chief peculiarities of the villas at Frascati is the importance given to such reservoirs. Frequently the water has to be brought from a long distance, and before it is distributed through the fountains and watercourses it is concentrated in a large reservoir at the highest point of the villa, and of this a feature of unusual interest is made.”[16]




“Reservoir at the top of the Cascade, Villa Torlonia,”
Geoffrey Alan Jellicoe. Italian Gardens of the Renaissance, 1925 


Maymont's reservoir today, a recreation of the hilltop pool at the Villa Torlonia.
Like the Cascade, the Fountain Pool at Maymont had its model in the reservoir at the top of the Villa Torlonia gardens. It is likely, based on a 1908 piping layout, that the waterfall was initially intended to be fed only by the outflow from the bottom of the cascade. It seems likely that the waterfall was enlarged in 1911-12 and given a new outlet under the upper terrace wall to improve its appearance from the Japanese Garden. At the same time, the architects added a new garden feature, the Fountain Pool,at the east end of the Carriage House. It served, not only as a beautiful oval basin served by a high central jet, but as a nine-foot-deep reservoir or tank to supply additional water to the waterfall.[17] The reservoir seems to have been needed to reduce the pressure from the water tower in order to make more volume available to the cascade and the expanded waterfall. The reservoir was later reduced in depth from nine feet to just a few feet. 



Unlike the terrain surrounding Rome, the plateaus around Richmond were high and dry. Drinking water was drawn from springs in the hillsides (several were exploited as part of the landscape at Maymont) and from the elaborate canal system that skirted the falls of the James River and supplied the citys many mills. As was the case in the gardens of the French king at Versailles, up-to-date machines, like the gasoline pump that remainsin place within the Old Pump House near the Grotto, were needed at Maymont to move the increasing amounts of water from low-lying streams into reservoirs or tanks elevated above the gardens. 



The Maymont Grotto today.

The Grotto


And after having remained at the entry some time, two contrary emotions arose in me, fear and desire, fear of the threatening dark grotto, desire to see whether there were any marvelous things within it.
                                                     Leonardo da Vinci


Extensive use of water and shade emphasize the garden at Maymont as a cool retreat from the heat and activity of the city. As was the case at the Villa Gregoriana at Tivoli, the path extending from the lower terminus of the Cascade originally led down by a series of zigzags, not to the Japanese Garden, but towards the Grotto added in 1911-12, which is the actual termination (or beginning) of the Italian Garden.

The grotto at the base of the bluff, with its dripping tufa ceiling artificially fed by pipes and its embedded stalactites, restored in 2007, provides not only an allusion to the idea of coolness found in subterranean retreats like the grottos at Tivoli and Villa Torlonia, but to the power of the earth (reinforced by the pair of flanking lion sculptures) and to messages obtained from the underworld. In contrast to formal gardens and bright uplands, artificial grottos were intended as places within the country house landscape to contemplate the irregular, hidden or grotesque aspects of the natural world."[18] While some grottos were lined with shells and featured figures of river gods, stalactites and stalagmites were brought from Virginia caverns to realistically line Maymonts Grotto.

Arnold Houbraken- Aeneas and the Sibyl in the Underworld

The progress of mythical heros such as Aeneas from earth to the underworld and back was re-enacted in the Baroque gardens of Europe by movement between highly finished pieces of architecture and the rough forms of rustic stone formations such as grottos. The Aeneid was a key textbook Major Dooley's classical education. It is possible, but by no means certain, that James Dooley may have been thinking, not only of grottoes in Italian gardens, but of the Sibyls Grotto in Cumae, near which Virgils Aeneas descended into Hades to receive predictions of the future greatness of Rome. On the other hand, the Grotto at Maymont may simply serve to underline the value of water within and without the garden as a source of life and meaning. 

Japanese Garden today
Japanese Garden

Fine natural cascades abound all over Japan, but, on the principle of following classical models, it is customary, in an elaborate garden, to represent a famous waterfall in the south of China known to the Japanese as Rozan.      


                                                                        Josiah Conder, 1893

The Japanese Garden at Maymont, reached by descending the Italian cascade fountain, was one of the most spectacular of a number of similar private gardens built in the period before the First World War. Immediately following the creation of the Italian Garden, the Japanese Garden was created, based in a former quarry at the base of the naturalistic 45-foot waterfall made possible by the Dooleys waterworks. It was built in 1911-12, probably by Japanese landscape gardener Y. Muto. He came to the U.S. in response to the increasing elite interest in Japanese arts in America. This followed the opening of Japan to commerce and displays of Japanese decorative arts and gardening traditions at international fairs like the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876 and the Worlds Columbian Exposition of 1893. The new garden brought out the natural beauty in what was, as a quarry on the edge of a canal basin, a former industrial site. Like other Japanese-style gardens in America, the Maymont example is as much a product of the interests of its patrons as it is a representation of the spiritual and aesthetic themes of Japanese gardening traditions.
 

Conclusions


James Dooleys classical studies had prepared him to appreciate Italy and the new garden he and Sallie May Dooley planned was a dramatic departure from what preceded at Maymont. It was also dramatically different from anything Richmond had ever seen. The classical past inspired temples and the big waterfall, while a love for the Renaissance and Baroque villas on the outskirts of Rome led them to build an American version of an Italian garden that, with its cliff-top terraces and bubbling fountains, would astound friends and visitors.

Maymont became a public park in 1926, Since that time it has evolved into extensive, interconnected landscape filled with opportunities for enjoyment and learning can be understood by a close reading of its landscape and materials. Information about the estate, such as the embedded classical references or the concealed hydraulics that bring the gardens to life, can spark additional interest in the estate and gardens.












Endnotes

[1] Wheary, typescript, The Italian Garden at Maymont,1999, 2009.
[2] “Ever since [1893], Mrs. Dooley has been devoting her time and energies and her studies to making this place beautiful.  We do not cultivate it for profit; we tried to get it in grass, and make it as beautiful as possible, and to that end she put out six hundred rose bushes and thousands of other flowers, and purchased the most costly evergreens from all parts of the world, and all those beautiful cherry trees they have in Japan, at great cost, and set them out in this place. She has covered it with the work of her own hands and some twenty men we have there. . . . from Dooley testimony 1906, files of Maymont Foundation.
[3] Wheary, 2000, 2009.
[4] Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12 October 1908].
[5] Barr Feree, American Estates and Gardens, 1904, quoted in Dale Wheary, Maymont, Gilded Age Estate, An interpretive Overview.2000, revised 2013.
[6] Noland and Baskervill, Plan Showing Part of Maymont, Country Seat of Major James H. Dooley,March 1908.
[7] Noland and Baskervill, Sketch for Garden at Maymont."
[8] A contemporary article, dated 12 October, 1908, gives him credit for the concept of the garden, and says he began the work while his wife was away for the summer as a surprise for her. This was, probably, at least an exaggeration, since the earliest drawings date from 1907 and Sallie May Dooley would likely have shared in so important a development, but it demonstrates Major Dooleys full imaginative involvement [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12 October 1908, cited in Wheary, 2000].
[9] Richmond Times-Dispatch 12 October 1908.
[10] Edith Wharton, Italian Villas and Their Gardens, 1904.
[11] Certainly, the books and commentaries available at the time concentrate on garden form and ignore any deeper meaning, except in a few instances where the forms and materials themselves constitute the meaning, as in Edith Whartons observation quoted above.
[12] Italy: Handbook for Travelers. Second Part, Central Italy and Rome. Leipsic and London, Karl Baedeker, 12th edition (1896)
[13 Kristina Taylor, Villa Gregoriana at Tivoli: an overlooked Sublimelandscape.The Garden History Society.
[http://archive.org/details/03675130.5346.emory.edu]. 
[14] The American author Nathaniel Hawthorne published The Marble Faun: or The Romance of Monte Beni in 1860. The popular and influential work, part Gothic romance and part travel book, is set in the gardens and ruins of mid-nineteenth-century Rome. Its romantic plot traces the adventures of three American artists and a mysterious young Italian aristocrat. It confirmed a strong American interest in Italian art and culture.
[15] A March 1908 site plan shows that the original hydraulic system consisted of a five-inch pipe that ran south of the stone barn from the eastern edge of the property and ended at the head of the cascade, as yet unbuilt. At first glance, it looks like Major Dooley at first made use of the city water supply to power the rustic fountain and the hose bibs in the upper terrace, which was all that had been completed. It is also possible that the 5-inch pipe ran from the water tower along the service road to a point near the Hampton Street Gate and then returned to the garden along the south side of the Stone Barn. The new 50,000-gallon water tower next to the Coach House was designed in July 1908 and probably completed in 1909.
[16] Charles A. Platt. Italian Gardens, New York: Harper and Bros, 1896. 
[17] Noland and Baskervill, Pool at Maymont, February 1911.
[18] Naomi Miller, Heavenly Caves: Reflections on the Garden GrottoBraziller, 1982.


Viewing all 42 articles
Browse latest View live