HABS - A Very Valuable Resource

One of the most valuable resources a restorationist and an architectural historian has is the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). Started in 1933, HABS was formed to preserve the architectural heritage of America. There had been a tremendous movement which involved the Colonial Revival period during which architects were compiling measured drawings, photographs and written documentation of colonial era buildings in America. Starting in 1914, The White Pine Bureau, not to be confused with a chest of drawers, produced the White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs. These were exceptional recordings of the architectural treasures of early America by way of measured drawings, photographs and written documentations. The series was published from 1914 to 1940. It was intended to be a marketing device to advance the merits of White Pine to the architectural community. In no small measure it also bolstered the Colonial Revival movement.
None of this activity fell on deaf ears. The early preservation movement within the National Park Service including historic parks and National Historic Sites, saw the need to preserve this invaluable documentation of our early architectural heritage. By agreement between the American Association of Architects, the Library of Congress and the National Park Service, HABS was formed. To this day, HABS is actively recording our building traditions.
Accessing the collections through the internet is the quickest and easiest way to find a treasure trove of early building documentation. The collection and the department is so vast, it can be a bit frustrating to get where you want to be. The general web site is www.nps.gov/hdp/habs/index.htm. I find rather than starting at square one, I will "Google" my specific interests within HABS. For example, doing a search from Google I might search for " HABS Connecticut Saltbox". This will take me directly to the specific area that lists all saltbox houses in HABS in Connecticut. It can save much time and frustration. Once you have gotten to this point, you can pull up drawings, photos and other documentation on individual houses. You can either print drawings from the site or you can order prints and photos. The directions are quite clear.
I strongly suggest that you spend some time searching through HABS. I can pretty well promise that you will be intriqued by what you find.

Historical Insincerity - Ignorance or Arrogance

The study of our architectural heritage and social history is one wrought with conflicting motives and self gains. On one hand we have the premise that all of what we know at any particular time about a certain element of our past whether it is a material object or an ideology is accepted as is, as proof of our forebearers efforts. The other side is to question and to feel compelled to somehow do better, because we know better now. Case in point might be the esoteric questions that are debated among period furniture makers about the merits of certain joinery or adhesives. To create an exact reproduction piece would be to follow the exact methodology as the original. But the argument comes up that given what we have available today is superior and would be used by craftsmen of the period if it were available. As both a practising joiner and an architectural and cultural historian, I must be guided by the first premise. Sure I could improve on many things that are of an older period, but that would not be giving the proper reverence to that particular object or thought.
All of this has been brought to the forefront of my thinking by a rather bizarre hearing I attended last week in Woodstock, Vermont at the Probate Court. An individual, Michael Guite, who is CEO of Vermont Telephone Company, has put under contract the purchase of a 127 acre period farmstead in Hartland, Vermont. He has a contingency in the contract that he be able to move an 1843 cemetery so that he can build his house there. Unfortunately that indifference to what exists is rather prevalent these days in Vermont. During this hearing, Guite's attorney, George Lamb, extolled the fact that his client has a very deep respect for history. He engaged an architectural historian to spend three days walking the property and to help Guite " best recreate the Colonial look of the 1700's." The first act of course is to raze the existing farmhouse. And with the aid of this "historical architect" he wants to build his new house on the knoll where the cemetery has peacefully been for the last 165 years. I know this property well and can attest to the fact that yes the site of the cemetery is very nice and commanding. And it is exactly where the Aldrichs in 1843 thought it best to place it. It is not only a very honorable location to bury ones family members but it allows for a quiet tranquil settings when visiting their resting place. The Aldrichs were of an old school who fully also realized that the exposed site of the cemetery was most unsuitable for a dwelling as it would take the brunt of the winds and snows from the North. They chose instead to build in the lee of the knoll, the logical most practical location. It too has excellent views and a commanding view of the farmland below. But Mr Guite in his infinite wisdom and total arrogance has decided that he knows best what needs to occur to recreate the Colonial look of the 1700's. That is to undo the most historically significant element of the entire property. More often than not, it is ignorance that befalls our heritage and that can in some ways be understood. But when arrogance destroys it, it is a most profound act.

Dendrochronology - Its use in dating structures

Inevitably one of the first questions that owners of period structures want to know is, "How old is it?". And as a professional restorationist/historian, that is one of the first questions you'd like to answer. However, it is rarely that simple. By being well versed in regional styles and patterns of development, the professional can usually come up with a broad timeframe of say 30-50 years that it might have been built in. This can be based on a thorough survey of the structure and its construction techniques and materials. Certainly, short of a conclusive time of construction through documentation this is probably the most accurate method that has been used for many, many years. Many buildings have been so well documented from their earliest days, that coming up with accurate dates is easy. However, for structures older that 1800, it can be very difficult. Research in town records is the logical place to start, but mention of structures in early deeds is quite rare pre 1800.
If structures have been added onto or altered, as most have, there is the further confusion of what came first. Close examination of structures can give clues but is rarely conclusive. It was therefore with great excitement that starting in the 1970's a new scientific method of dating buildings was developed - dendrochronology. Dendrochronology has been used since that time to date period structures throughout England. It is just in the last 10 or so years that it is gaining in popularity here is the US. Dendrochronology is a method by which test bores are taken from structural members of a structure and matched against a data base of known samples taken from existing trees and well documented timber samples. By matching up growth ring patterns, it is possible to pin point to within a single year and even the season of that year that the the timber was cut. As most early structures were constructed using green timbers, we can establish a very highly probable date of construction.
I will not try to go into the full details of the process, but will rather refer you to go to the web site of Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory, www.dendrochronology.com, in England and read Basic Dendrochronology. Oxford has been instrumental in getting the use of dendrochronology established over here. Anne Grady from Boston and Bill Flynt of Deerfield, MA have been working to establish data bases of samples for the various regions of New England.
This is highly interesting stuff and to be able to positively assign dates to a structure and its various additions only broadens our understanding of early building.

John Ruskin quote

When we build, let us think that we build forever. Let it not be for present delight nor for present use alone. Let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for; and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say, as they look upon the labor and wrought substance of them, "See! This our father did for us."
John Ruskin (1819-1900)

Ithiel Town

Ithiel Town is well known to most all students of early New England architecture. He is very well documented and many of his significant commissions are still standing for all to study. He was very well learned in all design matters as well as an very accomplished engineer. He wrote several books including, " Improvement in the Construction of Wood and Iron Bridges", New Haven 1821. His work included stints in Boston, New Haven and New York. His commissions not only included some of the more significant buildings in New England but included the State Capital buildings in North Carolina and Indiana. His library of architectural and art books was famous and probably the richest and most complete that had been brought together in America up to the time of his death, 1844. There are many books and articles on his most influential life and career. However, it is rare indeed when we have an opportunity to closely examine a structure designed by such an important American architect. So it was great interest that I read the article by Burkhard Bilger, Mystery on Pearl Street, in the January 7, 2008 issue of The New Yorker. The article focuses on a five story building designed and built by Ithiel Town at 211 Pearl Street in New York City and the efforts of Dave McWater and Alan Soloman to save it from demolition by a development company with an eye for bigger and greater plans. Bilger gives a wonderful account of the research and documentation that Alan Solomon uncovers. As is so often the case, the deeper the research, the greater the questions.
I strongly recommend looking up the article at a local library as it sheds some new light on the wonderful work of Ithiel Town as well as illustrate the difficulties we face in trying to preserve our architectural heritage.

Preservation or Pilferage

The last decade has seen a huge increase in the amount of historically significant buildings that have been razed. In the majority of cases the main reason was development. Real estate values have soared over the last decade, making the dirt under these structures far more valuable than even the most significant historic buildings. In many cases the character of the neighborhood has also changed dramatically, making a full scale restoration unrealistic and impractical. There are many other reasons that historic structures are being demolished in increasing numbers including deferred maintenance that has rendered the buildings beyond financial feasibility to keep. Preservation groups that run the gamet of local groups to federal agencys have done an admirable job of trying to keep the drain in check, but in most all cases, lack the proper funding to do much other than delay the inevitable. Further exacerbating the situation is the current preferred,and in fairness, the most cost efficient method of using excavators to break up the building and filling up dumpsters with the debris.

What can be done? In a situation where there is little argument that the building must be removed to preserve it, there are several excellent options. The first is an actual moving of the structure in its entirety. This involves having a suitable location within a short distance of the original site. There needs to be few obstacles along the way, ie power lines, low bridges. This option is usually the most cost effective but for obvious reasons the least feasible. If the character of the neighborhood has changed so dramatically that rstoring the building is not feasible, usually a quarter of a mile is not going to make much difference, and the new cost of the lot is also limiting. The second option is to dismantle the structure is a very deliberate and careful manner for reconstruction elsewhere. If properly documented distance is not an issue and the building can be repaired and properly restored during the process. This is not inexpensive and generally speaking is only feasible for earlier buildings, older that 1850. There must be significant history and details to the building to have an appeal to a potential buyer. This is a practice that has been going on for many years with great success. It is a great way to preserve historic structures. Indeed one needs only look to Historic Deerfield, Old Sturbridge Village, Shelburne Museum and Strawbery Banke to see the results of such preservation. However, the drawback to this method can be timing. In many cases, there is not sufficient time to properly document and carefully analyze the structure. In those cases salvaging as many components as possible is the best that can be done. This could include windows, doors, paneling, flooring, staircases and trim. But here is were we are facing an increased problem in preservation today. The value of these components has gotten very high. In many cases, the value of the individual components for use in reproductions and other restorations far exceeds the value of the intact structure. The market for these components has grown tremendously over the years and yet the amount of historic structures that are so dilapidated that they are beyond restoration has decreased dramatically. The use of components from "donor" buildings has been going on for the last century at least. When Henry Davis Sleeper first envisioned Beauport in Gloucester, MA it was to use components from many period houses to create multiple rooms to tell the story of style, taste and building through the years in New England. When Henry Flynt embarked on rebuilding and recreating Historic Deerfield he looked to Bill Gass to find and salvage components and structures throughout Massachusetts. Ed Ustace supplied many buildings and components to Sturbridge Village. In the first three quarters of the last century, they were actually preserving what would otherwise have been lost. But today many restorable significant structures are being stripped of their components for the gain of the salvager. Everything from barn siding and frames to elaborate panelled rooms are being parted out with no regard to the historic context from which it is being plucked. And this is not just the work of scrounging salvagers but in many cases by many well known, well respected restoration contractors. From a preservation standpoint, there is no excuse for not being able to provide a proper provenence for architectural components. Rare indeed is the case where period flooring or paneled walls are found in an old barn, their provenence long forgotten. But still this is possible for many components available today. However, components that just appear from nowhere generally have a story to hide.
How best do we deal this wanton disregard of our architectural heritage? The simple answer is to demand answers as to the source of the components. And simple economics should help to self regulate the situation. Just as the unbroken fully documented provenence of a period antique piece of furniture can double or triple the market price. So can the history and provenence of architectural components. To be able to attribute an historical reference and location to a key component can only increase its value to the buyer. This will force the salvagers to better investigate and research the history of a particular structure from which a certain component is taken. This work can easily be done even after the remnants of the building are long gone and the site cleared. To be able to attribute the structure and its components to an original owner or builder, or to an historical event helps to preserve our architectural heritage. And after that research is done, give a copy to the local historical society and/ or library for future generations to be able to use.

Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut by J. Frederick Kelly

This last summer while dismantling the Benjamin Willcox House, ca 1740 in Bristol, Connecticut, I had the pleasure of meeting a couple from Unionville, Connecticut that had recently purchased a similar period saltbox. They invited me over to see their house and I was pleasantly surprised to find the house very intact with great amount of original fabric. The previous owner was a builder with a very good sense of reverence for the house and did an excellent job of preserving and caring for it. The saltbox was very similar in age, ca 1740 and shared many of the same characteristics with the Benjamin Willcox House. The new owners are very energetic and extremely eager to learn all they can about the house. They were not particularly in the market for a period house, but circumstance brought them together.
I spent a fair amount of time looking the house over, answering questions and offering advice on various aspects of the house. Upon leaving I wanted to give them some further direction to research not only their house but period architecture in general. I recommended that they visit Sturbridge Village and Historic Deerfield. I then recommended that they get a copy of J. Frederick Kellys' Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut. After checking in with them a few weeks later, they were so excited to read Kellys seminal book. It got me thinking about just how influential and important a book this is.
Back in the late sixties and early seventies, there was a tremendous movement that could best be described as a movement by young carpenters with an interest in antique tools, their use and early building techniques. Authors such as Eric Sloane painted a very simplistic portrait of early tools and their use through his many published books. Antique tool dealers such as Vernon Ward of Iron Horse Antiques, J. Lee Murray, John Welch and Bud Steere were supplying this new breed of restorationists with usable examples of period tools. Restorationists like Michael Dunbar, Buzzy Dodge, Malcolm McGregor, Norm Vandal, Ted Ingraham, Mike Cotroneo, Jan Lewandoski, Walter Phelps, Doug Gest and myself were not just satisfied to replicate period architectural components, we wanted to recreate them using period tools and techniques. We were building post and beam frames and creating period interiors with minimal information on period techniques. Most of what we learned was through discussions with each other and through one pivotal book, Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut. Here was a book that documented and graphically displayed just what we were striving to achieve.
Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut by J. Frederick Kelly must rank as one of the most influential books published in the twentieth century on early American architecture. Originally published by Yale University Press in 1924, it was again copyrighted by William Kelly in 1952 and was first published as a Dover edition in 1963. And most recently republished by Schiffer Publishing in 2007. For this hugely important book to remain in print or at least readily available for the last 84 years speaks of its indisputable importance.
The opening paragraph in the Foreword pretty well sums up the integrity of this work, " In undertaking this work, the author fully realized that its chief value would depend in a large measure upon the accuracy with which it was done. It has been his sincere endeavor throughout, therefore, to avoid speculation and to make no generalizations which were not backed either by personal observations inn existing work or by authentic documentary evidence. All measurements have been made with the utmost care; and where, as in several instances, it has been necessary to depend upon dimensions previously obtained by others from work which no longer exists, the sources of such data have been authoritative."
Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut is not only a very good starting point for those just beginning to learn about early architecture but it also remains a constant reliable reference for those working in the field.

Two Carpenters by J. Ritchie Garrison

With all of the interest in early New England Architecture, it is with rare frequency that books are published that deal with the subject in a scholarly manner. There is a glut of coffee table books that have glossy photos with inept and usually incorrect factual material about period structures. So it is with great excitement when a book is published that has been well researched and sheds new light on our architectural heritage. Such a book is J. Ritchie Garrison's Two Carpenters, published by The University of Tennessee Press in 2006.
J. Ritchie Garrison is well qualified to interpret and present such pertinent information as is contained in Two Carpenters. He is Director of the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture and is a professor of history at the University of Delaware. He decame aware of the subject matter contained in Two Carpenters while working as director of education at Historic Deerfield, a distinquished collection of historic houses and decorative arts in Deerfield, Massachusetts.
Two Carpenters is a very sholarly and accurate review and summary of the lives of master builders Calvin and Samuel Stearns and their five sons of Northfield Massachusetts. As a family of master builders, they left behind very extensive and thorough documentation of their lives. Their journals, account books and ledgers paint a very complete picture of the influences, techniques and results of a very prolific career that spanned from 1799-1859. Many examples of their craftsmanship remain intact by way of houses and structures in Northfield and beyond. Mr. Garrison skillfully combines all of this material into a very compelling book which is richly illustrated with photos and detailed drawings. We follow the Stearns from being journeymen working as far away as Boston and their subsequent design influences that met with great approval from the community of Northfield. The pragmatic domestic life is blended with the very latest in design and social culture, largely by the skill and interpretation of the Stearns.
Congratulations to Mr. Garrison on an excellent book that is a must have for all interested in New England architecture.

The 18th Century New England Architectural Record is a compilation of out of print articles, new articles, current restoration projects, current preservation efforts, and a resource for all interested in the preservation, restoration and understanding of New Englands 18th Century Architectural heritage.
Posts are invited that relate to the purpose of this site, whether it be informational, an endangered historic building, a source for period architectural components or a general inquiry as to where to find information.
A list of links will be developed as well as a bibliography of books on the subject.