A Comparative Analysis of the Wood-Framed Steeples of John Mcarthur, Jr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2019 High and Mighty: A Comparative Analysis of the Wood-Framed Steeples of John McArthur, Jr. Holly Boyer Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Suggested Citation: Boyer, Holly (2019). High and Mighty: A Comparative Analysis of the Wood-Framed Steeples of John McArthur, Jr. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/686 For more information, please contact [email protected]. High and Mighty: A Comparative Analysis of the Wood-Framed Steeples of John McArthur, Jr. Abstract In order to understand this early period of John McArthur, Jr.’s career, this thesis examines the ideological principles, architectural professionalism and influences, and structural experimentation and performance of two remarkably tall wood-framed steeples designed by McArthur. Understanding these steeple designs perhaps sheds light on what compelled him, later in his career, to repeatedly set out to design structures that would be the highest in their cities or country. John McArthur, Jr.'s designs for the steeples of two Presbyterian churches, while they were stylistically representative of many churches of the Round-Arched style built during that period, they were remarkably high. Their unusual height, particularly Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia, rearing up to 248 feet, is the result of a confluence of factors. They represent the result of competition among ambitious church congregations, competition among architects in an emerging profession, and McArthur’s own structural confidence. Through this comparative analysis, a picture of McArthur at this early period of his career emerges. McArthur designed these very tall wood- framed structures by applying his knowledge of materials gained from a decade working in the carpentry trade. Combined with his knowledge of wood and carpentry, McArthur also applied intuition, creating structures that were experimental in multiple ways, ultimately leading him to utilize an internal armature framing system. This system had consequences, both good and bad, for the performance and outcomes of both steeples. This thesis serves to provide a clearer comprehension of McArthur’s wood-framed steeples in the context of mid-nineteenth century steeple design and construction. Keywords spire, Presbyterian church, round arched style, rundbogenstil armature frame Disciplines Historic Preservation and Conservation Comments Suggested Citation: Boyer, Holly (2019). High and Mighty: A Comparative Analysis of the Wood-Framed Steeples of John McArthur, Jr. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. HIGH AND MIGHTY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE WOOD-FRAMED STEEPLES OF JOHN McARTHUR, JR. Holly Anne Boyer, AIA A THESIS in Historic Preservation Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Design in Historic Preservation 2019 Advisor Co-Advisor Aaron V. Wunsch Michael C. Henry, PE, AIA Associate Professor in Historic Preservation Adjunct Professor of Architecture Program Chair Frank G. Matero Chair, Graduate Program in Historic Preservation To the memory of my dear friends, without whom, I could not have become an architect, Arthur A. Ovaska (1951-2018) and Timothy R. Cronin (1969-2018) ii Acknowledgements In the process of completing this project, I have received the help of many people and organizations. I would not have endured the lengthy process of research and writing if not for my family and some very patient close friends. They were my biggest champions, permitting me to prattle on, seemingly without end, about steeples and architects, and all of the Victorian quirks discovered along the way. I owe special thanks to my dear friend and biggest fan, JLC; to my daughter, Nina, who has kept her chin up and tolerated an entire year of neglect while I had my nose in books; and to my son, Nat, who has patiently and without fail been there for me as an sounding board for my ideas. No teenager should ever have to know as much about mid- nineteenth century Philadelphia as do my children. They have treated my endeavor for a master’s degree as if it were an investment in our family as a whole, and for that, I am forever grateful. My longest-standing debt is to Penelope S. Watson and Michael C. Henry, who first introduced me to the discipline of preservation when I was still a teenager, under their employ during breaks from my undergraduate studies. By observing them in their professional practice I learned the things that have served me best in my professional career: careful problem solving, remembering that much can be learned from builders of the past and present, and, above all else, to treat historic buildings with the care and respect they deserve. I owe a special thank you to my advisors: Aaron Wunsh and Michael C. Henry (who gets double the credit here) for all of their insight and advice, and Frank Matero for overarching guidance along the way. Aaron generously agreed to act as my advisor, understanding that I am an architect with the writing skills that implies, and has carefully guided me in the process of becoming ever-so-slightly more like an historian. iii I owe a special thank you to several authors and educators, who owed me nothing, but yet gave me their time and thoughts generously: Jan Lewandoski and Michael J. Lewis, whose intellectual generosity and kindness served to deepen my understanding of our shared topics; and Daniel Gallagher who tirelessly marked up my drafts, teaching me some basics of writing along the way. This project would never have gotten legs if not for the rich resources provided by the curators, archivists, librarians, historians, and practicing professionals who have helped me. Janet Sheridan, of Down Jersey Heritage Research, LLC; Dorothy Boersma, of the Tenth Presbyterian Church; and Amelia Popovic, of Keast & Hood Structural Engineers were indispensable. I also thank all of the staff at the American Philosophical Society, the Fisher Fine Arts Library, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Library Company of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia City Archives, the Philadelphia Historical Commission, the Presbyterian Historical Society, and the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. I am also grateful to my history professors, from long ago, Mary N. Woods and Mark M. Jarzombek, who both brought architectural history to life for me, and continue to inspire me through their unending enthusiasm for the historic built environment. Finally, a big thank-you to my cat and trusty sidekick, Velcro, who is kindly is allowing me to take credit for all of his hard work. iv Contents Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………………… ii Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………… iii List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………. vii Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………… 1 CHAPTER 1 Historical Background ………………………………………………………………………. 9 CHAPTER 2 McArthur’s Steeples: The Highest Structures ……………………………………. 19 First Presbyterian Church of Salem, New Jersey ……………………………….. 21 Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia ………………………………………… 23 The Ideology of High Steeples …………………………………………………………… 25 The Identity Crisis in Protestant Church Building ………………………………. 27 Competitiveness and Personal Accomplishment ………………………………. 30 The Advantages and Shortcomings of High Steeples …………………………. 32 CHAPTER 3 Design Context …………………………………………………………………………………. 37 The Book of Plans ……………………………………………………………………………… 37 John McArthur Jr. and the American Round-Arched Style …………………. 42 The Background of McArthur’s Steepled Churches …………………………… 46 CHAPTER 4 The Architecture of McArthur’s Steepled Churches ………………………….. 52 A Note on Coloration ………………………………………………………………………… 52 The Architecture of the Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia …… 54 The Architecture of the First Presbyterian Church, Salem, New Jersey 57 The Architectural Commonalities in McArthur’s Steepled Churches …. 59 v CHAPTER 5 McArthur’s Framing System in the Context of Steeple Design …………… 65 Timber-Framing vs. Wood Framing …………………………………………………… 65 The Structural Context of American Steeple Framing ……………………….. 66 McArthur’s Steeple Framing System …………………………………………………. 69 The Real (Or Assumed) Structure of Tenth Presbyterian …………………… 71 The First Presbyterian Steeple: Performance and Longevity ……………… 77 Divergent Outcomes for the Two Steeples ………………………………………… 79 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………… 83 Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 85 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………… 119 Appendix A John McArthur, Jr., Contract and Specifications for the Erection of a 130 New Church Building and Its Appurtenances, for the West Spruce Street Presbyterian Congregation (Philadelphia, PA: J. Craig, 1855). Appendix B Watson & Henry Associates, Steeple Restoration: First Presbyterian 147 Church of Salem, New Jersey, 1996, architectural drawings by Holly A. Boyer, retrieved from the Keast & Hood Archives, Philadelphia, PA. Glossary …………………………………………………………………………………………… 155 Index …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 162 vi List of Figures 1 John McArthur, Jr., c. 1860s. (Courtesy of the Fort Delaware Society.) 79 2 John McArthur, Jr.’s steepled churches. 80 Left: West Spruce Street Presbyterian Church (Tenth Presbyterian,