UNNERSITY ORY& OF WISCONSIN- NASI MADISON

HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON ARMORY AND GYMNASIUM

HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT PROJECT NO. 9109-81

PREPARED FOR

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT

BY

THE ZIMl\.1ERMAN DESIGN GROUP MESICK COHEN ·WAITE ARCHITECTS MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN ALBANY, NEW YORK·

JULY 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEOCEMENTS v PREFACE vii FOREWORD ix SUMMARY xi INTRODUCTION xix HISTORY 1 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 45 Exterior Interior PROBLEMS OF REPAIR 141 RECOMMENDATIONS 167 COST ESTIMATES 186

APPENDICES A. Mortar Analysis B. Structural Report C. Subsurface and Concrete Investigation D. Metallurgical Report E. Mechanical Report F. Electrical Report G. Code Analysis ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A sincere thank you to the State of Wisconsin Building Commission.

Governor Tommy G. Thompson, Chairman Senator Carol Buettner, Chairperson, Administrative Affairs Subcommittee Representative Lolita Schneiders, Chairperson, Higher Education Subcommittee Sena tor Fred Risser . Sena tor Jerome Van Sistine Representative Lary Swoboda Representative Robert Turner· Mr. Bryce Styza, Citizen Member Robert Brandherm, Secretary to the commission

Due largely to your interest and direction, this Armory and Gymnasium Historic Structure Report is the first of its kind prepared for a state-owned historic building in Wisconsin. The development of this historic structure report is the result of state-wide concerns about significant historic architecture and should set a standard for all future projects involving significant state­ owned properties.

Also, thank you to the project team members. They represent many different backgrounds, concerns, and view points, yet their close cooperative working relationship was truely a multi­ agency effort resulting in a high quality project. The team spirit generated illustrates that state agencies can work together and achieve positive results for the user and the building.

Mary K. Rouse, University of Wisconsin-Madison Dean of Students Chris Gluesing, University of Wisconsin-Madison Planning and Construction Jim Kennedy, University of Wisconsin Systems Jeff Dean, State Historic Preservation Officer Jim Sewell, State Historical Society of Wisconsin

I am encouraged by the fine quality of work of the consultant team, Zimmerman Design Group and Mesick· Cohen·Waite Architects Architects. I know the value of their efforts will prove to be a key in the further development of the preservation movement in Wisconsin. Thanks for your high degree of skill, professionalism, and enthusiasm.

July 1, 1992

Charles J. Quagliana, AIA Project Manager Department of Administration Division of Facilities Development

V the Zimmerman Design Group

Dave Stroik, AIA Dave Drews, AIA Doug Barnes, AIA Jerry Gomez

Mesick-Cohen ·Waite Architects

Partner-in-Charge John G. Waite

Review Partner James A. Cohen

Project Manager William G. Foulks

Architectural Staff Laurence F. Wilson A. Patricia Hughes Lee Pinckney ill

Architectural Historian Diana S. Waite

Harwood Engineering Consultants

Structural Conrad Etnneyer, P.E. John Beffel, E.I.T. Tom Beckman, P.E.

Electrical Fred Werner, P .E.

PSJ Engineering

Jesse Jaspal, P.E. Mark Lentz, P.E. Partick J. Giraghty, C.l.P.E.

vi PREFACE

Since the UW-Madison Armory is a unique building, it was placed on the state and national registers of historic places in 1974. Rich in Wisconsin and American history, it has been the site of activities and events which have national, state, and local significance. Throughout its nearly 100 years, the Red Gym, as it is popularly known, has touched the lives of countless people. Located in the heart of campus, its architectural distinctiveness and its history make it a particularly appealing landmark-one which can continue to play a central role in the University's development.

We now have the opportunity to revitalize the Red Gym to serve contemporary and future needs. Unfortunately, in its present state, it is vastly underutilized and deteriorating steadily. This report carefully and comprehensively outlines the legacy we are trying to preserve through the cooperative efforts of a number of agencies and individuals in order to reverse its current condition. It also explains in detail how the building can be successfully adapted to serve a number of important functions.

As a student of Latin and Greek in college, I learned about how our lives are shaped by the past. At the same time, as the University's chief student affairs officer, I recognize we have a pressing need to provide adequate accommodations for such key functions as the Office of Admissions, a Visitors' and Information/Referral Center, welcome and orientation programs, a multi-cultural center, and services for international students and faculty.

The Historic Structure Report represents an extensive study conducted over six months. It is a distinctive document, in fact, the first of its kind requested by the State Building Commission and the University. It speaks to historic preservation and adaptive use and recognizes the need for responsible fiscal planning. The team which helped put the plan together includes representatives from the State Historical Society of Wisconsin; the prestigious historic preservation firm of Mesick· Cohen·Waite Architects of Albany, New York; the Zimmerman Design Group of Milwaukee; the Wisconsin Division of Facilities Development (DFD); the State Building Commission; the Campus Planning Committee; the UW System Planning Office, and myself as representative of the University's student service programs and the Chair of the Committee on the Future Use of the Armory since 1988. Also, the Evjue Foundation has provided generous support in the planning process.

What we have collectively produced is a plan to make the Red Gym the "gateway to the campus." The varied functions described in the report are designed to provide greater access to the campus and its facilities to a wide variety of constituents, especially prospective and newly enrolled students, their families, and visitors. The revitalized Red Gym will provide both a physical symbol and a programmatic focus for our efforts to personalize the University. The prospect of a renovated hub of activity for the campus, as it was from 1894-1930, is exciting. We look forward to achieving the goals outlined in this document.

vii We appreciate the assistance of the people who have thus far advanced our cause and welcome the involvement of all who support this very special project.

Regards,

Mary K. Rouse Dean of Students July 1992

viii FOREWORD

Opened to the public in 1894, the University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium-now commonly called the "Old Red Gym"-was a major monument when it was built and is today one of the most significant and recognizable of the buildings on the University of Wisconsin­ Madison campus. Designed by the regionally significant architectural firm of Conover and Porter, the Old Red Gym has contributed in many important ways to life on campus, as is detailed in the fascinating historical analysis in this report. The richness and vitality of its history continues today, as the building is rehabilitated for new uses while, simultaneously, its historic and architectural character is carefully restored and maintained.

This report is a "Historic Structure Report," or HSR, and it represents the first such report ever prepared by the State of Wisconsin for a historic building in its ownership. While HSRs for major historic buildings, and the activities that generate them, are standard practice in some areas of the United States, they are new to Wisconsin. Thus, the Old Red Gym has become part of another historic activity-the careful, state-of-the-art analysis of, planning for, and treatment of historic buildings, which has grown out of the broader historic preservation movement in the nation and the need for all of us to learn how· better to care for our historic sites and buildings.

Concern for our historic resources has been expressed in tangible form during the past half­ decade by the State Legislature and governor, which have enacted pioneering legislation to improve the environment for historic preservation in the state, and to assure that historic resources, like the Old Red Gym, are neither lost nor defaced, but remain living parts of our communities and neighborhoods. Indeed, these laws directly have caused this HSR to come into being. They have instructeq all state agencies to consider the impacts their actions may hav~ on historic and archeological resources, and to make plans that, to the degree possible, are sympathetic to these resources.

The Old Red Gym HSR is significant, as well, in that it marks a new level of cooperation between state agencies in devising plans for state-owned historic buildings that are appropriate for the contemporary use of the buildings and that meet historic preservation objectives. In this case, the University of Wisconsin, the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, and the Department of Administration have worked closely together with the two architectural firms as a team to prepare a report that meets often conflicting objectives.

I hope that this HSR will be just the first such report in Wisconsin, not only for state-owned property, but for all historic buildings worthy of the thought and planning such reports generate. Certainly, the State Historical Society stands ready to do its part in assisting other state agencies and property owners in preserving the irreplaceable historic resources that give Wisconsin's urban and rural areas their distinctiveness, quality, and character.

Jeff Dean State Historic Preservation Officer . State Historical Society of Wisconsin

ix SUMMARY

Significance

The Armory and Gymnasium, known affectionately as "The Old Red Gym," has been a significant structure on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus for the past century. During this time, it has become a familiar·Iandmark to hundreds of thousands of university students, faculty, and staff as well as to the citizens of Madison. In its early years, it achieved wider significanc~ as it became a center for social, civic, and political activities beyond the university in addition to ser.ving the athletic, military, and assembly uses for which it was built. From 1928 through the fall of 1983, it was well-known to every student on campus as the site of student registration.

The Red Gym has survived with much of its historic building fabric intact. It still retains, with only minor changes, its massive brick and sandstone exterior form and its three major interior spaces. It is a rare surviving example of a once important, and unusual, building type-the combination armory and gymnasium. Today, there are few remaining armory buildings or university gymnasiums dating from the period of the Red Gym. The combination of the two is very rare, making the University of Wisconsin-Madison Armory and Gymnasium unique today.

The Red Gym was designed by Conover and Porter, a regionally significant architectural firm during the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century. The firm also designed Science Hall at the head of Langdon Street. The two buildings complement each other by their siting, architectural design, and vocabulary of materials.

In addition to the architectural significance of the Armory and Gymnasium's massive exterior and large clear-span interior spaces, the structural and mechanical systems are noteworthy. Structural components of note include the use of combination heavy timber and steel trusses with special hinge connections and the use of arched steel trusses to create an open space the breadth of the building on the second floor. The design of the original mechanical system was many years ahead of its time. Some of the vertical chases for this system became part of the architectural design as turrets on the comers of the main mass of the building.

The Armory and Gymnasium was constructed of high quality materials assembled with well­ conceived details. Carefully restored and adapted for a new use as a gateway to the university, it can continue to serve a pivotal role in the campus and the city of Madison well into the twenty-first century.

xi History

The need for the combination gymnasium and armory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was generated by requests from both administration and students for better athletic facilities and the establishment of military training for male students. In addition, years of urban unrest in the United States, beginning with the New York City Draft Riots of 1863, led to a resurgence in the building of urban armories. Labor unrest in the midwest, including the Haymarket Affair in Chicago (1886) and strikes in Milwaukee (1886) and West Superior (1889) increased concern in Wisconsin.

The passage of the second Morrill Act by Congress in 1890, providing funding for the construction of military training facilities, encouraged the Wisconsin State Legislature to authorize the construction of an Armory and Gymnasium in 1891. Madison architects Allan Conover and Lew Porter, who had undertaken the rebuilding of Science Hall after a disastrous fire in 1885, were selected to design the building.

Construction began in July, 1892~ When Charles K. Adams became president of the university during construction, he decided that the large Drill Hall on the second floor should also serve as a much-needed assembly space. In order to accommodate the use, a structure housing a stairway was added to the west side of the building. When the building was opened in 1894, it was stated that the Drill Hall "forms one of the finest halls for dancing, drill, or auditorium purposes to be found in the west."

The other original uses of the building included a swimming tank, bowling alleys, Artillery Drill Room, and Commandant's office on the first floor; a gun storage room and visitors' gallery on the second floor; and a gymnasium with a batting cage flanked by rifle ranges on the top floor. The second floor Drill Hall and ~sembly Room quickly became a popular location for other functions including political gatherings, dances, banquets, basketball games, and lectures. The building received national attention in 1902 and 1904 when the Republican state conventions, under the leadership of Robert M. La Follette, were held on the second floor.

Over the years, the building was modified to accommodate changes in use. Modifications include converting the bowling alleys to locker and dressing rooms (1902), adding buttresses to the north wall (1905), rebuilding the swimming pool (1922), making minor changes to the second floor (1911-1918), constructing fire escapes on the north wall (1905 and 1913), and reconfiguring . the west public stairway to increase capacity (1915).

During the 1920s and 1930s, the military· use of the building declined. The athletic use also became less significant following the construction of the Memorial Union and Fieldhouse in 1928 and 1930, respectively. During the years from 1928 to i984, the structure was used for student registration, which was the only mass function held there during that period. By the 1950s, the building had become obsolete. Its demolition was proposed in the 50s and again in 1965 but never seriously scheduled.

xii In 1970, the Armory and Gymnasium was fire-bombed to protest its use by the ROTC. Despite major fire damage in the southeast comer of the building, much of which has not been repaired, the Red Gym has continued to serve the university by housing a number of different functions. Currently it houses recreational athletic activities, the University Archives Oral History Project, and the Wisconsin Humanities Committee. Given the volume and architectural quality of the building's interior spaces, the use of the building has been marginal for many years.

Architectural Descriptions

The Armory and Gymnasium is a brick bearing wall structure of three major masses with three major stories. The main portion of the building is a deep, basilican mass with a rectangular footprint and gable roof. To the south, there is a low, horizontal headhouse, and on the west there is a small, two-story extension. The exterior has a base of rusticated brown sandstone and walls of red brick laid with thin red mortar joints trimmed with sandstone. Distinguishing features include stepped gables, turrets with ·corbelled and crenellated battlements, and broad arched entryways on the south facades of the headhouse and the west addition.

The interior of the building was characterized originally by bare brick masonry and wood walls and by exposed structure, consisting of wood columns, wood beams and girders, steel trusses, and trusses using a combination of wood and steel. Although much of the interior masonry and woodwork has been painted and many of the wood columns have been replaced with cast-iron columns, the interiors have not been significantly altered. Each of the three main floors originally contained a major space. The Artillery Drill Room was located on the west side of the first floor, the Drill Hall and Assembly Room occupied almost the entire second floor, and the Gymnasium filled the fourth floor. The Artillery Drill Room was subdivided into seven smaller spaces by the installation of wood and glass partitions half a century ago. The Drill Hall and Assembly Room with its s~ large arched trusses on the second floor and the Gymnasium with its wood trusses on the fourth floor still retain their original volumes.

The first and second floors each contain 19,800 gross square feet; the mezzanine level contains 2,620 gross square feet; the third floor contains 5,600 gross square feet, and the fourth floor contains 14,150 gross square feet, for a total building area of 61,970 gross square feet.

Problems of Repair

Although the Armory and Gymnasium is in remarkably good condition for a building approaching 100 years of age, there are a number of problems with the building's materials and construction details that need to be addressed to prepare the structure for another century of productive use. Some of the problems are the result of natural deterioration of the original building materials; others have been caused by failures of original construction techniques, modifications made to the building after the original construction, or the lack of appropriate maintenance.

xiii Exterior masonry problems include minor cracks in and displacement of the brickwork, deterioration and displacement of the sandstone, poor repairs to the sandstone, deteriorated joints including joints missing mortar and those filled with hard portland cement replacement mortar, loose and missing bricks, efflorescence, and spalled bricks. All of the exterior masonry surfaces are soiled with atmospheric pollutants.

Other exterior problems include deteriorated and missing window sash and missing original front doors. In addition, the original slate shingles on the roof and the clerestory walls have been replaced by asphalt shingles, and the six original skylights on the main roof are missing.

All of these relatively minor exterior problems are typical for buildings of the age, materials, and size of the Red Gym. All are easily addressed without the use of exotic or extraordinary preservation technology.

On the interior, except for the areas damaged by the 1970 fire bombing, all of the problems are typical for a century-old public building. Settlement early in the building's history has caused some cracks in the masonry walls. Roof leaks and defective radiators and piping have caused some damage to interior surfaces. Excessive moisture in the basement has caused serious decay of the wood beams and joists supporting the first floor. Many inappropriate modifications have been made to the building, particularly the addition of partitions to divide original spaces and the painting of surfaces that were never intended to be painted. Fortunately, these alterations, basically additive in nature, are largely reversible. For the most part, they did not result in the removal of historic building fabric.

The fire damaged areas in the southeast comer of the building exhibit more serious problems. Much of the floor framing and many of the room finishes have been damaged or destroyed. The masonry bearing walls in these rooms, however, are still structurally sound.

The existing electrical, heating, and plumbing systems, none of which date from the original construction of the building, are obsolete. All of these systems need to be replaced as part of any reuse program.

Code Analysis

The Armory and Gymnasium, as an historic building, comes under the requirements of The . Historic Building Code (Chapter 70) of The Wisconsin Administrative Code. The building is classified as an exterior masonry unprotected (SB) structure. The three-story building is 101 feet high,· exceeding the allowable height based on the construction classification. With a complete sprinkler system, standpipe, and other proposed modifications, however, the building achieves positive Total Safety Scores on the Building Evaluation Form (ILHR 70, Table 70.23).

The first floor used for offices with a projected maximum capacity of 300 people is required to have a minimum of two distinct exits with a minimum of 120" of total exit width. The capacity of the second floor for assembly use in accordance with the primary recommendation is limited

xiv by the construction type to 1,500 people. That number of people requires a minimum total exit width of 600", necessitating an extension on the east to augment the exits available in the turrets . and the west addition. The capacity of the second floor for office use in accordance with the alternate is 200 employees, requiring two 40" exits, which can be accommodated in the turrets. For the recommended office occupancy, the fourth floor will also have a capacity of 200 employees with the same exit requirements as those of the second floor.

Structural Analysis

The Armory and Gymnasium is built with exterior masonry bearing walls consisting of an interior wall, a thin cavity, and an exterior wall. Large portions of the first floor are framed with wood beams and joists supported by piers; other areas of this floor are of concrete supported by steel and concrete columns and original masonry vaulting. The second floor is framed with wood girders and beams supported by wood and cast-iron columns, except for the area to the southwest above the Artillery Drill Room, which is supported on heavy wood and steel trusses. At the second floor level, large arched riveted steel trusses support longitudinal trusses of wood and steel, which support in turn the girders and beams of the top floor structure and the wood columns and Howe trusses that support the roof.

Much of the wood framing supporting .the first floor is deteriorated and requires replacement. The structural members above the first floor are in generally good condition, with a number of minor problems requiring corrective action. The structure supporting the second floor meets code requirements for either the proposed assembly use or office use. The top floor is limited to light office use (70 psf) by the capacity of the main steel trusses at the second floor level supporting both the top floor and the roof. Four members of each truss will have to be reinforced and some of the riveted connections will have to be strengthened by using high strength steel bolts in place of some existing wrought-iron rivets. The sloping roofs can support the proposed slate shingles, and the lower sloping roofs also have the capacity to support a 90 psf snow drift load as required by current codes. The flat roofs, designed.for 30 psf snow loads, are not capable of supporting 90 psf snow drift loads as currently required.

Soil borings have indicated that the foundations will not support the load of an additional floor as indicated in the original program statement. They have also indicated that there is ground water 12 to 15 feet below the surface.

Electrical and Mechanical Systems

The existing electrical and mechanical systems, only small portions of which may be original to the 1894 construction, are not suitable for the proposed reuse of the building. There was no lighting in the original building, and the existing electrical system is the result of many additions and changes over the years. The existing heating system, which consists primarily of cast-iron steam radiation, has also been modified many times. The capacity of the existing steam service is inadequate to handle. the increased ventilation required for the change in function. Existing mechanical ventilation is limited to the locker rooms on the first floor.

xv The original heating and ventilating system used air moved by a propeller fan at the first floor level. The air was sent through large ducts beneath the first floor ceiling to vertical shafts built into the north and south walls of the building. Some of the ducts and all of the vertical shafts are still in place, providing space for the vertical distribution of the air in a new mechanical system.

Parking Considerations

The findings of a parking study in process concurrently with this study discouraged the introduction of new traffic loads to the lower campus. A careful review and analysis of the program for the Red Gym indicated that the actual traffic impact of this project is very small. The university plans to address that impact as follows.

Under the proposed new use, the Red Gym will consolidate staff now scattered throughout the lower campus. The parking needs of these staff members are currently being met in the lower campus area. Thus, the only new parking demand created by this proposed project is the thirty spaces required by the Visitor Center, which would be provided at the Helen C. White parking ramp. Five short-term parking spaces would be provided off the service drive of the Red Gym to allow guests to obtain parking passes for Helen C. White or any other nearby parking facility.

The overall campus plan is entirely consistent with the parking study in that the university plans to address "way finding" in a city-wide manner in the near term. This summer, a Campus Information Center will be provided on Park Street, west of the Wisconsin Union, to provide quick, curb-side orientation. Depending upon the destination, the driver will be directed to the appropriate parking facility.

The proposed landscaped plaza between the Union and the Red Gym is an extension of the .Library and Murray Mall which is part of the overall Campus Master Plan. Parking from this area (Lot 1) displaced by the landscaped plaza can be immediately replaced by temporary surface parking on lots currently occupied by residential structures housing Student Services programs. These programs would be relocated to the Red Gym and the structures razed. This temporary surface parking will eventually be replaced by the proposed lower campus parking ramp to be located in the Lot 3 area.

Recommendations

As a distinctive, prominent building with a hundred-year presence on the campus, a structure symbolically associated with the university in the minds of many students and alumni, and a building located in the primary high traffic area for undergraduate students, the Red Gym is uniquely suited to its proposed new use as a gateway to the campus for visitors and prospective students and their parents and as a multipurpose student services center with special emphasis on prospective and newly admitted students, their families, and visitors.

xvi The principal goal of this historic structure report is to provide an effective framework for the restoration and reuse of the Red Gym to ensure that the integrity of the building is not unnecessarily compromised and that its remaining historic building fabric is preserved intact, despite the extensive renewal efforts required to prepare the building for its new use.

Restoration of the Existing Fabric

The basic recommendation for the restoration and reuse of the building is that the exterior, the three major interior spaces, and the ma4l stair hall be restored to their historic conditions.

Restoration of the exterior will include the cleaning, repair, and repainting of the masonry; the installation of a new slate roof to ma~ch the original; the repair of all existing original windows and the installation of reproduction sash where the originals are missing; and the installation of new skylights tq match the originals in size and configuration. Original doors are to be restored and reproductions installed where the originals are missing.

The restoration on the interior will include returning the three major historic spaces-the Artillery Drill Roo;n (first floor), the Drill Hall and Assembly Room (second floor), and the Gymnasium (top floor) to their original volumes, with all of their historic finishes either preserved and restored or replicated if missing. The entrance lobby and main stairhall in the headhouse are also to be restored ·to their historic forms. The lobby is to remain the principal public entrance to the restored building.

Other less significant areas of the building, which have been extensively modified over the years, provide the flexibility to adapt the structure to its new use. They should be reconfigured to accommodate the new program requirements. These areas include the spaces at the rear of the first floor and the headhouse rooms, other than the principal staircase, on all floors. Many of these areas were fire damaged in 1970 and are currently unoccupied .

. - Recommendation for Reuse

After restoration, the first floor Artillery Drill Room should be used as a public facility, such as the university visitor center. The restored Drill Hall and Assembly Room on the second floor should be used as a multipurpose assembly space, allowing the room to be preserved in its historic form and providing· the university with a facility that currently does not exist at the east end of the campus. The top floor Gymnasium space should be used as offices created with an office landscape system designed to allow the original space to be comprehensible and installed in a manner that is entirely reversible.

In addition to the restoration of the major spaces, the original circulation and utilities concepts for the building should be retained and rein.forced. Vertical circulation in the form of new stairways and elevators should be located in the comer turrets. The west addition should continue to house a stairway to the second floor Drill Hall and .Asseinbly Space. An addition

.-. xvii to the east should be provided to accommodate current exit requirements from the second floor assembly space.

The restored building will require a new HVAC system. By reusing the large ventilation chases provided in the original construction, it will be possible to provide conditioned air to current standards without compromising the integrity of the structure. Steam and chilled water from the central university system can be supplied to a new mechanical room below the existing first floor level.

New toilet rooms need to be constructed and an entirely new plumbing system installed. A new sprinkler system and a standpipe system are to be provided throughout the building. New electrical, fire detection, security, and communications systems are also required.

Alternate Option for Reuse

An optional use for the second floor space could be as offices, providing that only low, office landscape system partitions are used. All insertions to accommodate offices must be installed in a manner that is completely reversible so that the space can be returned to its original form at some time in the future. Under this option, no addition to the east would be required. The service elevator could be omitted, ~nd the stairs in the addition to the west could be narrower. Other work on the building would_ be the same as in the primary recommendation for reuse.

xviii

.--.. INTRODUCTION

The Armory and Gymnasium has been a significant feature of the Madison campus of the University of Wisconsin since its construction in 1892. For the past century, it has housed many important functions for the university and has also been a center of social and political acti~ty for the community and state. Despite the many changes in use the building has accommodated, it has survived with a· remarkable amount of its historic building fabric intact, as well as its architectural integrity.

In January 1991, the Division of Facilities Management of the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration contracted with the Zimmerman Design Group of Milwaukee and Mesick.Cohen·Waite Architects of Albany, New York, for the preparation of a historic structure report to guide the preservation, restoration, and_ reuse of the building. The preparation of the historic structure report was seen as the first step in adopting a disciplined approach to the care of this historic building. The detailed analysis of the building's history and current conditions establish a benchmark that .will provide a guide for the work that must be undertaken at this time to ensure its preservation and provide for its reuse. The information included in the report will also furnish future generations with a clear picture of what was found in our time. Once thorough assessments (?f the Armory and its history were completed, it was possible to formulate a program for its preservation and reuse in a logical and sequential manner. Far too often in the past, the cultural integrity of many historic buildings has been compromised by approaches to re_storation and preservation that have been grounded on personal whim, willful romanticism, expedient notions of repair, or an unthinking adherence to unrealistic reuse program requirements. Such unfortunate practices have destroyed the historic integrity of countless structures and resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of construction funds because of poor cost effectiveness caused by the inappropriate nature of the work carried out on the buildings.

In preparing the report on the Armory, the architects divided the tasks between the two firms along natural lines. A team of architects, architectural historians, and restoration technology specialists from Mesick.Cohen•Waite Architects have assembled the known documentary materials relating to the Armory, conducted a comprehensive survey of the existing building fabric, identified and analyzed the particular problems of the structure, and prepared drawings . of historic conditions. MesickCohen•Waite Architects also provided overall direction of the study and coordinated those aspects of the materials testing program that related directly to the conservation of historic building materials.

The Zimmerman Design Group undertook the preparation of measured drawings of the building, provided day-to-day coordination with the engineering consultants, coordinated photography of the building, investigated the reuse program developed by the client~ conducted a building code evaluation study, investigated the site development and parking issues, and prepared conceptual design drawings of the reuse of the building. Both MesickCohen·Waite Architects and the Zimmerman Design Group participated in the development of the conceptual design for the reuse of the building.

xix

,...-, As a result of this organization, the structure of the report follows the methodology established for the study. The Armory historic structure report contains the following major components: a history of the b~ding including its original construction and subsequent modifications; an architectural description of the building, along with descriptions of its mechanical and electrical systems; problems of repair of the building and its systems; and recommendations, including building conservation measures and a written conceptual design for its restoration and reuse. Cost projections have been provided for the recommendations.

I I

r

r

/.

xx HISTORY

The Need for an. Armory and Gymnasium at the University of Wisconsin

Military training at the University of Wisconsin began in 1858, when students established a military drill unit called the University Light Guards, but it proved to be a short lived venture. Students organized a military company again in the fall of 1860, and in 1861 the Board of Regents unanimously established a Professorship of Military Engineering and Tactics and proposed "a further development of their University in this direction, as soon as they can secure the cooperation of the State." Citing the need that "the State University ought to be from time to time so.modified as best to meet the varying exigencies of the commonwealth whose name it bears," the Regents proposed that if the Wisconsin Legislature were to support any military education, that training should be carried out at the state university. "Such a department befits the State University rather than any denominational college," the Regents wrote in 1861, and "nowhere are. the location, the grounds, and the buildings so favorable as at the University, for such an experiment." Military drill was held throughout the next year, although evidently without· support from the Legislature. The drill enabled most students who enlisted "to start as officers" and "heightened the physical vigor of all who have shared it. I' 1

Meanwhile, after more than a decade of debate, U.S. Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont successfully steered a bill through Congress that authorized additional land grants to the states for the support of colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts. Included in this legislati~n was a .specific requirement that colleges include "military tactics" in their curricula. In discussions on the bill Morrill spoke of the great need for officers from the Northern states to be prepared better for war. Many Southern states had long supported military training, and laymen and professionals alike felt that this military education had· greatly benefitted the South at· the opening of the Civil War. A report published by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin in 1861 shared this view, noting that it was not "improbable that these schools of the officer, have greatly controlled· the fortunes of the last campaign." Morrill argued that the military training stipulated in the new legislation would "to some extent guard against sheer ignorance of all military art which shrouded the country, and especially the North, at the time when the tocsin of war sounded at Fort Sumter." Morrill saw his legislation as creating "nurseries in every state - an efficient force would at all times be ready to support the cause of the nation." The bill was signed by Abraham Lincoln on July 2, 1862, and became popularly known as the Morrill Act.2

In most states the Morrill Act had little immediate impact in providing well-trained officers. At the University of Wisconsin, the government's call for soldiers rapidly depleted the student body; according to an 1865 report by the faculty the war took "a portion of our best students, · and especially reduced our advanced classes." It was not until April, 1866, that the Wisconsin Legislature reorganized the university in accordance with the Morrill Act and required for the · first time that "all able-bodied male students of the University, in whatever college, shall receive instruction and discipline in military tactics, the requisite arms for which shall be furnished by

1 · the State." Funding for this and other courses was to be provided "as soon as the income of the University will allow, in such order as the wants of the public shall seem to require." 3

University officials quickly applied to the Secretary of War to send an army officer to Madison to serve as professor of military science, but the request -was not granted until 1867, when Washington assigned Col. W. R Pease of the U.S. Army to the university. He was appointed Professor of Engineering and Military Science. While some arms had been provided to student soldiers in 1861, it was not until 1868 that the Regents reported, evidently for the first time, that 4 an "armory has been established and put in proper condition." ·

By the end of the academic year of 1869-70, a ''building for drill and gymnastic exercises" had been completed, at a cost of $4,000. It was described by the Regents as "a plain, substantial structure, admirably adopted for the uses for which it was designed; a later writer, however, called it "an illy-constructed and poorly-equipped building." Located to the northwest of University (now Bascom) Hall, it had a large room that measured about 100 feet by 50 feet in plan and a wing that housed an a~ory and the professor's office and measured 34 feet by 20 feet in plan. The appointment of Major W. J. K. Nicodemus, formerly of the U.S. Army, by the Regents as Professor of Military Science and Civil Engineering coincided with construction of this new facility. Nicodemus was popular personally, but many students were strongly opposed to military training; they objected-to the hours required for drill and to the subordination of one student to another, and they disliked subsequent commandants. After 1870, drill was required only of first and second year students. Students still objected to the requirement but generally 5 conformed to it. ·

Facilities and programs intended specifically for physical education evidently were given scant attention at the University of Wisconsin until the 1880s, even though the Rege~ts had pointed out in 1871 that "Physical culture, so long neglected in the schools in this country, is now -everywhere claiming the attention of educators." Military drill was seen as an important "means to- secure physical training" of male students. In 1876, the Board of Visitors called for "ample ,~. opportunities for judicious physical training" of both men and women, including "appropriate gymnastic and calisthenic exercises." Although there was a gymnasium on campus and "some· appliances in Ladies' Hall" for "physical culture," the Board of Visitors recommended in 1879 that "As the number of students in the University increases, the means.for physical training should keep pace with numbers, and the requirements of the institution be formulated into an intelligent· 6 and progressive system."· ·

A representative of the University Athletic Association appeared before the Board of Regents in

June, 1881, to request "the purchase of grounds for Gymnasium purposes." This call for better r', facilities was immediately-taken up by the administration. The Regents' annual report for 1881 ,l. carried a request to the Legislature for "convenient and appropriate grounds for gymnastic and kindred exercises" for men. In 1884,_university President John Bascom reported to the Regents that "If we are to receive the_ full benefit of our campus, we need a new gymnasium... one that shall offer much more perfect conditions of physical training than the old one." .He called as well for "the full service" of a professor of physical education and pointed out that Amherst

2

f • .-

College had "for years maintained such a professorship with great advantage." From the outset, Bascom saw a new gymnasium as also furnishing "a suitable arsenal for arms." 7

Later that year Science Hall was destroyed by fire, and the university decided not only to replace that building but also to· construct several other new structures - a machine and carpenter shop, an engine and boiler house for the heating system, and a chemistry building. The Regents voted to improve facilities for physical education by adding onto the 1870 gymnasium, "provided the Legislature will ·make an . appropriation large enough for that purpose," in addition to appropriations for the other structures.. George H. Paul, head of the Regents, lobbied the Legislature to include funds for the gymnasium in the saine appropriation bill but was not successful. Construction of the other structures, however, was authorized. Allan Conover, head of the Department of Civil Engineering, Paul, and another regent visited E.astern colleges in 1885 in search of ideas for the new buildings.8

President Bascom repeated his call for better athletic facilities in 1886 as he prepared to leave the university, writing that the 1870 gymnasium was ''.altogether superannuated" and that it met "its purpose in a very clumsy and inadequate way." A new structure, in Bascom's mind, would serve several purposes: it would "subserve the purpose of an arsenal and give the conditions of steady hygienic training and instruction," and it would "become the center of the sports and clubs of the students, and give new direction and impulse to physical development." 9

Substantial progress was at last made toward a new armory and gymnasium during the next few years. The Regents took up the matter again in J~nuary, 1887, and reported to Governor Jeremiah G. Rusk in 1888 that while the state had ~'already wisely provided all absolutely necessary buildings for the accommodation of the students," the construction_ of a gymnasium was "the only obstacle to the complete exterior· equipment of the institution in all the essential characteristics of similar institutions of a high grade." President Thomas C. Chamberlain, who succeeded Bascom, told the Regents in January, 1889, that the "need of a suitable armory, drill

.-.... _ hall, and gymnasium is becoming increasingly imperative with the growth of the institution." He gathered "considerable data relative to the appointments of other institutions" and estimated the cost at $65,000 for construction and $20,000 for "steam heating, plumbing, apparatus, furniture, etc." 10

The Legislature Authorizes Construction

Meanwhile, without the knowledge of President Chamberlain, Regent Elisha W. Keyes drew up a bill which was submitted to the Legislature in February, 1889, and proposed an appropriation of $85,000 for an armory and gymnasium. it "authorized and required" the Regents "at the earliest practicable time to procure suitable plans for the erection of an adequate and convenient edifice for the uses of an armory, drill room and gymnasium." Construction was to proceed "with as much diligence as may be consistent with a proper performance of the work," and the building was to be "substantially fire proof." The proposal gained the support of many students and, by April, 1889, had the support of the Regents, but it was not enacted in 1889.11

3 -~ In 1890, several circumstances may have spurred both the university and the-Legislature toward action. The Board of Visitors made a point in its report for the year ending June 30, 1890, perhaps in light of the passage of the second Morrill Act in August of that year, that "we need only say that the University is possessed. of a large fund, granted by the [federal] government, upon the express condition, among others, o~ proper facilities being provided. by the state for military drill," including "a proper armory and drill room." The university's annual income from the federal land. grant of 240,000 acres was about $15,600 in 1890, from which expenses of the military department were paid. During the spring of 1890 an officer from the office of the Inspector General of the War Department· visited the Wisconsin campus and reported. to his superiors that "A drill hall is emphatically ~eed.ed., there being no building where the whole battaliori can be decently formed." Indoor drill was then being held in Library Hall,.where there was "a clear space of only 40 by 60 feet," which was "entirely too small" for drilling the four companies of the 192-member battalion. The officer found the lower campus to be satisfactory for outdoor drills but "too small for battalion skirmish drill." Also by 1890, the War Department and the Association of Agricultural Colleges were working together to formalize military instruction at the land-grant colleges. Meanwhile, Lt. James A. Cole, who had been detailed. by the War Department to provic;le military instruction at the University, proved to be not only a well-regarded. instructor and manager of the military science department but also a strong 12 advocate for a new armory. .

The bill was not enacted in 1890, but just before Christmas of that year, Keyes approached. Chamberlain about trying again and found him eager to cooperate. _Chamberlain thanked Keyes for starting "the ball in motion ~us early and enthusiastically" and predicted that "It ·augers success." This time the proposed legislation·was more ambitious, and it proved successful. It provided not only for "the construction, equipment and maintenance of an armory· and drill room for the military department, a dairy building, and a structure for the law school, but also for· an additional tax of one-tenth mill for their construction. Curiously, this bill did not specifically mention that the armory building would also serve as a gymnasium.13

The need for facilities at the University of Wisconsin was greater in 1891 than ever before, as r''' enrollment had more than doubled over the previous five years. President Chamberlain was enthusiastic about this progress and the future of the university, writing in February to Robert M. La Follette, who was representing Wisconsin in the House of Representatives in Washington, that "Everything is moving on admirably." The bill was approved by the Legislature on March 12, 1891, and after years of discussion~ the university was to have a proper armory and . gymnasium.14 ·

Initial Planning for the Armory and Gymnasium

Planning for the new armory and gymnasium began· within the next few weeks, under the supervision of an Armory Building Committee composed of members of the Board of Regents. On April 9, 1891, the Regents decided to locate the building on the site of a tennis court on Langdon Street and to spend not more than $75,000 on design and construction. At the same time, in order to gather information on the latest developments in campus building, the Regents '

4 authorized the various building committees that were overseeing the construction of the armory and gymnasium, dairy building, and law school "to send representatives to institutions elsewhere .--. having buildings similar to those under consideration and to employ any expert talent deemed advisable." 15

Notices published in The Aegis, a University of Wisconsin student newspaper, ·suggest that the president and faculty had a great deal of input into the design of the armory and gymnasium. As early as March, 189i, The Aegis reported that "Preliminary plans" were being prepared ''by the President and professors." Edward T. Owen, Professor of French Language and Literature, visited "several gymnasiums and boat houses" in the East and .brought back "considerable information in regard to how the U. W. gym should be arranged." In May, 1891, President Chamberlain and committee members visited the campuses of the University of Michigan, Rose Polytechnic in Terre Haute, Washington University in St. Louis, and· Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Pennsylvania, and The Johns Hopkins universities.16

The design problem facing the university and their architects, Conover and Porter, was to create one structure for two major purposes, armory and gymnasium, both of which were relatively new building forms in the United States.

Late Nineteenth-Century Gymnasiums on American Campuses

Gymnastics had become popular on American college campuses during the 1850s, and by 1860 . gymnasiums were operating at Amherst, Bowdoin, Harvard, Oberlin, the University of Virginia, Williams, and Yale. An ~rticle published in the ·popular Leslie's Weekly in 1893, as t~e University of Wisconsin facility was being erected, explained that most of the early gyms had been "quite simple in design and scope, and destined to be outgrown in no long time~" The reporter explained that · "the present era of the college gymnasium" had begun with the construction of the Hemenway Gymnasium f~r Harvard College in 1880, which was designed by the Boston architectural firm of Peabody and Stearns and built in 1879-80 at a· cost of $100,000. Its two-story main hall, 119 feet long, was flanked by wide aisles, much like a church plan, and lighted by large, arched windows on the front and dormer windows over the aisles. A large locker room ran parallel to one side aisle and opened onto three separate shower and bath rooms. At the second. story level, overlooking the main hall, was a cantilevered running track in the form of a high-style balcony with turned wooden balusters and tall newel posts. r-. Various gymnasium apparatus was attached to a wrought-iron frame that was suspended from the roof trusses. (A generation later, Arthur Peabody, the architect for the University of Wis·consin, commented that these attachments interfered "with the appearance of the room and the convenience of the gymnasium"; he found it· "evident that the running track should have bee!} at the level of the iron frame, but that the height of the building did not permit it.") In the basement of the Hemenway gym were eight bowling alleys, a sparring room, a basebaU "ground" with a "hard-packed gravel floor," and a boiler. There was no pool, but there was a room with hydraulic rowing weights on the second floor. The potential massiveness of the exterior red brick walls was avoided by the use of varied roof shapes, dormers, and liberal amounts of \

5 contrasting masonry trim. An elaborate lantern over the main roof was sheathed entirely in copper. Within a few years, the facility had become "world-renowned." 17

President Chamberlain and the Regents who accompanied him on the journey east in 1891 inspected the Hemenway gym, and architect Allan Conover undoubtedly visited it on his trip to Harvard in 1885, but it is difficult to see what specific influ~nces this very expensively finished, Queen Anne style structure may have had on them. Perhaps, though, its elegance and size, plus its semi-weekly use as a drill hall for the Harvard Rifle Corps, provided inspiration to· the Wisconsin builders.18

Other institutions put up important new structures for athletics during the 1880s. Foremost among American colleges that had promoted physical education in the mid-nineteenth century was Amherst, which had hired not a "mere gymnast" but a physician to supervise the athletic program. In 1883, Amherst laid the co~erstone for a large new gymnasium, which proved so popular that many students preferred to exercise there rather than out of doors. Like the Hemenway Gymnasium, the Pratt Gymnasium at Amherst had bowling alleys, bathrooms, rooms for baseball and sparring, and a boiler in the basement. In plan the main exercise hall was only about two-thirds the size of its counterpart at Harvard, but it was 8 feet higher. The Pratt Gymnasium had a running track on the gallery above the main hall built on the same principle used at Harvard. This space was illuminated by windows on the east and south, by "an immense skylight," and at night by numerous gaslights. Also on the main floor were a large dressing room with three hundred lockers, a shower-bath room, a "dry rub room," and a "statistics and examination" room. Upstairs were a billiards room, a trophy and meeting room, and a visitors' gallery. In 1885 Harper's Weekly called the Pratt gymnasium "perhaps on the r whole, a finer one to-day than any in all Europe" and pointed out that the "race among colleges" to put and keep student bodies "in the best shape for effective and sustained mental labor" had already begun. Harper's predicted, quite accurately, that it would be a "race in which prodigious strides will be taken in the next ten years." 19

/' . Cornell University was also an early participant in this collegiate race, having erected a substantial brick structure for physical educationand military training in 1882-83. Designed by Charles Babcock, its main space had a span of more than 60 feet, and its roof was supported by wooden trusses similar to others that Babcock had used in churches. Its front facade and massing also derived certain features from religious buildings - the tall central space was flanked by one-story spaces, and the entrance had an arched entryway reminiscent of Italian and r French Romanesque religi~us buildings. It was heated }?y steam and was the first building on campus to be lighted with electricity. The complete cost including gym apparatus was only $31,300, substantially less than the $55,000 spent on construction alone at Amherst. To direct the pro~am fa the new building, Cornell hired Dr. Edward Hitchcock Jr., son of the innovative teacher of physical education at Amherst. President Chamberlain visited Cornell during his 1891 · inspection and admired the "elastic floor" in this building. He undoubtedly must have taken note that the bµilding served as both an armory and a gym.20 r

6 ..,...., r ' Smaller schools were also busy constructing gymnasiums. A new structure at Bowdoin College in Maine, though much more modest than the Harvard gym, showed certain similarities to its plan. There was an oval running track overhanging the main floor, which was illuminated by a skylight and low dormer; in the high basement were a "Ball Pitching Alley," two bowling alleys, lockers, showers, and toilets. A design by the same architects, Rotch and Tilden, for Phillips Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire, also published in 1886, incorporated a similar plan. While Wisconsin officials evidently did not visit these two facilities, their features may have been known to them through plates published in the American Architectural and Building ·News. Women's colleges were also putting up gymnasiums, which like those at men's schools were financed by graduates. Vassar, where a "calisthenium" was one of the first structures built, erected a new Alumnae Gymnasium in 1889, and the alumnae of Smith College funded a gym a year later.21

Meanwhile, Brown University conducted an architectural competition for its new gymnasium. · According to the program set out by university officials, the building was to include a main exercise room "with the usual appliances," plus a running track, rowing machines, a minimum of two ·hundred lockers, showers and bathrooms, bowling alleys, billiard and sparring rooms, a cage for baseball practice, and a "large swimming - bath if possible." Among the submissions was one by the Providence firm of Gould and Angell, which had some marked similarities to the layout of the Wisconsin gymnasium. The shape of the plan, for instance, was a rectangle with large towers, 21 feet in diameter, at each comer. A swimming tank was placed near the center of the ground floor with locker rooms nearby, not unlike the arrangement at Madison; a sparring room and professor's office were also similarly placed in the comer towers. Another architectural firm won the competition, but the plans for the Gould and Angell design were published in American Architect and Building News in 1890, and thus Wisconsin officials could ,_., have been familiar with them. Despite the facts that the gym at Brown must have been nearing completion and that it had a swimming pool, the Chamberlain party apparently did not visit the Brown campus on their trip East in 1891.22

As the University of Wisconsin was planning its building, it was the gymnasium at Yale University that was considered by many to be the state-of-the-art facility. Leslie's Weekly described it. in 1893 as "the generally considered perfect gymnasium" and saw it as the culmination of the development that had began with the Hemenway gym. The Wisconsin group visited the Yale gym in 1891, and in the early 1890s, it was the only one to which Wisconsin writers and speakers compared their own facility .'13

Harper's Weekly called the Yale gymnasium "a palace for athletes." In the basement were twelve Carrara marble· tubs, and facilities for bowling, heattng,·and a laundry. On the first floor was a swimming pool, also of Carrara marble, which measured 50 by 25 feet in plan and varied in depth from 4 1/2 to 7 feet. Surrounding this tank were marble ambulatories and lounging galleries; there were also a Turkish bath and two rowing tanks. The second story contained a locker room, offices, and rooms for boxing, fencing, trophies, and club activities. At the top of the building was the main gymnasium, which had an area of 10,000 square feet; rather than being lighted by clerestory windows or dormers, it was covered by a vast skylight of iron and

7 / ·­. hammered glass, which extended over nearly the full width of the room. A running track encircled this hall at the gallery level; it .was constructed using a "new method" and was not suspended. No expense was spared on the Beaux Arts exterior, which was decorated with bas reliefs of figures and instruments associated with sport. The building cost a quarter of a million dollars and was designed by a New York architect, Everett E. Gandolfo.24

The interior arrangement of the gymnasium at Wisconsin bears considerable resemblance to that at Yale, especially in the placement of the pool on the ground floor and of the main gymnasium at the very top of the building. The president of the University of Wisconsin boasted that while the gym in New Haven was more lavishly appointed, its counterpart in Madison was "not only larger but also more perfectly adapted to the wants of physical culture than any other institution of its kind in the country." It was indeed larger. The Wisconsin pool was more than a quarter again as large as that at Yale; the gymnasium at Wisconsin was only 400 square feet larger, but it had an additional 15,200 square feet of space.on the second floor, which was used as the drill hall. However, the Wisconsin gymnasium differs markedly from the Yale and other college gyms, where the running track was much like a balcony overlooking the main exercise space. At Wisconsin, the track was inserted below, rather than above, the floor level of the gymnasium, and partially in a void above the spring line of the trusses. The Wisconsin track was separated by full walls rather than by_ balusters, and along the two north-south walls, rifle ranges were constructed between the walls of the gymnasium and the running track.25

American Armories in the .Late Nineteenth Century

Beginning. in the 1870s, there was a resurgence in the building of armory buildings in large urban areas because of the fear of widespread civil disorders.. The New York City Draft Riots of 1863 and the rise of the Paris Commune.in 1871 seemed to be harbinger~ of open class warfare between labor and capital on a world-wide basis. This concern was reinforced by the railroad strike of 1877 that began in Martinsburg, West Virginia, and quickly spread to Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and St. Louis, where it developed into a general strike. In 1886, the Haymarket Affair in Chicago again pointed to threats to the established order from socialists, communists, and the so-called dangerous classes. The Wisconsin National Guard was used to break strikes in Milwaukee in 1886 and to maintain order during a strike in West Superior in 1889. As the Madison armory.was being constructed in 1892, one of the bloodiest conflicts broke out in Homestead, Pennsylvania, when strikers against the Carnegie Steel Corporation fought a pitched battle with the Pinkertons, which resulted in ten deaths.26 1-- It was believed that the new armories would be necessary as places for troops .to assemble in order to quell these insurrections. In some cases, armory buildings were actually under siege during periods of unrest.

While the exteriors of late nineteenth century gymnasiums were designed in a wide variety of architectural styles, the situation was very different' with armories, where the military function was being clearly and ·most commonly expressed through historical references to medieval fortresses. Architects of the armories that were being put up in the late ninete~nth century had

8 ..,....,_ I '· found the castellated fortress a very appealing and appropriate image. Its rusticated features were aligned aesthetically with the Richardsonian Romanesque style, which was then sweeping the country and especially the Midwest. By projecting an image associated with force and -- power, such fortress-like armories would, it was hoped, also inspire fear and foster respect among the masses at a time when cities were perceived to be endangered by labor unrest and by the breakdown of law and order. Should these armories be attacked by mobs, their massive walls, limited entranceways, and strategically placed small windows, towers, turrets, and battlements were expected to be practical defenses.27 The First Regiment Armory in Chicago, .-. for example, had no windows on the low.er level and only two doorways; the main entrance was "protected by a portcullis of chains and bars of steel" with "firing slots on either side," while the basement entrance was "so amply provided with gates, bolts and locks that any attempt to force an entrance would be practically an impossibility." The lowest window sill was 35 feet above street level, and turrets at each corner allowed sharpshooters to aim accurately "along ·the face of all the outer walls." Shortly after its dedication, one writer pointed out that the "design is to ---. the last degree military, and can not fail to impress the passer by with the full extent of its purpose· and the ability to carry it out." 28

The Seventh Regiment Armory on Park Avenue in New York, which was to become the most admired armory in the country, was built in a medieval castle style and opened in 1880. Designed by Charles W. Clinton, a former member of the regiment, it was the home to the most prestigious regiment in the country and was fitted up with social rooms decorated by the country's leading artists, working under the direction of Louis C. Tiffany. The Seventh Regiment Armory was vast; it covered an entire city block, and the drill shed, supported by iron trusses made by the Delaware Bridge Company, covered more than 53,QOO square feet. Its design and construction were widely reported across the country, and one would expect that Allan Conover, as an architect and engineer and as a former· officer in charge of the student battalion at the University of Wisconsin, would ~ave· made a point of visiting this landmark when he was in New York City on university business in 1885.29

· The construction of Seventh Regiment Armory became an inspiration to many other National Guard units.. During the 1880s major armories were erected in Brooklyn, Troy, Philadelphia, Norwalk, and Boston, and by the spring of 1891 the monumental First Regiment Armory in Chicago, designed- by Burnham and Root, was under construction. illustrations and descriptions . of these armories that app~ared in architectural magazines and in the popular press probably made these armories familiar not only to Conover and his partner Lew Porter but also to the Regents and members of the building committee at the University of Wisconsin.30

One such building - the Eighth Regiment Armory in New York·- must certainly have been known to them, for its design bears a very striking resemblance to that of the Wisconsin armory and gymnasium. Also located on Park Avenue, the Eighth Regiment Armory was designed by ,..-.. John R. Thomas; construction was begun in 1888 and completed in 1890. It was featured in the American Architect and Building News in April, 1891, just two months before the architects were engaged to. design the Wisconsin armory, and it had been prominently illustrated in Harper's Weekly as it was being built in 1°889.31

9 . . . The New York Times called the Eighth Regiment Armory the "most impressive piece of military architecture possessed by the city or State of New-York" and a "rara avis in these days of official shortsightedness and shortcomings in high places, an 'honest' building, a structure built within the amount of the original appropriation, and pronounced by experts, after painstaking critical inspection, to be complete and substantial as a whole and in detail." The Times predicted that it would "stand for many years to come as a model of the ideal social and military home of the National Guard." The reporter noted that it had "little or none of the splendor and magnificence · of the palatial establishment of Seventh Regiment"; instead the Eighth was ''bright, cheerful, and . attractive," was conveniently arranged, and "notwithstanding its massiveness and solidarity, is pervaded by an atmosphere of genuine .home comfort." Its drill hall, which was 200 feet square in plan, reminded the Times reporter of a train shed. In the sub-basement was a rifle range, and on the second floor rooms. for each of the companies. The third floor held more than one thousand lockers, a change from the usual Guard practice that made it convenient to entertain guests at all tim.es in the company rooms.32

The exterior of the Wisconsin building displays many similarities to the Eighth Regiment Armory, especially in the use of large, crenelated towers at the front comers and in the design of a stepped gable over a central arched entranceway. Both buildings were constructed of red brick with sandstone trimmings. The Wisconsin building was proportio~lly taller, for it incorpora~ed an additional story. At Madison the turrets beside the gables were more prominent,· and a turret was added at the center of the gables, in order to accommodate the heating and ventilating system. In both structures light was admitted to the large interior space by means of clerestory windows running the length of the structure.

Interestingly, a report written after ~he Eighth Regiment Armory was completed criticized the design and construction of its rear wa1:}. The article suggested that ''buttresses, which in so long and unbroken a wall always appear to be needed for strength" should have been added and suggested that such reinforcements might have averted the collaps.e of the entire rear wall during a storm as the wall neared completion in 1888. The rear wall of the armory and gymnasium at the University of Wisconsin required reinforcing with buttresses in 1905.33

It is also worth noting that while the Eighth Regiment Armory had a gymnasium in one of the comer towers, the Twelfth Regiment Armory had a gym on the top floor that measl.ired 90 by 78 feet. A "large gymnasium" was similarly l_ocated on the third floor of the Twenty-Second Regiment Armory, which was built at the same time as the Eighth. This combination of military . and gymnasium features may well have been o~ interest to University of Wisconsin personnel.34

Selecting the Architects and Hiring the Contractor, 1891-92

The Aegis reported that President Chamberlain had returned from his eastern visits in the sp~g of 1891 "with plans for the new gymt1asium building," which was "to contain all the best features of such a structure." The article predicted that it "will be surpassed by none, save perhaps, Yale, which has a gym. costing over $200,000 now in process· of erection" and expressed the hope that the University of Wisconsin building would .be both "sightly and well fitted." 35

10

j\ Interestingly, The Aegis noted on June 12, 1891, that "Architects have already set to work upon plans for our future gym.," although the Armory Building Committee did not officially agree to hire a particular architectural firm until their meeting six days later. At that time Allan Conover, of the Madiso~ firm of Conover and Porter, appeared before the committee and presented the terms under which "he would make preliminary plans arid estimates.". The committee agreed to hire his firm "to make drawings of the floor plans for main floor and basement and for Galleries." The firm was also to make drawings "For Ball Court and shooting gallery in roof, Show perspective from south west, Show south elevation, Show west elevation, Show cross .-. section, Make truss detail, and Estimate Cost of Building." 36

The firm of Conover and Porter had been established in about 1887 by Allan D. Conover, then Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, and Lewis F. Porter, who had been . Conover' s student and had left the university after his junior year to work with him.

Allan Darst Conover was l;>om in Madison in 1854 to Julia Darst Conover and Obidiah M. Conover, who at the time of his son's birth was Professor of Ancient Languages and Literature at the University of Wisconsin and later served as a Regent. Shortly before his death in 1884, 0. M. Conover remarried and in 1883 traveled to Europe with his second wife, Sarah Fairchild Dean Conover. Their letters to Allan from abroad reveal not only their affection for him but also their interest in his career. The travellers described public and private gardens and streets that .,--... were "solidly paved with stone" or "some kind of cement," enclosed sketch plans of model verandas, and gently chided ·Allan for assuming too many obligations by taking on the post of city engineer in addition to his professorship. The elder Conover also reported on a National Hygienic Exposition at Berlin, where principal cities had displayed their water and sewer systems, which, he thought, his son would have found especially interesting.37

Allan Conover had entered the University of Wisconsin in 1869 at the age of fifteen and in 1871 enrolled· in the engineering department as a member of its first class. He gained experience

,--.. working as an engineer's assistant on a survey for the Wisconsin Central Railroad and with the I Wisconsin Geological Survey. At the time of his graduation in 1874, Conover reported to his classmates that he was nearly six f~et tall, slim, "naturally quiet," and "slow. of speech and hard to converse with." His favorite subjects were engineering design, geology, and literature, and. he played baseball and rowed.. In 1877-78 Conover and W. J. L. Nicodemus, head of the engineering department at the university, completed maps for the state geological atlas. After teaching engineering and mathematics at the university, Conover succeeded Nicodemus as head of civil engineering in 1879. Conover also took over Nicodemus's responsibilities for military instruction. Conover served as consulting engineer for the state railroad commission from 1883 to 1~98. In 1885 he took on the job of supervising the construction of the_ Dane County Courthouse, a major project which was estimated to cost $150,000. Lew Porter was _hired as an assistant in Conover's office, as was Frank Lloyd Wright, who was then about eighteen years I--._ old.38

According to on~ account, Conover .. had become more interested in architecture· after the university's Science Hall burned in December, 1884. At the university's direction he visited at

11 :---., least ten leading colleges and universities along the Eastern seaboard in 1885 seeking ideas for the rebuilding of Science Hall, many of which were adopted and resulted in considerable revisions to the preliminary designs. He then supervised its construction, but there was discontent among the Regents during what they perceived to be "an era of reform" over Conover's requirement that he be paid a fee of $4,000 for this work, in addition to his salary of $2,000 as professor. George H. Paul wrote to E.W. Keyes, for instance, that "we should at least understand when we engage a professor whe~her his time and abilities belong to us or whether we are simply advertising him for the ·benefit of his private business." 39

In the spring of 1890, Conover decided to give up his professorship and devote his time to the practice of architecture and engineering. He brought to the planning and construction of the armory and gymnasium experience with major construction projects, first-hand knowledge of buildings at Eastern universities, and contacts with the administration at the University of Wisconsin.40

Lew Forster Porter, the firm's junior partner, was born in 1862. He attended Beloit College and studied civil engineering with Conover, until he became his partner in the mid-1880s. Porter operated the firm's branch office in Ashland, Wisconsin, which designed the Ashland County Jail. · Among the firm's other early work were a commercial block in Ashland and at least one residence in Madison.41

Within a month of being hired to plan the Wisconsin armory and gymnasium, Conover and Porter had prepared two .schemes and presented them to the Armory Building Committee, whose members decided that "the plans with the front entrance" were "the preferable." The committee also found that because the size of the proposed building was so large, it would be impossible to stay within the budget if it were built of sandstone. The members recommended instead using brickwith stone trimmings. The committee's recommendations were endorsed by the Regents, and Conover and Porter were immediately__ hired to pr~pare construction drawings.42 /' Conover arid Porter quickly set to ~ork, distributing copies of the preliminary plans to faculty members for comments and seeking information on the "elastic floor" that President Chamberlain had seen at Cornell University. President Chamberlain, in turn, consulted with Dr. Hitchcock, who headed the physical education program at Cornell and was the son of the pioneer in this field at Amherst. Hitchcock evidently offered some criticisms of the plans, which Conover :~ . attributed to "a very material misunderstanding of the scheme." Conover considered Hitchcock's proposal to move the baseball cage to one side "an impossibility," and he warned Chamberlain that "if we change the position of the running gallery, we will only increase.expense and waste space." The Aegis published an illustration showing the south (front) and west (side) elevations of the building in the December 4, 1891, issue, thus incµcating that the basic design of the building had been determined by that time. Planning continued into the spring of 1892, much to the impatience of the students, who had expected to find excavation underway in the fall of 1891 and had been deprived of indoor facilities for athletics after the old gymnasium had burned in June, 1891.43

12

!'· Conover and Porter's plans and specifications were turned over to Arthur Bate, a Milwaukee carpenter and builder, whom the Regents had hired in 1891 to superintend the contractors who would be constructing the dairy and law buildings, as well as the armory. Bate submitted an estimate of construction costs.for the armory that totalled $105,000, well in excess of the $75,000 budget and of Conover and Porter's estimate of $91,500. In May, 1892, the Armory Building Committee requested that the architects "provide sketches for modifications in plans to reduce cost" and "solicit sealed bitj.s from a number of parties residing in and out of the city" once agreement had been reached on the changes. Conover and Porter's working drawings are dated May 14, 1892.44

On May 17, 1892, Lew Porter joined two Regents to stake out the exact location of the armory. This party also· decided upon the location of the wooden boat house that was to be erected along the lakeshore immediately to the north of the armory, also to Conover and Porter's designs. The first story of the boat house was built around two canals that provided access to boat storage areas; verandas extended along both the north and west sides, and there _was a three-story look­ out tower at the northwest comer. Construction of the boat house was begun in 1892 and completed, after funding difficulties were resolved, in 1893.45

The building committee opened sealed bids for the armory and gymnasium on May 31, 1892, but at the direction of the Regents returned them and advertised for new bids to be received by July 19. The Regents also agreed to increase the appropriation for the building to $100,000. Meanwhile, the architects were instructed to conduct soil tests "by digging pits, boring and if needs be by weighting processes." 46 .-. On July 25, 1892, the committee opened the second set of bids and agreed to recommend that T. C. McCarthy, of Madison, be given the general construction contract, in the amount of $97,373. The Regents immediately approved the awarding of the contract. McCarthy- was at this time also putting up the law and dairy buildings on the campus.47

Constructing the Armory and Gymnasium, 1892-94

The contractor, T. J. McCarthy, proposed to the Board of Regents in September, 1892, that construction of the armory and gymnasium be postponed until the spring of 1893, because, he wrote,· "it is absolutely certain that a foundation of the character such as the armory will have would be very ~terialiy damaged by the action of frost." The problem lay with the small amount of earth that was to ·be excavated. "The lower or bottom line of the concrete footing will be wholly above the present· ground level under a considerable portion of the building," McCarthy wrote, and "the footing will be no where lower than the thickness of itself below the top of present ground." Furthermore, he continued, since there was "practically no excavating to be done," there would be no earth available from the site that could be used "to fill against ,,..-,, wall as a protection" against frost. The university decided, however, to begin construction during the fall and to bank the walls with dirt taken from "the high bank of the Lake at the rear of the machine shop." The Aegis reported on December 2, 1892, that the foundation work was

.--, I 13 completed and that "many hundred loads of sand" had been hauled "from the bluff on the lake shore just north of German Hall" to protect the masonry during the winter.48

Before the banking of the walls was done, a tile drainage pipe was to be laid in' a ditch on the east side of the building. Because there was no drain tile available in Madison, McCarthy proposed to omit these drains and to use a better grade of stone for the footings, which were very near grade level; the "roof water sewers" and "the system of vent ducts" were to be retained. The building committee ~greed to this change early in November, 1892.49

· Students were delighted that construction was underway. The Daily Cardinal predicted in December, 1892, that the gymnasium would be a "magnificent building" and "the finest armory and gymnasium in the land." On the ground floor were to be "a military lecture room, a bowling alley, a swimming tank, and a large number of lockers." A drill room, "surrounded by a gallery for spectators," was to be on the second floor, along with "the armory proper where the ·guns will be stored." At the center of the upper floor ther~ was to be "a large base ball cage," ~ rifle range "at one side," and a running track "extending the entire way around and next to the wall." Also on the upper floor were to be ''bars, trapeze, dumb-bells, vaulting horses, etc." An accompanying illustration indicated that the architects had made few changes to the exterior of the building over the preceding year; the west facade appeared the same, but three large windows on the third floor of the south facade had been altered to five narrow openings, and the pattern of windows over the entrance had been ·changed.50

During the summer of 1892, as the Regents were evaluating bids and adjusting their plans for the gymnasium, Charles K. Adams succeeded Thomas C. Chamberlain as president of the university. President Adams was inaugurated in January, 1893. In his report to the Regents four months later, he noted that a "study of the plans of the Armory and Gymnasitµn building has shown that the floor space will easily afford very good accommodations for a large audience room," which could seat nearly three thousand persons. Adams believed ,.that "the time is coming when the use of such a room will be very convenient" and expla'ined that "Every institution of the size of this needs at times an audience room in which not only all the students r· and the teachers of the University, but large numbers of other auditors, can be 51 accommodated." r-, \ ' Changes to the existing design, President Adams continued, would be "absolutely essential,"

particularly to provide greater means of .ingress ~nd egress. A preliminary study had /"' ( \ . determined that inserting .an internal stair would "greatly injure the main hall by cutting through the floor spaces, which, for the purposes of military drill, must be unbroken." In order to solve the problem, Conover and Porter were consulted and prepared plans and specifications for an annex containing stairs to ''be built to the West side of the Armory Building 44 feet long by 24 feet wide" at an additional construction cost of $6,927. The Regents approved this addition on r--. May 10, 1893. President Adams felt that the "plan hit upon by the architects comports with the ' ' structure of the main building" and "will also add to the architectural appearance of. the structure." In addition, the Executive Committee, in September, 1893, requested that Conover and Porter "submit sketches or rough plans of proposed West stairs and platform." The Armory r

14 Building Committee approved a· resolution on September 20, 1893, that was proposed by President Adams and provided that "a stairway be constructed for first to second floor, inside on east side of Armory with platform, for accommodation of those who occupy the platform when building is used for audience room, all in accordance with plans and specifications of Conover and Porter." Braces were to be added "to trusses for the purpose of an entrance and exit to the audience room." 52

In May, 1893, the Regents endorsed the substitution of red brick for "white brick on .the inside of the building, in second story, from ~e floor to the windows" at an additional cost of $495. They also agreed to spend an additional $1,200 so that the roof could be covered with slate rather than asbestos.53

The cornerstone was laid on June 20, 1893. The Wisconsin State Journal predicted that the ''building will be the finest armory and gymnasium in the land" and "well adapted to the ,--.. purposes to the uses· to which it is to be put." 54

At their September, 1893, meeting the Regents approved a change to the plans that would enable the armory to be heated by the university's central heating plant. Originally, the armory was · to have been heated by two boilers of 80 horsepower capacity, which had already been delivered when the change was adopted.· The scheme also required that a new tunnel be built from Science Hall to the armory. The improvement to the central heating plant proposal had been developed by Storm Bull, Professor of Steam Engineering, and D. C. Johnson, Professor of Electrical Engineering. Land grant funds were to be used for this work However, because the central heating plant was not yet ready 'to accommodate the armory, a temporary boiler was installed in a shed outside the armory and connected to the heating apparatus. According to the architects' certification dated October 2, 1893, T. C. McCarthy had by that time completed work in the amount of $45,970, which represented about 49 percent of the total value of his contract.55

Fractures in the walls had become evident as the building neared completion during the winter of 1893-94, but Arthur. Bate, who was supervising the construction on behalf of the Regents, played down the significance of the cracks. He explain~ that they were to be found only in the

,.-­ interior partitions, which simply divided "the first story into rooms and do not continue higher . 1 than the second story floor and have only to support the weight of the floor timbers and flooring and the weight placed on the second story floor"; the "weight of the building and whatever may be placed in it above the second story" rested on the exterior walls. Bate had found that "the exterior walls have sunk from 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 inches and believed that they "must have gone down nearly together," for they had not "separated at or near the angles." Once the exterior walls had stopped settling, the fractured brickwork o~ the interior walls was to be taken out and rebuilt.56

It was found that last-minute changes were needed to adapt the building for better use ~s an auditorium and to improve the finishes of the swimming tank A rest room for. women, not provided for in the original_ plans, was to be added "on the third floor in the· front part of the building," and changes to "flues and added flue valves" were to be made in order to improve

15 ventilation. As the building neared completion, the building committee decided to improve the architects' proposed original cement finish on the. swimming tank by installing tile on the walls and marble slabs around the edges. It was also decided to heat water for the pool and bath tubs with steam rather than with a separate small boiler, in order to avoid having an attendant on hand to handle the small boiler for this single purpose. Four standpipes were ordered at a cost of about $600 as protection against fire, and a flag pole was to be installed. A trap door was to· ·. be "made in floor of audience room above Boiler room,11 and a "deck floor" was to "be placed in Boiler room." A boiler shed caught fire as the armory and gymnasium neared completion but caused only minor damage. As the building filled with smoke, firemen broke open windows on the south facade and one of the skylights. The flames also "caught on the second and balcony floors." 57 · ·

Little is known about the sources of building materials or about any subcontractors involved in the construction, for no itemized invoices from the contractor were located and lists of expenditures published by the Regents provide only a few details. Workers on the university's payroll undertook a substantial amount of filling and grading. Other suppliers included Conklin and Sons, which provided "tiling and cement" in the-amount of $275.00; Pardy and Henderson, which tested iron for a fee of $125; the Miller Paving Company which put down a cement sidewalk for $232.35; J. H. Starck, which did s·ome carpentry for $219.04; Phillip Gross, who supplied hardware for $1,583.77; D. P. Butler, who undertook "tunnel work" for $3,515.00; and L. H. Prentice, who was paid $1,801.00 for "piping tunnel"; and the Chicago Fire Proof Covering Co., which provided a "covering" for $275. The firm of Keeley, Neckerman and Kessenich supplied a "canvas floor," for $214.91, which probably covered a floor used for athletics. Bricks stamped "Menomonie Pressed Brick" have been located inside the building. They were manufactured by the Menomonie Company, of Menomonie Wisconsin, a firm which began operations in 1872 and assumed the name of Menomonie Pressed Brick Company in 1886.58

As the building neared completion late in the winter of 1893-94, students were-eager to make use of the facilities. Enough people were using the gymnasium that the Executive Committee felt it necessary to adopt a resolution that "no running for exercise, other than upon the running track" be permitted and that·the track itself was not to be used until it was completed and the contractor had assented to its use. By March, 1894, the baseball cage on fourth floor was "ready for use," and the rowing machines, which were "the best manufactured" and the same type in use at Harvard, were ready to be set up.59

~ I \ . In April, 1894, a new organization of women students, the Women's League of the University of Wisconsin, petitioned the president and Regents for "fair use" of the gymnasium "at stated

times, and for the purc~se and assignment of such apparatus as is best suited to our needs." ?-, The women argued that the gymnasium was intended "not for the training of athletes, but for the physical development of the students of the institution, as part of a well-rounded education" and that the women "even more than men of this institution, need the physical training afforded r--, by this gymnasium." A group of women petitioned the Regents again in January, 1895, "to make adequate provision for the physical training of women students either by permitting them to have the use, for a fair proportion of the time, ·of the building already constructed or by r

16 building and equipping a separate gymnasium for their use." However, the women evidently were not permitted much, or any, use of the gym. The addition of gymnasium facilities to Ladies' Hall was authorized by the Legislature in 1895.60

In April, 1894, the Regents ·appointed Dr. J.C. Elson of Minneapolis as Professor of Physical Culture and Director of the Gymnasium for one year. He oversaw the purchase of gymnastic equipment from the Schumacher Gymnasium Company of Akron, Ohio, and developed the guidelines for student use of the gymnasium. 61

The Opening of the Building, May, 1894

The opening of the armory and gymnasium was a great festival to which the Regents, students, professors, alumni, the governor, the mayor of Madison, and Wisconsin residents were invited. Classes were canceled, and railroads "all offered reduced rates to those wishing to attend." The Daily Cardinal predicted that the program "will undoubtedly be recorded as most important in the university's history." Among the events were an evening performance of Handel~ s Messiah by the Madison Choral Union with soloists considered to be "the very best artists in the country," a parade and military review, water polo and boat races on Lake Mendota, a baseball game with Iowa College, and a "grand ball" sponsored by the·Athletic Association.62

President Adams was very proud of the new building, and reported to the Regents that while the new gym at Yale was "much more elaborately furnished" and had "more _numerous appliances of certain kinds," the gymnasium at the University of Wisconsin was "not only larger but also more perfectly adapted to the wants of physical culture than any other institution of the kind in the country." At the dedication he noted that the three new buildings authorized by the Legislature in 1891 were remarkable. for their "solidity of structure and comeliness of form." The dairy structure; he explained, was "of Swiss architecture, the law building like that of the Rena[issance], and it was thought best to make the Armory like the Norman." Noting that structures for New College at Oxford that had been built a century ago still stood, he expressed the hope that "there is no reason why honest workmanship.should not produce [buildings] that 63 will last for ages. " · .~. A description published in The Daily Cardinal at the time of the dedication explains the layout and intend_ed uses for the building:

The gymnasium covers a space of ground 196 feet in length and 106 feet in width. On the first floor on the west side are the commandant's office, the artillery drill room and the bowling alleys. The office of the commandant is furnished with a fire proof safe for ammunition, etc., and is connected w·ith the gw:t room Ol) the floor above by a private staircase. The artillery drill room, which opens out of the office, has an unobstructed floor space· and can also be used for classes in gymnastics or for a lecture room. On the other side of the building is the locker room which will contain, when completed, about 600 lockers. Back of this room

17 are the bath and the dressing rooms. The center of this floor is occupied by a swimming tank, 80 by 20 feet, and varying in depth from 4 to 6 feet.

The second floor can be reached by six different. stairways. At the front and the west side are the main stairways which are wide enough for the use of the battalion in column of fours. Then a stair case goes up from the east side of the ·. building, near the dressing rooms, and there . is the small one. from the . commandant's office. The third floor, however, can only be reached by two stairways in the southeast and northwest towers. The drill hall, which occupies nearly all of the second floor, is 160 by 93 feet, and has a clear height of 43 feet. In front of the drill hall is the gun room and a visitors' gallery, reached by the . main staircase, extends along the front of the room.

The gymnasium proper, on the third floor, is 160 by 65 feet. A space in the center of the room where it is 26 feet high is enclosed in netting and used for a baseball cage. Outside of this cage the gymnastic apparatus, the rowing machines, etc., will be placed. On each side at a little lower level are two rifle ranges 160 feet long, and below on the outside is the running track of twelve laps to the mile. All of the available space in the building has been utilized. In the comer towers are several small rooms which can be used for offices, committee rooms, etc. Careful provision has been made for the heating and ventilation of the building. Fresh air will be forced over and between coils of steampipes in the center of the building and it will then be conducted to the various rooms so that the air iri the whole building can be changed in a few minutes. During the coming summer Dr. Elsom, the director of athletics,-will be engaged in selecting the apparatus for the gymnasium and it is intended to equip it in the finest manner. Regular gymnastic work can then be begun in the fall. 64

Another article in the Cardinal. published in September, 1894, after the athletic apparatus had been installed, provided more details on how the building was utilized. The room on the second floor of the southwest turret held striking bags and drums, and all sparring was to be done there. At the northwest comer of the gymnasium floor were stairs leading to the ball ~ge and track on the third and fourth floors and to the four bowling alleys on the first floor. A room for the gym instructor was located in the southeast turret. The southeast turret on the third floor · was intended to be used for a trophy room, and another turret held a meeting room for the I~ Athleti~ Association. The main space on the third floor was to be used for training teams. There was also a set of rowing machines, a baseball cage that was 160 feet long, and a "padded

running track." The 1895.catalogue of courses claimed that the "gymnasium in its equipment /"-\ is not. surpassed by any in the West,· and in size, it is absolutely the largest .in the 'United States."65

Other writers also praised the building at the time of its dedication. The Wisconsin State Journal called it a "handsome" and "splendid structure, admirably adapted to the many requirements which will be made upon it, and worthy of the great state which has furnished it for its greatest I..-.,

18 educational· institution." The reporter predicted, though, that "Commodious as it is, and built with regard for the future as it has been, it is not too much to expect that but a very few years will elapse, with the present rate of increase in university attendance, before the big armory will scarcely be ample for the demands upon its accommodations." The athletic editor of The Aegis commented upon the second floor: · "If any one feature seemed to be the best, it was the drill hall, which forms one of the finest halls for dancing, drill or auditorium purposes to be found in the west."66 Subsequently, though, The Aegis offered some criticism:

There is one noticeable feature of the new gymnasium· which is conspicuous because of its inappropriateness. It is the doorway. The solid hardwood doors, if well set, would form a fitting opening to the finest gymnasium in the west, but the mouldings and trimmings about the doors are of common soft pine, and apparently not the best of that. This should be changed and the trimmings of those great oak doors should be of good hard wood, not of cheap and common 67 ,..-..., painted pine. Let us not have t~e diamond in a setting of brass. ·

On January 31, 1895, the building committee endorsed the architects' certification that the building was complete and authorized that the final payment, for $20,105.81, be made to the contractor. The total cost was tabulated at $122,058.48 plus $5,657.43 for athletic equipment; the Regents directed that a settlement be sought with the contractor for adjustments "with regard to delays and use." Bate, however, determined that the delays were excusable, and the contractor was paid in full.68

.-. Early Changes to the Armory and Gymnasium, 1894-99

Exterior Changes

Very few exterior changes appear to have been made during the first five years. In the summer of 1895 it was reported that the front doors needed "to be fixed so they shall work better." Conover and Porter also drew up specifications for the painting of exterior wood and metal, to be done by October 1, 1897, but it is not known whether the work ~as authorized.69

Interior Changes

The first changes made to the layout of the completed building appear to have been a "platform in Small Armory Room" and a "Gun Rack partition in the locker room and partition in end of Bowling Alley." In September, 1894, the Regents approved this work, which was to be done by . the university's carpenters.70

The "dead air space under floor" in the armory needed to be ventilated, according to a report made by Arthur Bate in June, 1895 .. The ventilation of this space evidently was not corrected, for in 1899 university officials inspected the floor under the building. The Executive Committee directed that the chief carpenter should ''build a cross wall in the tunnel near the Armory," consult with Conover and Porter about "a better system of ventilation beneath the floor," and

19 take appropriate action. Another report found that the joists were "rotting from the dampness and heat underneath the floor." 71

,.--, In 1898, the Regents authorized the "fitting up of the east shooting gallery, but there was difficulty in designing ventilation "to carry off the smoke." Wire guards were added to windows near the ball cage. Similar wire guards were requested .. for first floor windows, which were ,---. ''being pried up by students and others, thereby obtaining ingress to the building during times when it is desired that they be kept out." 72

Lighting. Heating. Ventilation. and Plumbing

The Armory Building Committee noted in April, 1894, that "No provision has yet been made for lighting the building" and asked for authority to provide "suitable lighting." Special electrical wiring had to be installed for the evening events at the opening of the building on May 24 and 25. In September, 1894, the Regents approved a recommendation that the building ·be "temporarily lighted" according to a scheme proposed by D. C. Jackson, Professor of Electrical Engineering, which used twelve arc lights, sixty 16-candle power incandescent lights, and four · 100-candle power incandescent lights. He noted that the wiring for the arc lights was "all in place," though a few adjustments might be.needed, but that "the wiring for the incandescent bulbs is all to be put in." The university had been considering· constructing its own electrical plant, but for now the university decided to purchase electricity from a local lighting company. Jackson's studies.had shown that the cost of lighting the law building and the library to be "a cheap rate when compared with gas." Some of the wiring was still temporary in nature in 1895, and for special events, such as the inauguration ball, additional arc lights were still required. Late in 1895, the Executive Committee approved a proposal to upgrade the electric lighting. The local electric utility company had removed the arc lamps in 1894; they. had been only partially replaced, and the swimming pool area had no artificial lighting.73

At the suggestion of Dr.1. 0. Elson, director of the gymnasium, and Professor D. C. Jackson, it was decided to remove the temporary wiring in the second floor and replace it with permanent I,.,,...... _ wiring for arc lamps with new half ground glass globes; the arc lighting system was to be retained in this space "as a means of economy." Incandescent lights with reflectors were to be installed in the locker, bath, and dressing rooms, in adjoining hallways, and in the front entrance, "where the light should be distributed equally throughout the room in order to light up the many nooks and corners properly." .A new switch was to be installed in the Artillery !"'1 . Drill Room so that "only two of these lights, which [are] .quite sufficient for all ordinary purposes, can be put into operation at a time, in place of using all four as is ·now necessary." The total cost of these improvements was estimated at $440. In the fall of 1895, Oscar Rohn, an instructor in gymnastics, had rewired portions of the earlier wiring that he had considered "a menace. to life and property," using direct wiring that was "conducted upwards through brick air flues, thereby reducing the danger from them to a minimum" and had installed.two main cut­ off switches.74

.20 In 1898 E. F. Riley, the Secretary to the Board of Regents, suggested that "a thorough and permanent apparatus for lighting the Armory should have early consideration." He pointed out that. "No general plan of lighting the Armory has even been adopted" and believed that piecemeal installation was "unsatisfactory, expensive, and possibly dangerous." 75

The Regents ordered in 189? that plans and specifications be sought from Conover and Porter and bids solicited for one or more new radiators to be installed "in front end" of the armory "to supplement present heating apparatus." The contract, which was also to include work for North Hall and University Hall, was awarded _to the Bayley Heating Company of Milwaukee, in the amount of $1,830. In the fall of 1895, additional radiators were authorized in the locker room, at an estimated cost of $40.76

In June,.1894, Arthur Bate oversaw the removal of the "floor in the small room in the front part of the first story" and reported that the "joists and flooring are very wet from the moisture in the space under the floor." Previously a fan in the building had kept the air "in constant movement" and "the moist air was drawn off and distributed up the stacks." Evidently, the fan was no longer in use,· and moisture in the dead air was absorbed by the floors and caused them to rot. The Executive Committee approved Bate's recommendation to "clean out the loose ground and enlarge the space" and then "ventilate the space, through the floor and also by connecting it with one of the ventilating stacks in the wall." 77

The efficiency and design of the heating and ventilation were assessed again by Conover and Porter late in 1895, and a proposal for improvements in the amount of about $200 was approved in December. These changes included a "Bath ventilation connection," dampers, and "Doors in turrets." Conover and Porter were consulted in January, 1897, "to design apparatus or radiation to properly heat the offices of the Commandant at the Armory." In March, 1897, the Executive Committee decided to have that work done under the supervision of Professor Storm Bull.78

"Shades for the large windows (below the mullion) in the Main Room only" were to be · purchased to make the second floor more comfortable during graduation week in June, 1896. A gas service connection was to be made to the west stairway annex also in June, since the alumni banquet was to be served in the building. In 1899 the size of the gas line was to be increased, provided an agreement was worked out with the Madison Gas and Electric Company to "furnish in plac~ and ren:1ove, without cost, gas stoves when needed," for cooking.79

While students were on vacation during the summer of 1895, Conover and Porter made several recommendations in response to the athletic director. In order to provide more hot water during peak use of the showers, the architects suggested that ."an apparatus recently introduced in this country from Germany," the Gegenstrom heater, be purchased at a cost of $200. The Regents approved this expenditure, but instead of following the architects' recommendation that the shower room floors be laid with ceramic tile, they decided to oil the floors and cover .them with wood grates.80

21 In July, 1897, a proposal was received for wire screens to be installed on the inside of the windows on the east and west sides of the ball cage on the third floor. The screens were made · in Detroit and were in place by March, 1898.81

Rowing Tank

In December, 1894, the Navy Department of the Athletic Association ~ad requested that the university install a rowing tank in the gymnasium; the association had corresponded "with all the great coaches in the country" and found "that a rowing tank is highly desirable if not absolutely indispensabie to train a crew efficiently during the winter months." The association had submitted plans for the tank to Conover and Porter and told the Regents that the plans had the architects' approval. The cost was estimated at $400. The Regents tabled the proposal during 1895, but in June, 1896, they instructed the Executive Committee "to install a rowing tank in the Gymnasium and properly equipthe same for the use of the University boat crew." It was later decided, however, to place the tank "north of the Armory and East of the Boat House," in a separate building, and to construct it "according to plans and specifications of Conover and Porter." It was completed in February, 1897.82

Public and University Use of the Drill Hall

From the outset the second floor of the armc;,ry ~nd gymnasium was used for more than athletic and military functions. It was the site of occasional political gatherings, partly because it was for many years the largest space avallable in Madison. Large university functions, such as dances, banquets, and basketball games, were held regularly there. In 1902, the Regents formalized a policy for public use of the property beyond "strictly University purposes," based 83 on previous practices. ·

The 1902 policy statement noted that the Regents had "permitted its occasional use in political campaigns, chiefly-presidential, by the different political parties, where the national reputation ,?---.. of the speakers was such as to be likely to bring together a greater audience than could be accommodated in any other hall in the city"; it was expected that "a considerable part" of such audiences would be students. A Republican rally held in October, 1894, just a few months after the building had been dedicated, was probably the first example of large scale political use. In this instance the university's Democratk Club and its Republican Club successfully petitioned

the Regents to allow William McKinley, the Republican governor of Ohio, to speak. The Daily ...... \ I . . Cardinal reported that "Thousands of people from Madison and the surrounding towns" turned out to hear McKinley., who gave "a rousing and vigorous speech" denouncing Democratic policies. In 1899, the building was used for a spring "Legislative party." 84

The best known political gatherings at the armory and gymnasium were the Republican state conventions of 1902 and 1904, at which Robert M. La Follette was renominated as governor of Wisconsin. La Follette, who was a Wisconsin alumnus and maintained a close relationship with the university while holding public office, knew how well the building could accommodate crowds. He was one of the dignitaries who had escorted Governor McKinley to the platform

22 on the second floor in the gymnasium before his 1894 speech. When La Follette was elected to serve his first term as governor, his "brilliant" inaugural ball brought 3,000 supporters to dance in the gaily decorated second floor and dine in the gun room downstairs. In 1902, La Follette convinced Wisconsin Republicans to move the state convention from what was described as the "corrupting influences" of Milwaukee, with its "environment of palm gardens and tinkling cut glass,." to Madison, with its "pure atmosphere and classic-shades of a university." As La Follette was renominated on the first ballot in the sweltering July heat of the gymnasium, he was greeted with a thundering cheer, and "thousands of coats, hats, fans and newspapers" were tossed into the air.85

La Follette's 1904 ~omination brought national attention to the armory and gymnasium, as his Progressive supporters resisted attempts by the Stalwarts to gain control of the Republican convention. A wire fence was erected across the second floor hall to separate La Follette's delegates from spectators and insurgents. Spectators entered through the front of the building, but delegates were admitted only through the west entrance, which had been fitted with a ramp that forced them into a single file to present their credentials. To further ensure that challengers with counterfeit tickets did not stampede the convention, brawny men stood guard - past and present university football stars, a world champion wrestler, and blacksmiths. Calling some of - them criminals, local police refused to associate with them, and the Milwaukee Sentinel . predicted that a catastrophe would occur should fire break out. Inside, students "hung from windows and girders all over the building," and a row of picnic tables stretched across the hall below the speakers' platform to accommodate journalists. When La Follette accepted the nomination, the crowd roared with thunderous applause, which, according to one colorful 86 account, made "the great girders of the gymnasium vibrate to their farthest limit." ·

The Regents continued to consent to the political use of the armory and gymnasium by orators and political groups. William Jennings Bryan wa·s scheduled to speak in 1912, and "a mass meeting of all the-churches in Madison" was planned in March, 1913, on the second floor "to discuss the 'Dry Zone' question." A Republican convention was to use the space in 1914, and r°", a Democratic meeting was approved in 1916. The Madison Dry League was to meet in 1915, and the Wisconsin Anti-Saloon League planned "a state-wide ratification rally in favor of the federal constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes." The Daily Cardinal reported in May, 1921, that William Jennings Bryan had "wound the spell of oratory about an audience of 2,500," in the armory, denouncing Darwinism "as the cause of a preponderance of brutality over brotherhood in present day life." In 1920, the Regents ..-...... turned down a request by the Wisconsin League of Progressive Women to use the gymnasium for a "political meeting"; Upton Sinclair was given permission to speak in 1922 only after he promised "not to make use of the occasion to refer to any controversy" concerning open forums on university property.87

. The Regents' 1902 policy on uses also ~oted that the university had made the second floor available to a group called the Attic Angels for a charity ball in support of constructing a hospital, since it was expected that the hospital would benefit the students, among others. Also ,_.....,_ allowed was use of the second floor for "public addresses of general interest and especially of

23 a literary or scientific nature, in which it was thought the students would feel an interest." Accordingly, permission was granted to use the building for such events as a lecture by Dr. Richard S. Storrs in 1894, the celebration of fifty years of Wisconsin Statehood in 1898, a Labor Day event in 1903, and a meeting of the State Council of Defense in 1917. National organizations holding meetings in Madison also used the facility; the American Library Association held a lunch there in 1901, and the North American Gymnastic Union used space during their meeting in 1910. 88

Meanwhile, the university used the space for its own functions. Thousands of students watched basketball games before the field house was built and raptly followed away football games· being plotted on a Gridograph hung at one end of the second floor. Concert pianists and dancers performed on a temporary stage. Registration was held in the gymnasium beginning in 1928.89

Alterations Under the Direction of the University Architects, 1900-15

Because the buildings of the university had ."become so numerous and the amount of construction so great," the university established the position of Superintending Architect of Buildings and Grounds and in 1899 appointed. J. T. W. Jennings to the post. He was succeed~ in 1905 by Arthur Peabody. Repajrs to the armory and gymnasium during this period were carried out under their direction.90

Exterior Changes

In January, 1900, the Executive Committee gave approval for Jennings to design and have built "a storm house in front of the entrance to the Gymnasium" at an estimated cost of $40. In 1901, a vestibule and storm doors were to be installed at "the northeast room of the Gymnasium"; this change ~as probably meant for the exterior door in the northeast turret, which may have been used to provide access to the rowing tank building; the door in the northe.ast turret was later bricked in when an annex to the gymnasium was built. However, this vestibule and the storm doors may not have been installed at this time, for Jennings recommended again in July, 1902, /' that a storm door be put "over northeast door." The brick walls were to be pointed up in 1901. The clerestory was to undergo "Partial rebuilding" at a cost of $1,820 in 1902. In 1904, temporary repairs to the skylights were authorized., along with painting "the downspouts and gutters and all tin decks" and the installation of a new flagpole.91

. In July, 1905, the Executive Committee authorized., for the first time since its· construction a decade earlier, major wo:rk on both the exterior and interior of the armory and gymnasium. The work was to be done under Jennings's supervision. The most major part of the work was to strengthen the "foundation and put in buttresses at the rear wall of the gymnasium/' at an estimated cost of $1,800. When these buttresses were built, the original windows were reduced in size. An old skylight. with rotted · wood frames was to be replaced. with one . having r--, galvanized-iron frames, at a cost of $600. The clerestory windows, which had been partially rebuilt in 1902, were to be replaced, at a cost of $700, with "windows which shall be 2 ft. shorter, permitting to flash at the bottom; tin as counter flash." The existing windows were found to be

24 "too low," and they permitted "water from heavy rains to come into the building." The "windows in the large gymnasium room" were to be fixed "so that they may be operated from the floor for ventilation purposes - when the room is used for audiences"; this work was estimated to cost $88. For an additional $80 the exterior stone and brickwork were to be pointed up~92

In 1901, a subcommittee of the Board of Visitors grew concerned about fire safety in the building when the second_ floor was occupied by large groups. The front stairway was r~ported to be "rather narrow and poorly constructed" and the only other exit was through "very narrow, winding stairs in the rear." The subcQmmittee recommended that a fire escape be added at the · rear of the building. It was put up by the Wisconsin Iron and Wire Works by March, 1906, ,- when the university architect found it "altogether too flexible in that portion of the run extending from drill hall level to the ground" and recommended that it be stiffened ''by cross placing with iron." He also recommended that some wall handrails be added. An arc light was to ·be put up to illuminate the fire escapes when the second. floor was occupied as a gymnasium. Also in 1906, plans "for improving the front entrance" were approved; the purpose of the cha~ge was to provide ''better ingress and egress" and apparently-involved an enlargement of some sort, but no other details were located. Other exits may have been enlarged at ~his time.93

Interior Changes .

When Jennings inspected the gymnasium in the spring of 1899, he found that trouble with "the floor system below the first floor" had been "caused entirely by lack of proper ventilation in the space below that floor." He reported that "recently holes have been cut through some of"the partition walls, formerly. tight and other openings made into existing air ducts." The lack of ventilation had caused ·widespread damage; some interim relief was provided by "the temporary ventilation supplied by the open trap in the front hall of the building.94

In the spring of 1900, _the Executive Committee agreed that "the room now used as a chair room in the rear of both rooms at the gymnasium be prepared for use of the athletic teams and furnished with 100 lockers, three rubbing tables, movable steps, sufficient radiation for heat, and three incandescent lights." It then became necessary to find a new·. storage space for the hundreds of chairs that were used as temporary seating on the second floor. The second story of the boat house was investigated, but it was decided to store the chairs in the shooting gallery, and "a hoisting device for conveying the chairs thereto" was to be built.95

In the summer of 1900, the construction of racks for two hundred additional guns was approved. Repairs of an undisclosed nature to the bowling alleys were authorized in December, 1900. The purchase of a "glycerine rowing machine" was approved in December, 1901; it was to be installed in the gymnasium, but its more exact location was not indicated. Another rowing.machine was authorized in January, 1904.96

A ''broken beam, over swimming tank" was to be replaced and steel beams placed "in the arch \ over the· gym room," in accordance with recommendations made by the Executive Committee

25 in July, 1900. In 1898, "some shrinking of wood-work at the Armory and corresponding loosening of iron" had been discussed by the Executive Committee; an inspection was to be held, but the outcome is not known. In July, 1901, the Executive Committee directed that repairs "necessary to preserve the first flo·or of the Gymnasium and to restore the even[n]ess of the armory floor" be made. It is not clear whether these repairs were to be made simply to the surface of the floor or whether structural problems were involved.97

Clearing the shooting gallery of smoke had been a problem in the 1890s, but university officials were reticent to alter the roof for this purpose, especially since it did not leak. In March, 1901, · the Executive Committee authorized Jennings to undertake "necessary protection to the target and neces~ary ventilation of the shooting gallery"; it is not known exactly what work was 98 done. ,__,

The bowling alleys on the west side of the building had presented management problems soon after the building was completed, and in 1902 it was decided to convert that space into a locker and dressing room. When s~dents had bowled in the afternoons, their games had "very seriously interfered with military drill, and gymnastic class work,"; they were expensive to run, because it was necessary to hire "a boy to care for them." 99 Jennings submitted the following plan for converting the space, and it was approved by the Executive Committee in October, 1902:

In the first place there should be cut a door through the brick wall to allow access to the room through the swimming tank room, for the reason that the hall which winds around the heating coils and apparatus is crooked dark and in winter little above freezing in temperature. Also as the needs of the institution will by next year require a further installment of.lockers I think that there should be placed a partition across the south end of the alleys with a door there in . and the partition partially glazed with ground glass, making the locker room of the full size of the prese11t alleys, and leaving a hall way from the side entrance to the interior of the building. The floors should be leveled up by filling in the gutters of the bowling alleys with maple flooring to a level throughout and removing the ball racks etc. It will be necessary for us to install sufficient steam coils on the west wall to properly heat the room before it can be used.

· There should also be inside storm sash provided for the windows glazed with ground glass. Some openings shauld be provided from the present ventilating /' apparatus to ventilate the room as it will become extremely foul without the same.

The new Gegenstrom water heaters are of no use at p~esent as the extra steam pipes for additional steam supply were not put in as I recommended at the time. It will be necessary to put ~dditional pipe in to get the water from the heaters warm.100 ·

26

. i\ The trophy room was to be "celled and finished in wood" at a cost not to exceed $150, in accordance with a recommendation made in November, 1903. In February, 1904, the Executive Committee approved a request by the Jubilee Committee that the band stand ''be moved from the east to the west side of the hall." Also in conjunction with the jubilee; the sum of $100 was appropriated for "permanent equipment of a kitchen in the gymnasium." In 1905 the "small stairway in the gymnasium" was to be "reduced to a uniform width," under Jennings's direction. Alterations of an undisclosed nature in the amount of $150 were apparently made to offices in 1906.101

Swimming Tank and Related Spaces

The tile floor around the Gegenstrom hot water heaters was to be relaid, according to a recommendation made by Jennings in 1902. The water for these heaters evidently was held in a tank in the attic, for Jennings recommended at the same time that a filter be placed in the attic "through which lake water is to be run,_ before passing into the Gegenstrom hot water heaters to prevent clogging from weeds and slime." The cost was estimated at $200. These heaters required that "steam fitting work" be undertaken, also in 1902. The "floor about swimming tank and a section of the floor around the pump" were to be renewed with concrete in 1904.102

When the Regents decided in 1905 to make the structural improvements and to change the clerestory windows, they also agreed to several alterations on the first floor. The most costly recommended change, estimated at $888, involved installing a "new concrete floor in passage way," ta~g out four dressing rooms, extending "the floor to the tank and under room where the present bath tubs are," and putting a "new concrete floor in the toilet room." The plumbing in the toilet room was to be taken out and reset at a cost of $100, and a surface overflow pipe was to be run between the swimming tank to the sewer. Additional showers were to replace "the several bath tubs which are hardly ever used" and to accommodate large gym classes. Because it was "impossible now to obtain sufficient warm water for bathing purposes," two new Gegenstrom heaters were to be purchased, at a cost of $450 including installation. The location of the Gegenstroms was to be changed, and an "additional cold water supply from the basement" was to be found. A new steam trap was also planned, along with a steam siphon that was to be placed in the swimming tank. Finally, a new door was to connect "the Directors' room with locker room," in order "to permit students taking physical examination to pass from· the locker room to the Director's room without going through the public hall, thus being exposed.to taking cold and to view." 103

Fire Safety, Heating, and Lighting·

Installation of stand pipes had been authorized in 1894, but it is not clear that the work was actually done. More discussion was undertaken in March and April, 1900. The installation of a single stand pipe, estimated to cost $100, was authorized in July, 1900. In 1901 the Executive Committee ordered Jennings and Professor Storm Bull to put "the principal steam coil in the Gymnasium" in good repair.104 1-.,

27

(', Initially, lighting for the armory and gymnasium was provided by a temporary arrangement of incandescent and arc bulbs. As a back-up system, four gas jets were installed in 1900, evidently on the second floor; they. were "to. be lighted in case of the electric lamps going out while an audience was in the room." In 1903, the university installed, wiring to accommodate Nernst lamps. The lamps were to remain the property of the Madison Gas and Electric Company and -were to replace "the old arc lamps and arc lamp wiring." Improvements to the lighting of the locker room, at an estimated cost of $100, were approved by the Executive Committee in July, 1906. 105

The records for the armory and gymnasium for the years_ from 1908 to 1910 are not very detailed. The university architect prepared annual budgets for repairs and- improvements, but it is difficult to know what work was actually carried out. It appears that most work during this period consisted of routine maintenance.106

Construction of the Annex, 1911-12

As the Wisconsin State Journal had predicted at the dedication of the armory and gymnasium in 1894, only a few years elapsed before the building became inadequate for the needs of the growing university, whose student population had more than doubled in the preceding decade. In a report to the Legislature in 1906, the President of the university, Charles R. Van Hise, had pointed out that the three uses which the building served - gymnasium, armory, and auditorium - were "quite inconsistent with one another." Whenever the gymnasium was needed for an auditorium, chairs and platforms had to be set up· and then removed, resulting in "interference with the physical training or military work, or both." The president, along with the heads of the departments of physical training and military science, believed the best solution 1 · - would be the construction of separate structures for physical education and military training. CY7 C. P. Hutchins, Director of Physical Training, explained the situation in his department in 1908:

The urgent needs of the department are a building for physical training exclusively, and greater subdivision of compulsory gymnasium classes which will be possible only on a floor always at the disposal of the department. Aside from the present difficulty of furnishing adequate attention to individual physical needs, caused by sharing the armory with the military department, and the consequent exclusion from the floor for many hours daily of those who wish to

exercise, the hygienic principle invoked in locker rooms without sunlight, and the ,,,..,....,, introduction of septic material to the main floor by street apparel of audiences and the regiment is too serious to be deferred.108

However, rather than separating the military and athletic functions, the Regents decided, for the short term, to proceed with the construction of an annex to the existing structure and to expand the facilities at Camp Randall. Early in 1911 Arthur Peabody-prepared plans for the construction of an annex to be located on the site of handball ·courts at the east side of the building. Peabody's plans were reviewed by architects Warren P. Laird and Paul Cret, who were advising the university on its comprehensive physical development, in order to ensure that "Buildings will

28 n JUUU!X. ---

The annex measured 84 by 235 feet in plan and housed "an indoor dirt track fourteen feet wide and twelve laps to the mile, quite equal to that possessed by any other university." A baseball cage, 58 feet by 180 feet in length, was so well lighted that baseball practices were held at night. At one end were two sets of rowing machines, which, it was suggested, would remove "one of the worst obstacles to success at Poughkeepsie," where the most important collegiate regattas were held. The annex was also used for dances, dinners, expositions, and track and field meets.111

_, In an account written several years later, Peabody recalled that the annex had "presented a rather new problem." There was only a very small budget, but he considered that his "burden was to design something sufficiently mediocre to harmonize with the existing building." He felt that he had succeeded in making the annex look "perhaps more mediocre than the Armory itself." The structure, he concluded, was "so inconspicuous that nobody knows it is in existence." Elsewhere, he described_ the gymnasium as belonging "to the old regime, when the University was a limited affair" and advocated that it be replaced "with something allied to the College of 112 Letters & Science." ·

Changes to the Armory and Gymnasium, 1911-1918

As construction of the annex was being planned in 1911, a proposal to improve the main gymnasium at a cost of $37,600 was prepared, but an expenditure of only $2,500 was approved. Some of the repairs were begun and in August, 1911, the university's business manager reported that

The work has now progressed to a point where· there is need of definite action; we can pitch together the serviceable portions of the dismembered heating apparatus, re-mount · the inadequate and unsatisfactory showers, clean and reinstall the old plumbing, and open the building with a feeling that it is at least sanitary, and that we have not exceeded the limits of our appropriation; - or, now that much of the building is clear, and we actually know the extent of needed repairs, additions and adaptations, - we can put it in such shape as will make it serviceable for several years to come.113

29 The Regents agreed to the more ambitious program, and the improvements doubled' the main building's capacity for athletic activities. On the ground floor "radical changes and alterations and the removal of partitions" were undertaken "so that bad air and darkness have been abolished and the last vestige of infectious disease swept away." The old wooden lockers were replaced with twice the number of "steel and wire receptacles." Additional athletic offices and storage were placed in the first floor spaces made available when the military offices were moved to the second floor. In.conjunction with the construction of the annex, windows on the · east facade of the original gymnasium were· raised.114

The large space on the second floor was still used as a drill hall and for a gymnasium; four handball courts were built, and two nets were hung across the space to "permit the playing of various games without interference." Scheduling was arranged so that military drills were held in the morning and physical education classes in the afternoon; in between, the floor received a "thorough cleansing" with "a new and powerful vacuum cleaner." Reportedly as a result, student illnesses caused. by "gymnasium infections" were very significantly reduced. With baseball, track, and rowing facilities moved to the annex, the top floor of the main building was made into a gymnasium, ~th fixed mats and apparatus; there was also "clear space for all 115 calisthenic exercise" and five more handball courts~ ·

Some additional changes were made to the gymnasium in 1912-13. In January, 1912, the Regents gave permission to the university architect to place new iron columns in the gymnasium for !'- reasons of safety. These columns were probably those in the north section of the first floor. An improvement planned for the 1912-13 academic year was the construction of "forty-five new individual shower baths destined to remove the last complaint of the student body about the lack of hot water and inability to have a bath to the satisfaction of their own feelings." In December, 1913, up to $625 was appropriated for racks to store five hundred additional guns. Over the objections of the commandant, the racks were to be fitted with rollers so they could be . moved. An additional fire escape was to be built at the "north end of the gymnasium, leading 116 from the auditorium, at a cost of $500." r...:,, I At the same time, because the business manager had found that ·"stairways and fire escapes leading from the auditorium at the gymnasium entirely inadequate," planning was begun for the r-. "construction of a broad stairway leading to the west that would replace a double flight of stairs running north-south." Bids were solicited in 1915, and in March, 1916, changes reducing the amount of steel needed were approved because of a substantial increase in the price of steel . . A toilet room under the stairs was to be omitted from the plans. A fire that destroyed the dome of University Hall in October, 1916, made university officials more sensitive to fire safety, and the Regents proposed that sp~ers be installed in the first floor of the gymnasium.117

Even with the addition of the annex, the sharing of the athletic and military training continued to be less than satisfactory. The commandant in charge of the Department of Military Science ,-.., and Tactics, P. G. Wrightson, reported to the president of.the university at the close of the 1914- 15 school year that it was "clear that the Department needs its own building, completely under the control of the department"; the Athletic Department, he reported, "entirely monopolizes two-

30 r thirds of the entire armory all of the time and the other third, half of the time by day and all of the time in the evening." Wrightson called for a new armory to be constructed at Camp Randall and had secured a set of plans for such a structure, evidently from the office of the university architect.118

The university's priorities for· use of space in the building were soon reversed, however. In March and May, 1918, the university.signed.contracts with the War Department Committee on Education and Special Training to train nine hundred men in vocational studies. To accommodate these soldiers, the gymnasium was used as a dormitory, and the annex was turned into a mess hall. Alterations of an unspecified nature were made to the second stories of the gym.119

Presumably, repairs were made to the building after it was not longer being used for purposes related to World War I, although records of such work were not located. According to recommendations submitted by the Department of Physical Education for 1916-18, repairs were needed in the office, better lighting was required in the trophy room, and the basketball floor needed to be put "in good condition," with lines repainted and baskets replaced. The third floor also required work, including window repa.irs, and it was hoped that a shower and toilet would be installed in the south end of 'the third floor; a toilet room at that location was shown on a later drawing. Other documents indicating that these .other improvements were actually made were not located.120

Repairs to the Swimming Pool and Locker Room, 1922

The Board of Regents discussed improvements to the swimming pool beginning in 1916 and in 1917 approved plans prepared by the State Engineer for remodeling the pool and locker rooms. This work was not carried out until 1922, when the Regents authorized an expenditure of · $18,925 for remodeling the pool and showers according to plans by-Arthur Peabody, who had by that time been appoint~ State Architect. Two contracts were awarded for the remodeling -- one to George Nelson, of Madison, for the "general work" and another to H. Neider and Co., of Milwaukee, for the tile work on the pool. Peabody's specifications provide deta~ about the work that was to be done.121

The shape and size of the pool, which was "longer and deeper than standard," .was to be ..--.. changed so that its inside dimensions were 20 by 60 feet, and the form of the bottom was to be \ "remodelled." The existing tile lining and the marble cap were to be removed from the reinforced concrete walls. Slots were to be cut in the side walls and across the bottom of the pool, and a new reinforced concrete wall constructed at the north end of the pool. A scum gutter was to be inserted at the water level, and a new concrete floor constructed. The pool walls were to be mopped with hot tar and the pool filled to test for leaks. A concrete diving 122 platform was to be installed. ·

Spaces adjacent to the pool were also to be remodelled. Two columns located near the north end .of the pool were to be replaced by new columns of cast iron, and the foundations for the

31 columns reinforced if necessary. In the shower rooms, old concrete work was to be removed, a new concrete floor poured, and concrete partitions built to enclose toilet fixtures. Brick walls behind the stalls were to be finished with cement plaster keyed to wire lath. A concrete ramp was to be finished with cement plaster over wire lath. A concrete ramp was to be extended from the locker room across the south end of the pool First class Portland cement used in the work was to meet standards adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials in 1909; the sand was to be "equal to first quality Jonesville sand." Cinders for the cinder concrete were to be supplied by the university's heating plant. Concrete floors and walls were to be coated with a liquid waterproofing agent.123

The rebuilt pool was to be lined with "white vitreous tile mosaic with colored border and markers"· laid on cement mortar over wire lath. Four sets of recessed steps or ladders were to be installed in the walls of the pool, and the curb at the top of the pool wall was to be finished with a tile or marble cap. Alterations were also to be made to the plumbing, heating, and lighting systems; new filters, heaters, pumps, and sterilizers were to be supplied. The work was ,--, to be completed during the summer of 1922.124

An account published at the time that Eugene V. Debs addressed a capacity crowd at the .-.... gymnasium in 1923 indicates that fuses in a box behind the mining laboratory controlled electrical power to the gym. Someone reportedly pulled a fuse as Debs prepared to speak, and the only lighting available came from "a few candles and gas lights." 125

The Armory and Gymnasium during the Mid-Twentieth Century

At the end of World War I, the university again found it difficult to use the building as both a gymnasium and an armory. When the structure was completed in 1894, about seven hundred men were enrolled at the school; by 1920, there were about five thousand male students. The gym facilities were so cramped that many classes were held out of doors. The physical education faculty proposed paving the space west of the building for class us.e and for hand ball ....-... courts and pointed out to the Board of Regents "the urgent need for an up-to-date building given over entirely to the use of physical education." The commandant in charge of the Military Department also called for construction of a new gymnasium to relieve the congestion and recommended that "the present Armory and Annex be remodelled and given over entirely to the Military Department." 126 \ .

. Meanwhile, however, isolationism and anti-militarism movements gained strength in the state, · and in 1923 Wisconsin became the only state in the country to eliminate compulsory military training for male students at a land-grant university. Enrollment in military training courses ,,...... , declined from 1,482 in 1920 to 457 in .1932. Presumably this change, combined with the construction of new facilities at Camp Randall, relieved some overcrowding in the gymnasium.127 The armory and gymnasium was used for student registration beginning in r°"\ 1928. Once the memorial union was completed in 1928 and the field house in 1930, registration became the only time that large numbers of students congregated in the armory and gymnasium.

32 With this severe decline in use, it is not surprising that few alterations or improvements were made to the gymnasium during the 1930s and 1940s. The only repair record found in the

--'\ university's records specifically for this period was for twenty-one squares of Barrett Black Diamond pitch and felt roofing that was installed at the gymnasium by the General Roofing Company and completed in October, 1940, probably on the "head house," over the south entrance.128

Drawings that were prepared by the university's Department of Buildings and Grounds in

.- ....., February, 1928, and revised in Novembe~, 1953, give some indication of alterations that had been made up to that time. On the first floor, a chlorine room had been inserted in the northeast turret, and partitions had been put up in the former artillery drill room. Stairs leading from the second floor to the mezzanine had been built, and the balcony had been removed; stairs had also been built from the.second floor to the mezzanine level of the northeast and northwest turrets. On the upper levels the former shooting galleries had been subdivided into rooms· (more r-"1. dividers were added after 1953), and partitions had also been put up along the north end of the former running track. Stairs from the running track to the rifle range had also been built (those to the west rifle range were removed after 1965). A heavy masonry wall on the east side of the gun storage room -on the second floor was replaced with a partition of glass and. wood; a stairway connecting this room with an office on the first floor was removed.129

The Armory and Gymnasium in the ·19sos

By the early 1950s, the annex and·the gymnasium were considered by some to be antiquated facilities, and planning for demolition was begun. The Wisconsin Alumni Magazine announced in 1951 that "according to a plan recently initiated by Paul J~ Fisher, '22, the cramped Armory pool will be the first of the building's inadequate facilities to be replaced." The annex to the gymnasium was scheduled for demolition during the 1951-53 biennium in order to provide space for a new Wisconsin Center building. However, it was not until August, 1955, that the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents authorized the razing of the annex; a contract for demolition was awarded in May, 1956, and the work was underway in July. A door on the east wall of the gymnasium that had led to.the annex was then filled in. Athletic activities that had been held in the annex were subsequently housed in the Camp Randall Memorial building.130

Demolition of the gymnasium itself was planned for some time after 1953. Alexium Baas, a columnist for the Madison Capital Times, lamented that it was "Too bad the old gym must be torn down. We could well .imitate other universities in this country and abroad and preserve our historic buildings with their memories and traditions." 131 _.__, Campus leaders who came together early in 1956 to discuss the university's physical education facilities called them "woefully inadequate and outmoded" and "easily the worst in the Big Ten." In 1957, the Board of Regents requested that the Campus Planning Commission investigate a possible site for a new gym, which would include a new pool and space for fencing, gymnastics, and other sports, for both physical education and iptercollegiate athletics. After considerable . discussion, the Regents selected a site in September, 1958, and approved plans in 1960, but it was

33 not until the fall of 1963 that the new gymnasium, called Unit 1A and located on Observatory Drive near the intramural playing fields, was ready for student use; it had Olympic-size swimming and diving pools, whi~ were considered by President Conrad A. Elvehjem to be a great improvement over "that bath tub in the old red gym." Initially, it was anticipated that the old gymnasium would be demolished soon after the opening of this new building, but in 1965, it was announced that demolition would be postponed until after another gymnasium, called Unit Il, was built at the west end of the campus. With the construction of these new facilities, the original armory and gymnasium was now regularly termed the "old red gym." 132

Meanwhile, varioU:B campus groups vied ~or control of the site of the old gymnasium. In 1961, the University of Wisconsin Foundation, the Wisconsin Alumni Association, and the Memorial Union put together a plan for the site that included an auditorium, classrooms, office space, and a new alumni house. Faculty members lobbied for a new faculty club on the site. However, in \ ' the late 1960s there was a great demand for space on the campus, and the Regents began to consider the possibility of retaining the old gymnasium and finding new uses for it, rather than making a decision based on personal aesthetics. ·Student groups began to protest the proposed demolition because they felt that the structure should be maintained as a athletic and recreational facility for students living near the lower campus. Others proposed that it become a botanical museum. In the spring of 1967, the Board of Visitors agreed .that the red gym should not be demolished "until a recreational facility of equivalent capacity be made available to replace it." A subcommittee of the Campus Planning Committee, with the support of President Fred Harvey Harrington, meanwhile proposed that the gymnasium be replaced with a "multi­ purpose campus community center serving needs of students, faculty, and alumni." The Legis.lature deleted proposed funding for that project from the state budget.133 1.-r\

The gymnasium continued to be used heavily during the 1960s as an athletic facility and headquarters for ROTC. A proposal was made to remodel the north end of the pool room with ·men's showers in.1969. Otherwise, few repairs appear to have been made during this period when its demolition typically appeared to be only a year or two in the. future.134 ,,..-.. The Firebombing of the .Red G~ in 1970

The red gym became front-page news after arsonists firebombed the building early on the morning of January 2, 1970. Flames caused extensive damage to the southeast tower, which was used by students in the Water Resources Management Program, not by the ROTC, which had . been the arsonist's target. It. took more than seven hours to bring the blaze under control; the Capital Times report~ that new fires kept breaking out, "fanned by drafts and carried. through the walls and heating ducts." There was extensive damage to a locker room. The ROTC offices, which were housed in the southwest tower, were.not damaged.135

The "area used for re~tration" was temporarily repaired and made ready for registration in late January. On January 16, 1970, the Board of Regents decided "to repair recreation-related facilities in the Old Red Gym at an estimated cost of $21,000 to be paid from insurance proceeds received from the State Insurance Fund." Total damages were estimated at about $46,000; damaged areas r \

34 not scheduled for repair were boarded up. Most of the recreational facilities were reopened by the end of February, 1970.136

Women at the Red Gym in the 1970s

,-·, Since its construction, the armory and gymnasium facilities had been intended for the use of men. In November, 1971, however, a group of about fifteen women began playing basketball on an upstairs court and refused to follow instructions from an attendant, who told them to

.- ...... leave. and that they were "carrying this women's lib thing too far." The women · gained permission from the director of men's recreational facilities to continue playing and scheduled a meeting for the following·week to demand the right to use the showers. However, it was not until 1973, as part of a program "to achieve a greater degree of equality for women staff and students in athletic programs and facilities for the coming year" that the university authorized expenditures for "Separate locker room, shower and toilet facilities" for the Unit II gymnasium, Lathrop Hall, and the red gym. The facilities at the red gym were expec.ted to cost between $3,500 and $4,000 and were to include the construction of a partition in the shower and locker rooms. A delay in making the changes prompted more protests by women, who renamed the area around the pool a ''People's Locker Room" and dressed in the same room with the men. In 1974, 108 lockers along the west side of the first floor and ten showers were set aside for women and partitioned off by green vinyl curtains.137

In 1976 a room to house water softening equipment was constructed under the west stairs. By this time a small vestibule had been built at the west entrance. A toilet room in this area was modified in the mid-1970s to accommodate the handicapped. The configuration of the fire escape at the rear of the gymnasium was altered in order to allow vehicular access to the Wisconsin Center loading dock in 1973.138

Also in -197 4, after some controversy; the red gym was included in the Bascom Hill Historic . District and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.139

The Red Gym, 1980-92

During the 1980s. work was done to make the red gym more accessible to the physically handicapped. In June, 1980, the Board of Regents voted to ~e funds from General Obligation Bonding for this purpose. An elevator was installed, ramps built, and entrance doors modified. The plans for the work were prepared by Strang Associates under .the direction of Gordon Orr, the campus architect, who favored preservation of the building. In 1988; pneumatic openers were added to handicapped doors at the front entrance and in the corridor to the pool, and . facilities for the handicapped were added in the men's and women's toilet rooms. A ramp was built in the corridor to the pool. When negotiations were underway for the construction of Gym /', Unit m on West Dayton Street, a sum of "about 20 percent of its original financing was shaved off for future maintenance of the Red Gym." Fire safety improvements were made to the second story in the mid-1980s, including the installation of egress signs and panic hardware on doors.140

35 Basketball courts on the second floor were scheduled to be replaced with a gymnastics area in 1984. Folding bleachers from the field house were installed on the second floor in 1984. In 1986 plans were drawn to remodel the room in the northeast turret on second floor into a training room with a whirlpool. The gymnasium was last used for student registration in the fall of 1983, ending a practice begun in 1928. Since the 1980s it has been used for recreational purposes and as offices for the University Archive's Oral History Project and the Wisconsin Humanities Committee.141

In 1988 Chancellor Donna E. Shalala appointed a planning committee, headed by the Dean of Students, Mary K. Rouse, to explore future uses for the building. The Board of Regents in December, 1990, approved funding for planning in the 1991-93 capital budget, and the request was approved by the State Building Commission in March, 1991. In December, 1991, the architectural firms of Mesick Cohen ·Waite Architects and the Zimmerman Design Group were engaged to provide a comprehensive Historic Structure Report and Schematic Design for the building.142

Acknowledgements and Notes

Many people contributed to the preparation of this history. I am especially grateful to J. Frank Cook, head of the University Archives, and to the archives staff- Cathy Jacob, Bernard Schermetzler, and Barry Teicher -for providing full access to the university's records. Jack Holzhueter, Charles Quagliana, and Mary Rouse provided important background information and many suggestions on sources. In addition, the following persons provided research materials or recollections that were very helpful: Ann Biebel, Margaret Bogue, Jeff Dean, James· Draeger, Terry Duchon, Nini Gilder, John Gruber, Martha Kilgore, Robert B. L. Murphy, Gordon Orr, Richard Zeitlin, and Beverly Zimmerman.

1. "History of Military Activities at the University of Wisconsin," p. 1, ROTC files, file 32, University of Wisconsin Archives (hereafter, UWA), Madison, Wisconsin. Regent's Annual Report (hereafter, RAR), 1860-61, pp. 8-10; 1861-62, p. 16.

2. Paul W. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development (Washington, D.C.: Public Land Law Review Commission, 1968), pp. 22-23. Earle D. Ross, Democracy's College (1942; reprint ed., New York: Arno Press and New York Times, 1969), pp. 61, 196-97. RAR, 1860-61, p.9. Paul W. Gates, The Wisconsin Pine Lands of Cornell University (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1943), p. 21.

3. Ross, p. 122. RAR, 1864-65, p. 21; 1865-66, p. 3.

4. RAR, 1865-66, p. 11; 1866-67, p.12; 1867-68, p. 9.

5. Reuben G. Thwaites-, The University of Wisconsin, Its History and Alumni (Madison: J. N. Purcell, 1900), p. 98. RAR, 1869-70, pp. 30-31; 1870-71, Map of Experimental Farm and College Grounds. Merle Curti and Vernon Carstensen, The University of Wisconsin, A History, Vol. 1 (M~dison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1949), pp. 412-419.

6. RAR, 1870-71, p. 15; the same text appeared in University of Wisconsin Catalogue, 1870-71, p. 33. RAR, 1875-76, p. 35; 1878-79, p. 35). University of Wisconsin, Board of Regents, Records (hereafter, RRecords), Vol. C, June 21, 1888, p. 360. These and all other Regents' manuscript materials are located at UWA.

7. RAR, 1880-81, p. 7; 1881-82, p. 6; 1883-84, p. 36.

36 8. R Records, Vol. C, Dec. 30, 1884, p. 429. George H. Paul to Elisha W. Keyes, March 20, 1885, Elisha W. Keyes Papers, Box 62, State Historical Society of Wisconsin Archives (hereafter, HSWA). Laws of Wisconsin, Chapter 332, April 16, .1885. R J;u!cords, Vol. C, April 14, 1885, p. 441. University Press, May 2, 1885, p. 9.

9. RAR, 1883, p. 36.

1_0. RAR, 1887-88, p. 1. R Records, Vol. C, Jan. 18, 1887, p. 485. Regents' Reports (hereafter, R Reports), Vol. B, Jan. 15, 1889, pp. 597-98.

11. Thomas Chamberlain to Paul, Feb. 16, 1889; Chamberlain to Board of Regents, Feb. 22, 1889; LS. Hanks to Paul, March 30, 1889; Hanks to Paul, April 2, 1889; George H. Paul Papers, Box 11, HSWA. Wisconsin Senate, Bill S. 199, Feb. 18, 1889, copy in Paul Papers, Box 11, HSWA. R Records, Vol. D, April 9, 1889, p. 16.

12. RAR, 1889-90, p. 53. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development, p. 27. James Cole to George Raymer, May 29, 1889; President's Report for June 18, 1889, Regents' meeting, in Regents' Papers (hereafter, R Papers) for June 18, 1889, meeting. R Records, Vol. D, June 18, 1889, p. 19. Special Committee on Legislation to Regents, Jan. 17, 1891, Thomas Chamberlain correspondence, letter· book, pp. 374-82, UWA. IDlegible], Colonel-Inspector General to Inspector General, U. S. Army, June 4, 1890, Chamberlain correspondence. Ross, p. 144. Chamberlain to Redfield Proctor, Secy. of War, Feb. 4, 1891, Chamberlain correspondence, letter book, p. 409.

According to these sour~s, some students had objected to the provision specifically for an armory, and the administration decided as a precautionary measure to remove the "arms and accoutrements of the battalion from the Gymnasium to the basement of Library Hall." This location had the advantage of being nearer the area of the lower campus used for drills, but its appropriation upset other students who objected to the resulting disturpance· to library users and to damage to the floor of the hall which was used for student dances, and the inappropriateness of the use of this room, which was considered a "beautiful audience hall."

13. Chamberlain to Keyes, Jan. 22, 1890, Chamberlain correspondence, letter book, p. 322. Laws of Wisconsin, Chapter 29, May 14, 1891.

14. Chamberlain to Robert M. La Follette, February 4, 1891, Chamberlain correspondence, letter book;, pp. 414-15. Laws of Wisconsin, Chapter 29, March 14, 1891.

15. R Records, Vol. D, April 9, 1891, pp. 93-94, 96. The Aegis, (hereafter, !a), March 27, 1891, p. 430.

16. IA, March 2_7, 1891, p. 430; April 17, 1891, p. 482; May 1, 1891, p. 497; June 5, 1891, p. 575.

17. Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University, A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), pp. 150-55. Paul V. Turner, Campus, An American Planning Tradition (New York: Architectural History Foundation, 1987), pp. 158-61. H. A Cushing, "The Development of the College 'Gym,'" Leslie's Weekly, Feb. 18, 1893, p. 67. Moses King, Harvard and Its Surroundings, 3rd. ed. (Cambridge: Charles W. Sever, 1880), p. 37. "The Hemenway Gymnasium for Harvard College," American Architect and Building News (hereafter, AABN), Vot 8 (Dec. 25, 1880), plates and photograph. Arthur Peabody, Notes on Gymnasiums in .Eastern Cities, [1905-7?], in Business Administrator, Physical Plant, Correspondence, A. C. Peabody (hereafter, BA), Box 2, UWA (24/8/10)."

18. King, p. 37.

19. William Blaikie, "The Pratt Gymnasium at Amherst," Harper's Weekly, Feb. 21, 1885, p. 123. Claude M. Fuess, Amherst, The Story of a New England College (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1935), pp. 297-98. No plan or exterior view was located. -~ I

37 20. Kermit C. Parsons, The Cornell Campus athaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), p. 242. Views of Ithaca and Cornell University Othaca: Andrus and Church, n.d.). Conover and Porter to Chamberlain, Chamberlain correspondence, file C-0.

21. "Gymnasium, Bowdoin College," AABN, Vol. 19, Jan. 23, 1886, plate; "Sketch for Gymnasium, Phillips Academy," Vol. 19, May 22, 1886, plate. Helen L. Horowitz, Alma Mater (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), pp. 36; 169,216.

22. "Competition Design for Gymnasium for Brown University," AABN, Vol. 27 (March 3, 1890), plate.

23. Leslie's Weekly, Feb. 18, 1893, p. 67.

24. Harper's Weekly, Feb. 4, 1893. William E. Decrow, Yale University (Boston: n.p., [189?]), pp. 51, 53.

25. R Reports, Vol. C, April 17, 1894, p. 600. \ ! 26. For a more complete accounting of· these conflicts see Robert M. Fogelson, America's Armories, Architecture, Society and Public Order, (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp 13-47.

27. Ibid, pp. 150-57.

. 28. "Design for First Regiment Armory, Chicago," Inland Architect and News Record, Vol. 14 (Sept., 1889), p. 90 and plate. Industrial Chicago, Vol. 2 (Chicago: Goodspeed Publishing Co., 1891), p. 587.

29. Fogelson, pp. 127-33. Robert Koch, "The Medieval Castle Revival, New York Armories," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 14 (Oct., 1955), pp. 23-24. Daily Cardinal (hereafter, DC), Oct. 3, 1894.

30. Fogelson, p~. 136-47. Koch, p. 24.

31. Koch, p. 26. "Armory for the Eighth Regiment, N.Y.N.G.," AABD, Vol. 32 (April 11, 1891), pp. 29-30, photograph. "Two New Armories," Harper's Weekly, Feb. 16, 1889, p. 127.

32. New York Times, Dec. 2, 1889.

33. "Armory for the Eighth Regiment, N.Y.N.G.," AABN, Vol. 32. (April 11, 1891), p. 29. New York Times, Nov. 12, 1888.

34.. "Armory for the Twelfth Regiment," Building, Vol. 4 (May 8, 1886), plate. "Two New Armories," Harper's Weekly, Feb. 16, 1889, p. 127.

35. Ia, June 12, 1891, p. 589. \ j

36. Ibid. Armory Building Committee, Minutes (hereafter, ABC Min.), June 18, 1891, p. 61.

37. See, for instance, Obidiah G. C~nover to Allan ·conover, July 8, 1883; Aug. 19, 1883; Sept. 9, 1883; Obidiah G. Conover Papers, HSWA. 38. Andres J. Aikens and Lewis A. Proctor, Men of Progress, Wisconsin (Milwaukee: Evening Wisconsin 1 Co., 1897), p. 578; this entry lists buildings, but without dates. Wisconsin, Its History and Its People, Vol. 4 (Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1924) pp. 566-71. Wisconsin State· Journal. Aug. 18, 1899. University Press, May 2, 1885, pp. 7, 9. Paul E. Sprague, ed., Frank Lloyd Wright and Madison (Madison: Elvehjem l Museum of Art, 1990), p. 2.

.38 39. Aiken, p. 578. For correspondence from Conover while on the trip East, see Conover to Paul, April 21, 1885; April 22, 1885; May 2, 1885; May 7, 1885; Paul Papers, Box 8. Paul to Keyes, April 15, 1885; April 20, 1885, Keyes Papers, Box 62.

40. Regents' Reports (hereafter, R Reports), Vol. C, April 15, 1890, p. 93.

41. Martha Kilgore, "Lew F. Porter, Architect," Journal of Historic Madison, 1976, pp. 29-30. Obituary for Porter, Madison Democrat, April 17, 1918.

42. ABC Min., July 9, 1891, p. 61. R Records, Vol. D, July 9, 1891, p. 119.

43. Conover and Porter to Chamberlain, July 18, 1891; July 25, 1891; Aug. 18, 1891, Chamberlain correspondence, file C-D. TA, Dec. 4, 1891, p. 202; April 22, 1892. R Records, Vol. D, Jan. 19, 1992, p. 145.

44. ABC Min., May 5, 1892, pp. 64-65; May 6, 1892, p. 66-68. Prints of working drawings, May 14, 1892, \ I with later additions, supplied to Mesick,Cohen•Waite Architects.

45. DC, May 18, 1892; April 11, 1892; April 20, 1892; Feb. 2, 1893; Feb. 15, 1893; May 7, 1893. IA, May 20, 1892, p. 547.

46. ABC Min., May 31, 1892, pp. 69-71; June 17, 1892, pp. 71-73. R Records, Vol. D, June 15, 1892, p. 181.

i I I 47. R Records, July 25, 1892, p. 74. T. C. McCarthy to Regents, Sept. 19, 1892, in R Papers for Sept. 19, 1892, meeting. IA, Oct. 21, 1892.

48. McCarthy to Regents, Sept. 19, 1892, in R Papers for Sept. 19, 1892, meeting. ABC Min., Sept. 20. 1892, p. 76. R Records, Vol. D, Sept. 20, 1892, pp. 192-93. R Reports, Vol. C, Jan. 17, 1893, p. 426. Regents, Executive Committee, Minutes (hereafter, EC Min.), Vol. B., Nov. 15, 1892, p. 85. B. J. Stevens to E. F. Riley, in Regents Executive Committee Papers (hereafter EC_papers) for Oct. 28, 1892, meeting. ~ Dec. 2, 1892.

49. Conover to William H. Seaman, quoted in A~ Min., Nov. 2,-1892, pp. 77-79~

50. DC, Dec. 21, 1892.

51. ABC Min., March 17, 1893, pp. 79-80. R Reports, Vol. C, April 18, 1893, .pp. 438-40.

52. R Reports, Vol. C, April 18, 1893, pp. 438-40; Sept. 19, 1893, p. 153; April 17, 1894, p. 591. ABC Min., Sept. 20, 1893, p. 83. .

53. R Records, Vol. D, May 10, i893, p. 210.

54. Wisconsin State Journal, June 20, 1893.

55. R Records, Vol. D, Sept. 19, 1893, p. 248. ABC Min., Sept. 20, 1893. Storm Bull and D. C. Johnson, to Regents, June 9, 1893; in R Papers for June 20, 1893, meeting. Bull to Regents, Jan. 15, 1894, in R Papers for Jan. 15, 1894, meeting. EC Papers for Oct 2, 1893, meeting. For more information on Bull, see obituary, Wisconsin State Journal, Nov. 18, 1907. R Reports, Vol. C, April 17, 1894, p. 591. Certificate, Conover and Porter for McCarthy, Oct 2, 1893, Regents, Construction and Maintenance, Buildings and Groun<:fs (hereafter, RBG).

. ...,....., 56. Bate, Statement of the Cause of the Fractures of the Walls of the Armory Building, Jan. 31, 1894, in Report of Executive Committee in R Papers for April 17, 1894, meeting.

57. ABC Min., April 16, 1894, p. 84; April 26, 1894, p. 88; April 30, 1894, p. 89. R Reports, Vol. C, April 17, 1894, p, 592. R Records, Vol. D, April 17, 1894, p. 255. DC, Jan. 29, 1894.

39 58. RAR. 1893-94, pp. 15, 31-32. The canvas floor required repair even before the building was dedicated; EC Min., Vol. B, June 4, 1894, p. 232. Franklyn Curtis-Wedge et al, History of Dunn County, Wisconsin (Minneapolis: H. C. Cooper Jr. and Co., 1925), pp. 108-9. ·

59. EC Min., Vol. B, Mat:ch 5, 1894, .P· 215. TA, March 20, 1894, p. 196.

60. Petition in R Papers for April 17, 1894, meeting. ~ April 24, 1894, p. 210. Thwaites, p. 148. I\

61. R Reports, Vol. C, April 17, 1894, p. 599. RAR. 1893-94, p. 32. See also DC, Sept. 18, 1894, and Dec. 5, 1894, for more information on original apparatus.

62. DC, May 11, 1894; May 17, 1894.

63. R Reports, April 17, 1894, p. 600. DC, May 25, 1894.

I 64. DC, May 24, 1894. I !

65. DC, Sept. 19, 1894. University of Wisconsin Catalogue, 1895, p. 106.

66. Wisconsin State Journal, May 25, 1894. ~ May 29, 1894, p. 232.

67. ~ June 12, 1894, p. 250.

68. ABC Min., Jan. 31, 1895, p. 96. R Reports, Vol. D, April 16, 1895, pp. 77-78. R Records, Vol. D, April 16,·1895, p. 320; June 19, 1895, pp. 358-59. .'"'--.

69. EC Min., July 1, 1895, p. 368. Specifications for the Painting of the Wood and Metal Work, (1897], RBG.

70. R Records, Vol. D, Sept. 18, 1894, p. 300.

71. EC Min., Vol. B, June 24, 1894, p. 364; Vol. C, April 4, 1899, p. 411. Memorandum, 1897, RBG.

72. [E.F. Riley] to William F. Vilas, March 16, 1898, RBG.

73. R Reports, Vol. C, April 17. ABC Min., April 30, 1894, p. 89. D. C. Jackson to H. W. Chynoweth, Sept. 18, 1894, in R Papers for Sept. 18, 1894, meeting. R Records, Vol. D, Sept. 18, 1894, p. 300. EC Min., Vol. B, Jan. 2, 1895, pp. 297-98; Nov. 22, 1895, p. 408. Oscar Rohn and J. 0. Elson to C. K. Adams, Nov. 29, 1895, in EC Papers for Dec. 2, 1895, meeting.

74. Jackson, Cost of Improvements, Nov. 30, 1895, in EC Papers for Dec. 2, 1895, meeting. EC Min., Vol. B, Dec. 2, 1895, p. 412. Rohn and Elson to C. K. Adams, Nov. 29, 1895.

75. Riley to Vilas, March 16, 1898, RBG. r\ i 76. EC Min., Vol. B, J~y 27, 1895, p. 373; Aug. 17, 1895, p. 381; Oct. 7, 1895, p. 390. R Records, Vol. D, Aug. 6, 1895, pp. 363-64. R Reports, Vol. D, Aug. 6, 1895, pp. 134-35.

77. . Bate to Riley, June 24, 1895, in EC Papers for June 24, 1895, meeting. EC Min., Vol. B, June 24, 1895, p. 364.

78. EC Min., Vol. B, Dec. 12, 1895, p. 412; Vol. C, Jan. 4, 1897, p. 41; March 1, 1897, p. 70. Estimated cost of changes in heating of Gymnasium, n.d., in EC Papers for Dec. 2, 1895, meeting. For more detail, see Elson and Rohn to Adams, Nov. 29, 1895, in EC Papers for Dec. 21, 1895, meeting; Conover and Porter to Adams, Dec. 2, 1895, in EC Papers for Dec. 2, 1895, meeting.

40 79. EC Min., Vol. B, June 1, 1896, p. 464; Vol. D, Nov. 7, 1899, p. 22.

80. EC Min., Vol. B, Aug. 28, 1895, pp. 383-84.

81. Ramsey & [Ler~oll?], Proposal for window guards, July 7, 1897, in RBG. Riley to Vilas, March 16, 1898, RBG.

82. Charles Case and Oscar Rohn the Regents, Dec. 19, 1894, in R Papers for Jan. 15, 1895, meeting. R Records, Vol. D, Dec. 19, 1894~ p. 307; July 15, 1895, p. 315; June 22, 1896, p. 478; Dec. 3, 1896, p. 528. Thwaites, p. 138. The rowing tank soon proved unsatisfactory, for its water level was determined by the level of the lake; EC Min., Vol. C, Jan. 3, 1898, pp. 217-18.

83. R Records, Vol. E, Jan. 211902, p. 493. Steve Schumacher, "Remembering the Red Gym," On Wisconsin, May/June, 1991, pp. 24-30.

84. Ibid. EC Min., Vol. B, Oct. 1, 1894, p. 278; Vol. C, April 12, 1899. DC, Oct. 9, 1894; Oct. 10, 1894.

85. DC, Jan 8, 1901. Albert 0. Barton, La Follette's Winning of Wisconsin, 2nd ed. (Madison: n.p., 1924), pp. 200-1, 207. .

86. Barton, pp. 348-49, 352,368. Belle C. La Follette and Fola La Follette, Robert M. La Follette, Vol. 1 (New York: MacMillan Co., 1953), pp. 175-81. Robert M. La Follette, La Follette's Autobiography (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960), pp. 138-39.

,....-.. 87. R_Records, Vol. H, March 13, 1912, p. 288; March 5, 1913, p. 541; Vol. I, March 13, 1915, p. 265; Oct. 11, 1916, p. 519; Vol. J, Dec. 17, 1918, p. 234; Oct. 20, 1920, p. 557; Vol. K, May 2, 1922, p. 181. EC Min., May 28, 1914, p. 215. DC, May 6, 1921. Upton Sinclair to Regents, May 2, 1922, in R Papers for May 2, 1922. Controversy surrounding an address by Eugene Debs in 1923 evidently spurred someone to extinguish the lights, adding what the Cardinal called "fuel to Debs' fire," throwing "a cowardly insult in the face of a

I: tremendous audience" and "effectively besmirch[ing] the reputation of the university'i; DC, May 6, 1921.

88. EC Min., Vol. B, Sept. 21, 1894, p. 269. R Records, Vol. E, June 18, 1901, p. 414; Vol. F, June 16, 1903, p. 59; Vol. G, March 2, 1910, p. 450; Vol. J, Oct. 10, 1917, p. 59.

89. Capital Times, Jan. 1, 1965. Wisconsin Capital Times, Sept. 21, 1951; Sept. 26, 1951. See also notes 127 and 141.

90. RAR, 1898-1900, pp. 7-8.

91. EC Min., Vol. D, Jan. 2, 1900, p. 58; July 9, 1901, p. 329; July 7, 1902, pp. 493,495; Vol. E, June 13, 1904, pp. 361-62; Oct. 15, 1904, p. 422.

92. EC Min., typescript, in EC Papers for July 10, 1905, meeting. Fqr original size of windows, see Windows Rear of Armory, [c. 1897], RBG.

93. RAR, 1901-2, p. 71. °CAi:thur Peabody] to Riley, March 3, 1906, in BA,. Box 1. EC Min., Vol. F, July 2, 1906, pp. 294-95; Nov. 5, 1906, p. 381. Peabody Estimated co·st of Repairs for 1905, BA, Box 1.

94. J. T. W. Jennings to Riley, May 4, 1899, in EC Papers for June 6, 1899, meeting. EC Min., Vol. C, June 6, 1899, p. 444. Jennings promised a full examination and report, but this was not located.

95. EC Min., Vol. D, April 2, 1900, p. 104; July 3, 1900, p. 153; Aug. 28, 1900, p. 184.

96. EC Min., Vol. D, July 3, 1900, pp. 158-59; Dec. 2, 1901, p. 392. R Records, Vol. F, Jan. 19, 1904, p. 135.

,r-',

41 97. Memorandum for Mr. Jennings from Minutes of Executive Committee, July 3, 1900, BA, Box 1. EC Min; Vol. C, April 4, 1898, p. 262; Vol. D, July 9, 1901, p. 329.

98. EC Min., Vol. D, March 4, 1901, p. 271.

99. Elsom to Adams, Dec. 2, 1895, in EC Papers for "Dec. 2, 1895, meeting. EC Min., Vol. E, Oct. 6, 1902, p. 25.

100. Jennings to Riley, Oct. 2, 1902, in EC Papers for Oct. 6, 1902, meeting.

101. EC Min., Vol. E, Nov. 2, 1903, p. 231; April 4, 1904, p. 317; March 6, 1905, p. 515; Vol. F, Nov. 5, 1906, p. 384.

102. . EC Min., Vol. D, July 7, 1902, p. 494; Vol. E, Dec. 3, 1902, p. ·59; June 13, 1904, pp. 361-62.

103. EC Minutes, typescript, July 10, 1905, in EC Papers for July 10, 1905, meeting. Bull to C. R Van Hise, June 28, 1905, in EC Papers for July 10, 1905, meeting. EC Min., Vol. F, Aug. 8, 1905, p. 21.

104. EC Min., Vol. D, March 7, 1900, p. 94; July 3, 1900, p. 153; Jan. 9, 1901, p. 330. R Records, Vol. E, April 17, 1900, p. 309. .

105. EC Min., Vol. D, April 2, 1900, p. 105; Vol. E, April 6, 1903, pp. 111-12; Vol. F, July 2, 1906, pp. 294-95.

106. See, for instance, Arthur Peabody's budgets in BA.

107. Wisconsin State Journal, May 25, 1894. RAR, 1906-8, pp. 22; 66, 205.

108. · RAR, 1906-8, p. 205. Ir-'\ I 109. RAR, 1910-12, pp. 233-34; 1906-8, p. 22. R Records, Vol. H, June 20, 1911, p. 124.

110. R Records, Vol. H, July 11, 1911, p. 208. Report of the Supervising Architect for Sept., 1911; Oct., 1911; Dec., 1911; UWA (24/1/1), Box 1.

111. RAR, 1910-12, pp. 233-34.

112. Arthur Peabody, Scrapbooks, Vol. 3, Arthur Peabody Papers, microfilm copy, HSWA.

113. Report of Business Manager, Aug. 26, 1911, in R Papers for Aug. 30, 1911, meeting.

114. R Records, Vol. H, Aug. 30, 1911, p. 211. RAR. 1910-12, pp. 233-35.

115. RAR, 1910-12, pp. 233-35; 1912-14, p. 271.

116.. EC Min., Vol. I, Jil.n, 27, 1912, p. 53; Nov. 2, 1912, p. 104. R Records, Vol. I, Dec. 3, 1913, p. 58; March 4, 1914, p. 88. RAR. 1914-16, p. 25. .

117. R Records, Vol. H, Nov. 13, 1912, p. 480. EC Min., I, Nov. 29, 1915, p. 329; March 29, 1916, p. 357.

118. RAR, 1914-16, pp. 272-73; 1916-18, p. 292.

119. RAR, 1916-18, pp. 27~, 329.

120. RAR, 1916-18, p. 275.

,'\

42 121. EC Min., Vol. I, Aug. 29, 1916, p. 383; May 1, 1922, p. 317; Vol. J, June 30, 1922, p. 343. R Records, Vol. J, Oct. 10, 1917, p. 61; Vol. K, May 2, 1922, pp. 183,240. Short Contract and Bond, Univ. of Wis. and H. Neider &·co., July 6, 1922; Contracts (1/8), Box 6, UWA. Arthur Peabody, Specifications for Alterations to Shower Room and Pool in Men's Gym, June 1, 1922, in Business Manager, General Correspondence, 1922, UWA.

122. Peabody, Specifications for Alterations to Shower Room and Pool in Men's Gym, June 1, 1922.

123. Ibid.

124. Ibid.

125. DC, April 19, 1923.

126. RAR, 1918-20, pp. 23, 200, 214, 227.

127. Edwin G. Pike, "Historical Update of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, University of Wisconsin - Madison, 1960-74," May 1, 1975, pp. 4-5. ROTC files, file 32, UWA. Mary K. Rouse to Dave Stroick and Dave Drews, June 29, 1992.

128. Barrett Black Diamond Roof 20-year Guaranty Bond, Jan. 18, 1941; Contracts, (1/8), Box 6, UWA.

129. [Floor plans for gymnasium and annex], University of Wisconsin, Dept. of Buildings and Grounds, Feb., 1928, revised Nov., 1953. [Fioor Plans], Gymnasium and Armory, University of Wisconsin, Madison Campus, Dec. 1965.

130. Wisconsin Alumni Magazine, April, 1951, photocopy [Univ. of Wis.] press release, Nov. 10, 1951; this release and other mid-20th century clippings were provided by John Gruber. EC Min, Vol. 17, May 12, 1956, p. 4. DC, July 10, 1956.

131. Capital Times, Oct. 9, 1951.

132. DC, Feb. 28, 1956; Sept. 17, 1957; July 29, 1958; June 17, 1960; May 4, 1961, July 19, 1963. R Minutes, Vol 19, July 13, 1957, p. 16. Capital Times, Aug. 25, 1965.

,.-..., 133. Wisconsin State Journal, Nov. 19, 1961. DC, Jan. 10, 1967; Feb. 1, 1967; Feb. 2, 1967. R Minutes, Vol. 34, Jan. 13, 1967, p. 8; Feb. 10, 1967, p. 9; May 5, 1967, p. 4; Exhibit E, May 5, 1967, p. 2. Proposed Statement for President Harrington to the Regents' June Meeting, May 25, 1967, 24/9/3, UWA Box 9, Capital Times, Jan. 3, 1970. . .

134. [Plan for remodeling] Room 120, Shower Room, University of Wisconsin, Dept. of Planning and Construction, Nov. 3, ·1969. ·

135. Capital Times, Jan. 3, 1970. DC, Jan. 6, 1970.

136. Univ. of Wis., News Release, Jan. 6, 1970. R Minutes, Vol. 40, Jan. 16, 1970, pp. 26-27. DC, Feb. 26, 1970.

137. DC, Nov. 23, 1971. Wisconsin State Journal, Dec. 27, 1971. Univ. of Wisconsin, News Release, July 17, 1973; Sept. 11, 1973. Badger Herald, Jan. 21-23, 1974.

138. [Drawing for] Toilet Partitions in Toilet Rooms, Univ. of Wisconsin, Armory and Gymnasium, June 17, 1976, revised Nov. 14, 1977. [Plan for remodeling of fire escapes and new drive access for Wisconsin Center -'""'-, loading dock], July 27, 1973.

' -' 43 139. Capital Times, April 10, 1974. Jeffrey M. Dean, National Register form for Bascom Hill Historic District, Wisconsin State Historical Society [1974]. ·

140. R Min. Vol. 10, June 6, 1980, p. 191. Wisconsin Alumnus, March-April, 1982, p. 15. [Drawings for Pool Area Handicapped Accessibility], Univ. of Wisconsin, Dept. of Planning and Construction, May 20, 1985; March 9, 1988; May 16, 1988.

141. Badger Herald, June 13, 1983. [Drawing to] Remodel Training Room, Armory, Univ. of Wisconsin, Dept. of Planning and Construction, Sept. 24, 1986. The Capital Times of Aug. 24, 1983, predicted that students would be using the gym for registration for the last time that week. ·

142. Wisconsin Week, Oct. 5, 1988. Milwaukee Touma!, Dec. 16, 1990. Milwaukee Sentinel, March 14, 1991.

,-,,-.:.. I '

~-

r-'\ i ' I

..--I·--­

44 I ·3 \ J ) ,\ ) ] ) }

,.• :~:~·:;:c-..i..~ hf,~~fo~;·f1;i~~-.a.~--. .. . ~ .. ..u,.~Ta!!fflam• rn ,

Figure 1. View of lower aanpus of the University of Wisconsin looking west before construction of the armory and gymnasium was ~egun in the ftill of 1892. ·The new Science Hall had been completed in 1887. University of Wisconsin Archives. -·· ------·-...

--- ) 1 ~ .I ) ' ) f _,, I ) f

Figure 3i View of the Hemenway Gymnasium at Harvard College, which was designed by Peabody and Stearns, Boston11Tchitects,and built in 1879-80. 11zis building ushered in a new era of purpose-built gymnasiums on American college campuses. University of Wisconsin officials inspected this structur~ ,n 1891 as part of the planning for their new gymnasium and armory. American Architect and Buildin~ News. Vol. 8 (December 25, 1880). ) ) I ' ) f ./ ) 'i'

Figure3~ View of theHa,remmyGymnasium at Harvard College, which was designed by Peabody and Stearns, Boston11rchiteds,and built in 1879-80. T,ais building ushered in a new era of purpose-built gymnasiums on American college campuses. University of Wisconsin officials inspected this structur~ ,n 1891 as part of the planning for their new gymnasium and armory. American Architect and Buildin~ News. Vol. 8 (December 25, 1880). I ~ii I -~... . .J:J..:I,._ I I. l':··-w· . 1-1 .., ...... ,., .,, i l\.1.M ...... ~4 _..,:s,...... ~ r... ~- I -•·I • • . -" ·• .Jr·· 1 I r1 _]~ ..·~- -~.4.;;..-...... ,~.· -~··--# • • •• - -D:16- -~-

I I I /

Figure 4. Plans for a new gymnasium at Brown University, submitted by the Providence, Rhode Island, firm of Gould and Angell as part of an architectural competition. The layout bears certain similarities to the plan of the University of Wisconsin armory and gymnasium, including the placement of the swim­ ( ming facilities. This proposal did not win the competition, but could have been known to Wisconsin officials through its publication in a national architec­ tural journal. American Architect and Buildini News, Vol. 27 (March 3, ~ 1890) .

....,, ... ,"!!{. -- ) l J ) _J J ] J J ,) .l\ ] ] .,,' l } )

.:~:'.,~i~li .J'

INTERIOR OF THE GYMNASIUM. :\ <.'l.u~s Exe re i:--e.

Figure 5. Main exercise hall of the new gymnasium at Yale University, which was designed by E. E. Gandolfo, a New York architect, and built in 1891-92, a decade after the Hemenway gym at Harvard. Harper's Weekly called the Yale gym u a palace for athletes," and it was the only one to which Wisconsin writers and speakers compared their facility as it was being erected. The Yale gym had a swimming pool on the ground floor, and the main exercise hall, lighted by a vast skylight, on the third floor. University of Wisconsin officials visited this gym on their inspection trip of 1891. ·William E. Decron, Yale UniversifJi (189?). '· ·.~... ·' .. --~, ~::~1} :\<,t .,.

/

Figure 8. The armory and gymnasium as it was nearing completion, probably early in 1894. The projection on the west side was added to accommodate stairs to the ~cond floor. From the Universit_y Badger, 1895, University of Wisconsin Archives.

,,....--., .---. R' ~:·,_.-, (II?;~::~.I 'J~\... ·· .. . i\~, ...•1.i. - ·. : . . ~~ ·- ~ - .

. .. .. ,- ·- ~ ,.._

'