Stanford White of McKim, Mead & White. Robert Wilson Patterson Residence (1903). Washington, D.C.
The only thing that makes this home’s exterior truly interesting is its unique butterfly shape, designed to conform to its site overlooking Washington D.C.’s Dupont Circle.
Otherwise, it’s fairly standard for Stanford White’s later work, with an overwrought mishmash of Renaissance-inspired details that appears fitful and fussy, akin to the cluttered walls of an old art gallery. However, the marble and limestone construction is quite exquisite on close observation.
White claimed the design had a “light and rather joyous character”.1 I’m not sure about joyous, but I can go along with light, as the abundance of windows in the structure gives it an airy feel, particularly when the sun hits all five sides of the facade.
Ornamentation on the Robert Wilson Patterson Residence
The home was built at the same time as White’s partner, Charles McKim, was designing the nearby East Wing of the White House, which…is no longer with us.
The Patterson Mansion is currently occupied by short-term rental units, and I hope to stay in one at some point in the future — preferably when D.C. is no longer occupied by madness. God knows when that may be.
Third-floor balcony on the Robert Wilson Patterson Residence
References
White, Samuel G. The Houses of McKim, Mead & White. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. (1998), p. 212. ↩︎
From left to right: Peter Grant, Jim Nutting, Oscar Brown, Lucius McCleskey
The Background
The following article, published in The Atlanta Constitution in 1896, named the city’s well-known “eligible bachelors” of the time — all white, of course — with accompanying illustrations.
The article’s conceit is based on an old Irish tradition called “Bachelor’s Day,” where women were allowed to propose to men on February 29, which typically occurs every 4 years.
As the article points out, however, the leap year was skipped in 1900, so the next opportunity would have been 8 years later, in 1904.
From left to right: Reuben Arnold, J.W. English, Jr., Fulton Coville, John M. Slaton
“The Atlanta maiden with half an eye for a good thing is reveling in the prospect,” the writer says of young ladies proposing to men — albeit in jest.
While restrictive attitudes toward women began loosening in the 1890s, it would have been considered highly improper — and was likely unheard of — for a woman to initiate a romance or marriage, particularly in the patriarchal stronghold of the Deep South.
“The idea of such a thing,” one woman shrieked to the reporter. “A woman never can make any advances to a man. I expect to be just as reserved as ever this year.”
From left to right: Isham Daniel, Thomas C. Erwin, Thos. B. Paine
You have to wonder how many of the men named here were closeted homosexuals, or which ones were frequent visitors to Atlanta’s red-light district. I could certainly hazard some guesses based on the pictures.
It’s also a little odd to see G.L. Norrman included in the list of eligible “young men”: he was 48 at the time and looked every day of it. Sorry, Godfrey.
From left to right: G.L. Norrman, Will H. Black, R.F. Shedden, A.E. Calhoun
This article is an odd, antiquated snapshot of an era whose traditions and values are so far removed from the current age that it’s almost baffling.
The writer (also a woman) frequently describes Atlanta’s “blushing bachelors” as “gallant” and “chivalrous”, and asks if a man is “obligated by chivalry to accept the offer of the first enamored maiden who throws herself at his feet?”
Her parting thought is that “…there are acres of younger men whose thoughts are just ripe for lovemaking.”
…It didn’t mean the same thing back then.
Atlanta’s Attractive Prizes for Leap Year Girls.
Splendid Gallery of Local Bachelors Who are the Legitimate Prey of Our Fair Maidens Who Feel Disposed to Take Advantage of the Year 1896.
Our blushing bachelors are in a state of modest agitation.
The timid ones are keeping themselves close, and the more coquettish and kittenish ones are giving themselves bewitching airs. They suspect the intentions of every pretty girl they meet and not wishing to inflict the pain of refusal not a few of them have had to discourage fair maiden suitors who have shown a decided preference for them.
How can they refuse the dear girls? Does leap year give man woman’s privilege of declining, or is he obligated by chivalry to accept the offer of the first enamored maiden who throws herself at his feet?
These unsettled questions are worrying our Atlanta bachelors and are responsible for much unhappiness among them.
For instance, Jack Slaton, one of the most charming of our local eligible, is in sore perturbation. Being a candidate, how can he refuse the young women? True, women cannot vote, but their influence upon those who do exercise the right of suffrage in this country is not inconsiderable.
Neither is Andy Calhoun enjoying his usual quiet.
“How can a fellow tell a girl that he loves another?” said he. “I wish next year was leap year.”
These gentlemen represent two sample instances of the feeling of unrest among our bachelors. Others are no less disturbed. Conscious of their charms they cannot see how it is possible for them to survive through the year and retain their gallantry. If they would be so fortunate–or unfortunate–as to pull through the year, they would enter upon the coming twelve months with reputations greatly impaired, and they would be cut and tabooed on every side.
The Atlanta maiden with half an eye for a good thing is reveling in the prospect. A fine field is before her. Eligibles of every kind and description are at hand. The bald-headed bachelor who has weathered many seasons and passed through more than one leap year unscathed, and who has never yet been melted into tenderness is plentiful. The younger eligible with less experience but not less invulnerability to women’s charms, but who are not without those engaging charms that make a man valuable in a woman’s eyes is also numerous in this city. Then the younger and fresher ones–the social yearlings–with neither experience nor power of resistance, impressionable youths with an eye for beauty and heart for love–there are armies of these–each waiting for some capturing maiden to come and bear him away. The spectacle must fairly dazzle the eyes of our Atlanta girls. Whole acres of young men, legitimate and desirable prey for pleading and matrimonially inclined young women–what a picture to delight the fancy!
The field is too full of eligibles. Too many of our young men stand as monuments to the philosophy that it is better to live alone than risk the heart in the chances of a modern love affair.
Just a glance at the list:
Fulton Coville, who is bravely and gallantly facing the leap year possibilities.
Judge John Berry, who, too chivalrous to reject a lady, has gone to Florida to escape offers, until his court will convene and occupy all his time.
Jim McKeldin, who never having been refused and never having refused, does not know how to say “no,” and belongs to the first comer.
Isham Daniel, who waits for leap year as a poet waits for spring, in the faith that it will some day bring him a prize.
Thomas B. Paine, who would as leave be captured leap year as any other time.
Andy Calhoun, who is in mortal fear that he will have to say “no” before the month of roses comes and sets him free. He is seriously thinking of putting an explanatory badge on himself to save himself and the young ladies’ embarrassment.
Will Black, who sees no reason why a young woman shouldn’t tell a man so if she loves him.
Hugh McKeldin, who, too modest to press his own claims upon the fairer portion of humanity, fondly hopes that the year will not pass without throwing some appreciative angel in his pathway.
James W. English, Jr., who is such a strong admirer of the other sex that he deems himself fortunate when they smile upon him–leap year or at any other time.
R.F. Shedden, who would like to know how the young woman would put the question.
Hugh Adams, whose popularity during ordinary years is so great as to make him the center of attack during the leap year.
Jim Nutting, who has such a general admiration and regard for the sex that he would gladly accept the first claimant.
Peter Grant, who will either learn to say “no” or be captured early in the year.
G.L. Norrman, who would refuse a lady nothing–not even his hand.
Lieutenant Oscar Brown, who was fighting Indians all through last leap year and is immensely pleased at the thought of what this year may bring him.
And a host of others. There are Lucius McClesky, Percy Adams, Alex Hull, Victor Smith, Preston Arkwright, Jack Slaton, Charles E. Harmon, Thomas C. Erwin, Frank Orme, Howell Peeples and an innumerable company of other attractive young men.
There’s a romance in every name. Each separate man is waiting for the right woman. They are not cynics and they are not certain but that leap year will settle the question for them. Some of them are rather inclined to encourage the leap year girl. Others are less courageous. They are afraid to risk themselves in the hands of a pleading woman.
There can be no prophesying as to the result of the year among our young men and young maidens. Early in the year–before the year begun, in fact–some of the young men put out the report that they were engaged. They industriously caused this rumor to gain circulation, hoping thereby to shut off the applicants for their hands. But the reports have been exploded and the young men stand convicted of base deception, deception in a cause in which there should be nothing but open and frank dealing. The young women have sworn to make the year a bitter one for these young men. The young women know they guilty offenders and they will make the suffer. The men may wreak a deadly vengeance themselves, however, by accepting some lovely suitor and insisting upon carrying the engagement to its culmination.
But on the whole the young men are not averse to leap-year love making. Be it said to their credit, they keenly enjoy the outlook. Most of them have rather put themselves in the way than out of the way of love making. If the young women want to propose they cannot complain that the young men have given them no opportunity. Nearly all of the young men have kept up their calls with the old regularity.
Jim McKeldin says the signs are propitious for a good year for the bachelors.
“I will not furnish any picture for publication,” he stated to The Constitution last week when called on, “because I do not wish it to gain too wide a circulation during leap year.”
The shrewd young women of two states are vieing [sic] with each other in their efforts to capture him. Tennessee and Georgia both want him and he says it’s a toss up between the two states as to chances at present.
Victor Smith is modest. He believes that all things–even proposals–come to him who waits, and while he has not been waiting as long as many of our eligible gentlemen, he hopes that the year will not be entirely unfruitful in a matrimonial way.
Then, there’s Mr. Harman–Charley Harman–whom the ladies all admire. He escaped the past two leap years through some miracle of misfortune which he alone can explain. The young ladies will not let him pass through this without severe trials. They are organized against him and the married ladies unwilling to see such a charming fellow in single harness, are in league with the younger ones. A steady and well-organized siege is to be laid to the heart of the able railroader and good fellow, and there’s not a doubt that he will surrender before the year ends.
And Tom Erwin–best of good fellows. Atlanta young women are too sensible to allow him to escape. If he is too busy running a bank to propose himself during the years that the privilege belongs exclusively to the men, the young ladies will not allow him to evade this year. He’s a marked man among the young ladies. It’s a question which one reaches him first and makes the strongest plea.
“Jim English is lovely,” exclaimed one of Atlanta’s fairest belles last week. “He’s such a good business man above all men. If I make any proposal this year it’ll be to him.”
And so I might go on ad infinitum. There are many that I have not mentioned but who the young ladies have their eyes on. They will not escape and only a lack of space prevents their mention here.
There is quite an array of young men. There are Joe Brown, Otis Smith, George Parrott, Mays Ball, Roger Elliott, Ulrich Atkinson, Harry Stearnes, Will Kiser, Quill Orme, ‘Gene Black, Alf Prescott, Walter Kilpatrick, Dr. Roy and many, many more. These young men, too, are legitimate prey for the leap year girls, and it is safe to prophesy that not a few of them will fall victims to the witchery of some maiden.
And the young women–what do they think about it.
The fairer portion of Atlanta has never yet settled the question whether it is quite the proper thing for them to propose. They say it is tradition, nothing more.
“I don’t suppose any nice girl even proposed to a man,” said one of Atlanta’s fairest maidens the other day. “The idea of such a thing. A woman never can make any advances to a man. I expect to be just as reserved as ever this year.”
And this idea seems all to prevalent. If the women will not exercise their privileges they have only themselves to blame. It is their right to make love to the men this year and the men, like Barkis, are willing. It is the woman’s fault if there is no lovemaking.
To the backward ones I would suggest that this opportunity will not occur again in eight years. The closing of the century cuts the dear girls out of one leap year, and it will be eight long summers before another chance will come to the women to make love to the men. So the young women had best look to their opportunities and improve them.’
A survey of the field here in Atlanta will show at a casual glance that the fair maidens have plenty of excellent timber to choose from. There is a fine army of eligible bachelors, pining and aching for the love and sympathy of some tender soul, and there are acres of younger men whose thoughts are just ripe for lovemaking.1
References
“Atlanta’s Attractive Prizes for Leap Year Girls”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 8, 1896, p. 4. ↩︎
Bruce & Morgan. Butts County Courthouse (1898). Jackson, Georgia.123East elevation of Butts County CourthouseNortheast corner of Butts County Courthouse
References
“Notice to Contractors.” The Atlanta Constitution, June 8, 1897, p. 11. ↩︎
“Butts’ New Courthouse.” The Atlanta Constitution, September 14, 1897, p. 5. ↩︎
Henri Jova of Jova Busby Daniels. Carnegie Pavilion (1997). Hardy Ivy Park, Atlanta.1
Atlanta is typically willy-nilly when it comes to the persistent destruction of its own history, but occasionally, some brave preservationists can snatch a few scraps from the rubble for posterity.
Such was the case in 1977, when the city’s Carnegie Library, built in 1902, was demolished for the Central Library. However, a local architect, A. Burnham Cooper, convinced the city to save the building’s marble facade, carefully dismantling and numbering the pieces before they were dumped at the Old Atlanta Prison Farm.2
Ackerman & Ross with J.H. Dinwiddie and Bleckley & Tyler.345Carnegie Library (1902, demolished 1977). Atlanta. Illustration from an undated postcard published by the Albertype Co.
In the lead-up to the 1996 Olympics, when Atlanta was desperately trying to sell itself as a city with a legitimate cultural legacy — failing quite spectacularly, I might add — the idea was hatched to dust off the old library columns to form a centerpiece for Downtown’s new Hardy Ivy Park.6
South elevation of Carnegie Pavilion
Tapped for the project was Henri Jova, one of Atlanta’s better 20th-century architects, who designed this fine Postmodern structure from the 8 bays of the historic building’s Beaux-Arts facade.
The project wasn’t completed in time for the Olympics,7 but instead debuted the following spring,8 and today it stands as one of the few distinctive public monuments in the city.
East elevation ofCarnegie PavilionNorth elevation of Carnegie PavilionWest elevation of Carnegie PavilionSouth elevation of Carnegie PavilionFrieze on the south elevation of Carnegie PavilionFrieze on the west elevation of Carnegie PavilionFloor of Carnegie Pavilion
References
“Carnegie Pavilion dedicated”. The Atlanta Journal, April 10, 1997, p. B6. ↩︎
Fox, Catherine. “Building on History”. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 26, 1996, p. E1. ↩︎
“Carnegie Library Commission Awarded To Ackerman & Ross”. The Atlanta Constitution, December 23, 1899, p. 1. ↩︎
“Will Begin Work Next Week”. The Atlanta Constitution, May 8, 1900, p. 12. ↩︎
“Local Talent Is Secured”. The Atlanta Constitution, February 22, 1902, p. 7. ↩︎
John C. Portman ofEdwards & Portman. Atrium of Regency Hyatt House Hotel (1967). Peachtree Center, Atlanta.12
“The most exciting hotel on earth is open now in Atlanta,” proclaimed ads for the Regency Hyatt House (later Hyatt Regency Atlanta) in May 1967. 3
That wasn’t an exaggeration — when it first debuted, the fantastic Space-Age design of the Hyatt’s 22-story atrium was considered groundbreaking, and brought more press attention to Atlanta than the city had received in decades.
Seemingly overnight, the status of the hotel’s designer, John Portman (1924-2017), was elevated from that of a run-of-the-mill Atlanta architect to an internationally recognized architect, developer, and urban planner — whether that reputation was deserved is another matter.
View of the original atrium design of the Regency Hyatt Hotel. Atlanta. Photograph from an undated postcard published by GA Scenic South Co., of Pell City, Alabama.
As a product of Atlanta, Portman was, more than anything, a shameless self-promoter, and for years, he was widely credited as the inventor of the atrium hotel concept, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Atlanta’s own Kimball House Hotel, designed by L.B. Wheeler and completed in 1885, was centered around a 7-story central atrium,4 a concept G.L. Norrman replicated at a smaller scale in both the Printup Hotel in Gadsden, Alabama, and the Windsor Hotel in Americus, Georgia.
The Windsor, incidentally, is the oldest-surviving atrium hotel in the United States, having opened two months before Denver’s Brown Palace Hotel,56 which was also built around an atrium.
I’ll give Portman this much: he redefined the atrium concept for the 20th century, and the Hyatt was the first modern atrium hotel when it debuted, but that was 60 years ago — it’s not so modern now.
Looking down at the atrium of Hyatt Regency Atlanta(altered)
When I visited Atlanta for the first time at the age of 9, I saw the Hyatt atrium while most of its original 1960s elements were still intact. As a child, it was a revelatory experience: I was instantly obsessed with Portman’s designs and determined to someday move to Atlanta to become an architect.
Then I grew up.
My assessment of Portman’s work has drastically changed with age and experience: his narcissistic, inward-facing designs that shunned the urban environment have permanently maimed Downtown Atlanta, and his prioritization of spectacle and bullshit over substance and service is all too typical of the city’s hollow nature.
Portman’s reputation in the United States diminished from the 1980s onward, and like many of the 20th-century American architects who were much-hailed in their time, his work is being rapidly — and justly — forgotten.
Looking up at the atrium of Hyatt Regency Atlanta
Atlanta gave lip service to Portman’s legacy in his later years, even as many of his works in the city were either demolished or gutted of their original character — the Hyatt among them. The hotel’s atrium is now a bland, sterile shell of its former self, and the uninformed visitor would never guess it was once considered revolutionary.
Ironically, other cities have done a better job of preserving Portman’s work than his own hometown. San Francisco’s Embarcadero Center and Hyatt Regency, for instance, still retain their original flavor.
But in Atlanta’s relentless drive to be the newest and best — and it never succeeds at either — the city’s developers compulsively destroy every shred of fabric that even hints of being old.
Portman was among the worst offenders in that regard, so it’s only fitting that his work, too, is now being dismantled. No loss, really.
References
Portman, John C., and Barnett, Jonathan. The Architect As Developer. New York: McGraw-Hill (1976). ↩︎
“Regency Opens a Showplace”. The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, June 25, 1967, 3-R. ↩︎
Advertisement. The Atlanta Journal, May 30, 1967, p. 5-A. ↩︎
“The New H.L. Kimball”. The Atlanta Constitution, May 1, 1885, p. 1. ↩︎
Morgan & Dillon. All Saints’ Episcopal Church. Midtown, Atlanta.12
References
“History of All Saints’ Parish and Church Just Complete”. The Atlanta Constitution, April 8, 1906, p. 2. ↩︎
“All Saints’ Episcopal Church Will Be Formally Opened This Morning With Beautiful And Impressive Service”. The Atlanta Journal, April 8, 1906, p. S1. ↩︎
A.C. Bruce of Bruce & Morgan. Walnut Street Christian Church (1886-1976). Chattanooga, Tennessee.1
The Background
The following article waspublished in TheChattanooga Daily Times and details the plan and construction of the Walnut Street Christian Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee, built in 1886 and designed byA.C. Bruceof Bruce & Morgan. The building was demolished circa 1976.
Bruce was raised in Nashville, Tennessee, and began his practice in Knoxville, Tennessee. When he later partnered with T.H. Morgan in Atlanta, the firm continued to secure considerable work throughout eastern Tennessee, including, as the article notes, Chattanooga’s Hamilton County Courthouse and First Presbyterian Church, both demolished.
Location of Walnut Street Christian Church
The design of the tidy Gothic-style church, shown in the illustration above, is typical of Bruce, who consistently struggled to balance solids and voids in his compositions. Note that the doors and windows appear just a little too large for the overall massing: Bruce frequently drew doors and windows out of scale.
The Walnut Street Christian Church occupied this building until 1910, when the congregation moved half a block to the former First Presbyterian Church, becoming Central Christian Church.23
The old Christian Church building was then sold to the local chapter of the Knights of Pythias organization, who converted it into a meeting hall.4 Based on fire maps, the structure’s original 85-foot-high steeple5 was removed at some point,6 likely during this renovation.
In 1923, the building was sold again to the neighboring Newell Sanitarium,7 which converted it into a 10-room annex circa 1925.8 It appears the former church — altered at least twice — remained at 709 Walnut Street9 until the construction of the neighboring Downtown General Hospital, which opened in July 1976.10 The hospital’s parking lot replaced the building.
I won’t lie: This is a dead-boring article that reads a lot like those Old Testament books with endless lists of names and dry histories — the ones Christians pretend to read, if they read the Bible at all.
To make it easier to find, I’ve highlighted the portion about the building’s design in tasteful lavender. You’re welcome.
The New Christian Church to be Dedicated Today.
Handsome Brick Structure on Walnut Street Between Seventh and Eighth Streets.
History Of The Church.
Its Organization, Struggles, Work and Final Great Success–Full Roster of the Membership
During the winter of 1879, A. Teachout of Cleveland, O., came to this city to spend some months, and being an earnest Christian, he sought out some men and women of his own “faith and order,” and induced them to engage with him in an effort to begin the work in this city which has culminated in their house today, and the happy and memorable occasion which will there be celebrated. Among this little band who were brave enough to make such a beginning, may be mentioned Lucius DeLong and wife, N.P. Nail, R.S. Kendrick and wife, and W.C. Carter and wife.
Arrangements were made by them to invite Dr. W.H. Hopson, of Louisville, Ky., to preach a series of sermons in this city. Accordingly Dr. Hopson came and preached for about a week in the old Southern Methodist church, which stood at the corner of Eighth and Market, where Loveman’s new building stands. Dr. Hopson concluded his services in James Hall. In some respects, this was a notable meeting. Large crowds waited upon the preaching and the immediate results were ten accessions by obedience of the gospel: Bradford Post and wife, Fred H. Phillips, B.H. Ferguson and wife, James Nichols, Mrs. Webb and three others.
Before leaving the city Dr. Hopson effected a temporary organization and A. Teachout was appointed Elder of the church. From the time of organization regular meeting were held in a hall or other place within their reach. The worship of God has therefore been steadily maintained ever since.
THE SUNDAY SCHOOL
was established about 1878. Probably its first Superintendent was Weston F. Burch, of Missouri,–a man of rare worth never to be forgotten by those who knew him. His successors in that office have W.C. Carter, G.B. Woolworth, R. W. Andrews and the present incumbent, D.W. Chase, who has brought the school to unprecedented prosperity.
The school undertook to pay for the eight stained windows in the auditorium and will succeed. The children and the teachers of the school have paid to the building fund about $400 during the past two years besides paying their own current expenses and are ready to be among the first today to make pledge for liquidating the indebtedness. There is also a lively Mission Sunday School under the care of Charles Caldwell and Charles R. McCall, which has started during the last spring, which will bear its share of the responsibility.
THE PREACHERS
who have served the church have been A. Allison, Geo. W. Abell, J.R. Biggs, F.M. Hawkins, Dr. A.G. Thomas, A.S. Johnson, D.T. Beck and T.D. Butler. In a brief history such as this aims to be, many names which are entitled to honorable mention are likely to be overlooked. This is unavoidable and should not be construed by partial friends as intentional.
The local organization of the Christian Womens’ Board of Mission, which has done a large share of the work of raising money for this new house, as it had done for the very eligible lot upon which it stands, is largely due to Mrs. G.B. Woodworth for its establishment and successful management, though no year of its existence has been crowned with such prosperity as the present, under the active and indefatigable Presidency of Mrs. Eva Wilkinson.
The following have served the church as its Elders: A. Teachont [sic], N.P. Nail, B. Post, L.S. Barret, Isaac Strickle and G.B. Woodworth.
The Deacons have been: L. DeLong, Fred H. Phillips, S.J. Graham, Jno. A. Graham, A.B. Phillips, W.T. Lucas, J.R. Hays, R.W. Andrews, B. Post and Geo. B. Woodworth and D.W. Chase.
Up to the 1st of September, 1884, much had been done by this active and devoted people. They had secured the lot they now occupied and nearly paid for it, and they had made an appeal to the Home Missionary Society of the church in America to help them to sustain regular preaching. An arrangement was completed by which their present pastor, T.D. Butler, came among them, and the work at once began to advance vigorously. The new house, which is to be opened today, was started, and a systematic series of operations pursued by which financial help was received. To this end Mr. Butler has traveled much in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri, and has raised nearly $2,500 in cash, and has secured loans to the amount of $1,500 on safe and advantageous terms. In addition to this, the spiritual needs of the church have been amply supplied, and more than a hundred members added to the membership. The lot furnishes only a narrow margin beyond the walls, but the house stands 75×50 feet, with a first-class basement. Here are two rows of graceful iron columns, supported by a substantial footing of stone, and thes [sic] in turn adequately support the floor of the auditorium. We reach the main room by spacious steps, which lead into a vestibule of ample size, having a door on the right which opens into the pastor’s room–as on the left you pass into the gallery above, which has a capacity of nearly 100 people–or below into the commodious school and prayer meeting room. The auditorium is furnished with neat pews from the Excelsior Furniture Co., Cincinnati, O., and cathedral glass windows from the Robert Mitchell Furniture House, Cincinnati. Beneath the rostrum is a baptistery [sic], with all the modern appliances, and on either side are the robing rooms to be used by candidates for baptism and for other purposes. On the whole this is one of the neatest, best furnished and most convenient churches in the city.
The plans and specifications for this church were generously donated by A.C. Bruce, Esq., of Bruce & Morgan, Architects, Atlanta, Ga.–the architect of the court house and the First Presbyterian church.
THE CONTRACTORS.
Stone work, Trout & Coxon; brick work, J.F. Wright; slate and galvanized iron, J.C. Banks & Co.; roof and tower, R.D. Whitice; carpenter work, W.M. Cosby and R.W. Andrews; gas fitters, Lookout Plumbing Company and plumbing by H.A. McQuade.
The building committee has been Isaac Strickle, D.W. Chase, G.B. Woodworth, R.W. Andrews, W.M. Cosby and John A. Graham.
The Trustees are Lucius Delong, President; D.W. Chase, Secretary and Treasurer; Bradford Post, G.B. Woodworth, M.M. Caldwell.
The present organization of the church is: Thomas D. Butler, Pastor; Official Board, G.B. Woodworth, Chairman; B. Post, D.W. Chase, John A. Graham, A. B. Phillips, W.M. Cosby, L. DeLong, G.M. King, J.T. Lynn.
[LIST OF CHURCH MEMBERS — too long and boring to repeat here.]11
References
“The New Christian Church to be Dedicated Today.” The Chattanooga Daily Times (Chattanooga, Tennessee), August 8, 1886, p. 8. ↩︎
“Dr. Boswell In His New Pulpit”. The Chattanooga News (Chattanooga, Tennessee), January 3, 1910, p. 2. ↩︎
“Reasons For Their Faith”. The Chattanooga Daily Times (Chattanooga, Tennessee), January 3, 1910, p. 3. ↩︎
“New Home Of Keystone Lodge”. The Chattanooga News (Chattanooga, Tennessee), January 8, 1910, Magazine Section, p. 4. ↩︎