Monastery at Large

Category: Architecture

  • “Journal Model Homes; Residence of Miss Susie Wells” (1898)

    The Background

    This is the third in a series of articles published by The Atlanta Journal in 1898 featuring illustrations and floor plans of residences designed by Atlanta architects.

    The article was published in January 1898 and presented the Susie Wells Residence, designed by Butt & Morris, an architectural duo consisting of James W. Butt and Marshall F. Morris. Butt established his practice in Atlanta in 1893,1 and Morris apparently joined in 1896.2

    Scant information is available about either Butt or Morris, and little of the firm’s work survives in Atlanta. While they appeared to enjoy some success in the late 1890s and early 1900s, their last newspaper mention was in 1905,3 and the partnership seems to have disbanded around 1909.4 5

    There’s also nothing to indicate that Butt & Morris were good designers: city building permits reveal that most of their work consisted of modest, inexpensive homes and buildings, and illustrations and plans of their designs suggest a distinct lack of talent.

    Consider the plans here, which include an awkwardly shaped lavatory tacked on to the first floor, a baffling hall design on the second floor, and oddly-shaped closets shoved into the corners of the bedrooms, among other poor choices.

    Located at the southwest corner of Whitehall and McDaniel Street in what is now Atlanta’s Mechanicsville neighborhood, the Wells home didn’t survive 15 years. Wells rented out the house following the death of her mother in January 19066 7 and then sold it in early 1913,8 when it was replaced by a one-story brick auto garage.9 10

    Journal Model Homes; Residence of Miss Susie Wells

    The accompanying cuts represent one of the handsomest seven-room houses in the city. It was built for Miss Susie Walters at 446 Whitehall Street last summer, and was completed in the early fall at an actual cost of $2,500. It is in design and finish one of the most attractive houses ever built in Atlanta at this price, and the arrangement is exceedingly convenient.

    The foundation is a solid brick wall, and the chimneys are of ample size and well built. The timber is select pine and sized to make even walls. The roof is of shingles, painted black, and has the appearance of a slate roof. The floors are double and storm-sheeting underlies the weather-boarding. The interior finish is select pine of natural color in hard oil.

    The arrangement of the reception hall, parlor and dining room is exceedingly convenient and attractive, and a very pretty grill work separates the reception hall from the stair hall, as will be seen in the illustration. The doors are select pine veneered, showing no joints, and between the reception hall and dining room there are sliding doors.

    The fire places on the lower floor are furnished with club-house grates, tile hearths, and cabinet oak mantels.

    Upstairs the finish is the same with the exception of mirrors above the mantels. Down stairs, in addition to the halls, dining room, parlor and kitchen, there is an ample pantry, conveniently fitted up with bins and shelves, and a well arranged butler’s pantry with sink. There is a lavoratory [sic] down stairs and up stairs a complete bath room with porcelain-lined bath tub. The plumbing is of the best quality, both in material and workmanship. The three chambers up stairs are connected and each has an ample closet.

    At the end of the upper hall there is a large linen closet. The ascent from the first to the second story is by very pretty stairs with a graceful landing divided from the front hall by grill work, as indicated.

    The hardware is of fine quality, all the way through, and the finish is old copper. The gas fixtures are furnished with electric lighting apparatus and a complete system of electric bells extends through the house.

    The painting is three coat work outside and in, and is first class in material and workmanship. The outside is painted in canary, trimmed in white, a very pretty combination. The house is situated on a large lot, at the corner of Whitehall and McDaniel streets, and has attracted much attention.

    The perspective view is taken from the northwest, and shows a very pretty veranda in front of the house. The first and second story floor plans, also represented by illustrations, fully explain themselves.

    The house was designed for Miss Wells by Butt & Morris, of Atlanta.11

    References

    1. “Removal.” The Atlanta Constitution, September 10, 1893, p. 16. ↩︎
    2. “Butt & Morris, Architects”. (advertisement), The Atlanta Journal, May 30, 1896, p. 10. ↩︎
    3. “Advertisement for Bids for Construction of Stable at the Dumping Grounds.” The Atlanta Constitution, May 16, 1905, p. 15. ↩︎
    4. Atlanta City Directory Co.’s Greater Atlanta (Georgia) city directory (1908) ↩︎
    5. Atlanta City Directory Co.’s Greater Atlanta (Georgia) city directory (1909) ↩︎
    6. “Mrs. Eleanor M. Wells Dies Monday Morning”. The Atlanta Journal, January 8, 1906, p. 9. ↩︎
    7. “For Rent–Houses.” The Atlanta Constitution, January 17, 1906, p. 12. ↩︎
    8. “Property Transfers.” The Atlanta Constitution, February 2, 1913, p. 8. ↩︎
    9. “Building Permits”. The Atlanta Journal, November 5, 1912, p. 17. ↩︎
    10. “Atlanta’s Strides From Day To Day”. The Atlanta Constitution, December 17, 1913, p. 13. ↩︎
    11. “Journal Model Homes; Residence of Miss Susie Wells” The Atlanta Journal, January 22, 1898, p. 11. ↩︎

  • “Journal Hints on Home Building; Model Houses at Moderate Cost” (1898)

    The Background

    Throughout 1898, The Atlanta Journal published a sporadic series of articles featuring floor plans and illustrations of “moderate cost” residential designs by Atlanta architects, including G.L. Norrman, Bruce & Morgan, C. Walter Smith, and others.

    The series reflected the dire economic conditions at the time: following the Panic of 1896, the United States plunged into its second depression of the decade, and few Atlanta architects had substantial work from 1897 to 1898.

    Just a few years earlier, it would’ve been unthinkable for the city’s top architectural firms to peddle their designs in a local newspaper, but desperate times demand humility.

    The first article is included here, and was published in January 1898, featuring the James F. Meegan Residence, designed by Bruce & Morgan, then the Southeast’s largest architectural firm. The home was located at 23 West North Avenue1 2 (later 33 North Avenue NW) in what is now Midtown Atlanta.

    There are a few interesting aspects of the home’s plan:

    • The rooms are arranged on either side of a central hallway that runs from the front to the back door, a standard 19th-century design that was fairly unfashionable by 1898. In the days before air conditioning, however, it was a highly practical design for circulating air throughout a home.
    • There is only one full bathroom in the house, located on the second floor. A downstairs lavatory is tucked beneath the back stairs.
    • Also note that only 3 of the 5 rooms on the second floor are designated as bedrooms — the other 2 rooms include a “studio” and “trunk room”.

    The Colonial Revival-style home was demolished by 1927 and replaced by a one-story commercial building3 that still stands.

    In fact, of the 8 homes featured in the Journal‘s series, all were demolished in the 20th century. Keep that in mind the next time you hear an Atlantan blame the city’s lack of historic buildings on Sherman.

    Journal Hints on Home Building; Model Houses at Moderate Cost

    First of a Series of Articles To Be Printed By The Journal on a Subject of Interest to All Who Contemplate Building.

    Of the many New Year resolutions which are made in Atlanta in the early days of 1898, there will be none more deserving a speedy execution than the resolve which comes to every man sooner or later in life to build a home of his own.

    The man who lives in other people’s houses until he might be expected to give up all idea of having one of his own, still preserves a place in his affections for the home which he will have constructed some day. This particular home will be different from any he has ever seen or occupied, and will be arranged to suit his individual fancy. In spare moments he will permit his brain to play upon the plans, adding various little touches here and there to enhance the beauty of the imaginary castle.

    Before the days when home building was reduced to a science it was remarked that “fools build houses for wise men to live in,” but this has ceased to be true for many years. The builder is now considered the wisest man of the time.

    In a great home city like Atlanta, where the ranks of home owners are very large, and are being constantly added to, there are always a vast number of people who are thinking of building. The man who wants to build a house for himself and his family feels more greatly interested in a cottage which will suit their needs than in a score of palatial sky-scrapers.

    Despite various assertions to the contrary, the pleasures of home owning appeal as strongly to the city man as to his country cousin, for it is not only in the rural districts or little villages that pleasure is derived from seeing the little “children run to lisp the sire’s return, or climb his knee the envied kiss to share.”

    In order to aid those who desire to construct homes, The Journal will present a series of plans by well known architects which will be found useful in crystalizing the thoughts of its readers. These plans will show houses which have actually been constructed in Atlanta within the past year.

    Accompanying this article are the front view and two floor plans of the residence of Mr. James F. Meegan, on North avenue. The house is one of the prettiest on that street, and since its erection last spring has been greatly admired. The plans are the work of Bruce & Morgan. The building was designed for a 50-foot lot. On the first floor there are the parlor, sitting room and library, on the right.

    On the left are the reception hall, dining room and kitchen. Upstairs are two bedrooms and the studio on the right, while on the opposite side are a bedroom, bathroom and trunkroom.

    The entrance gives a very pleasing effect with the reception hall and pretty stairway. The front veranda, with its circular finish on the corner, gives an artistic effect to the front.

    All the rooms on the right of the hallway, down stairs, are arranged with sliding doors, so that all may be thrown together when it is desired. The dining room and kitchen are connected by a butler’s pantry, and adjoining the latter is a store room. The appointments in the kitchen, store room and pantry are admirably located for the convenience of the occupants.

    Four of the upstairs rooms are provided with closets and dressing rooms. The bathroom, which is large and well fitted, is conveniently located.

    The cost to construct this well appointed residence was $3,500.4

    References

    1. Atlanta City Directory Co.’s Greater Atlanta (Georgia) city directory (1898). ↩︎
    2. Insurance maps, Atlanta, Georgia, 1911 / published by the Sanborn Map Company ↩︎
    3. “Leases Are Active In Realty Mart”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 20, 1927, p. 3C. ↩︎
    4. “Journal Hints on Home Building; Model Houses at Moderate Cost”. The Atlanta Journal, January 8, 1898, p. 3. ↩︎

  • Robert W. Woodruff Library (1969) – Atlanta

    Warner Burns Toan Lunde. Robert W. Woodruff Library for Advanced Studies (1969). Emory University, Atlanta.1

    References

    1. “Emory to Dedicate $7 Million Woodruff Library on Oct. 31”. The Atlanta Constitution, October 24, 1969, p. 6-A. ↩︎

  • Relic Signs: Carter’s Cleaners & Laundry – Forest Park, Georgia

    Carter’s Cleaners & Laundry (circa 1950s). 954 Main Street, Forest Park, Georgia.

    Carter’s Cleaners & Laundry in Forest Park, Georgia, opened in 1950. However, I suspect this fantastic Googie-style sign debuted in 1957, when the business expanded by 800 square feet,1 “providing a new front”,2 among other improvements.

    The business ended circa 2009,3 and the building has been boarded up for years, with its relic sign left to rust.

    References

    1. “Carter’s Cleaners And Laundry Adds 800 Square Feet To Main Street Plant”. The Forest Park Free Press and Clayton County News and Banner (Forest Park, Georgia), November 20, 1957, p. 2. ↩︎
    2. “Know Your Businessmen”. The Forest Park Free Press and Clayton County News and Banner (Forest Park, Georgia), March 12, 1958, p. 1. ↩︎
    3. “Carter, Mary”. The Atlanta Constitution, June 4, 2014, p. B6. ↩︎

  • The Tale of the Dragon

    Illustration of the weather vane on City Hall, Charlotte, North Carolina, 1893.1

    Americans are a bored and petulant lot of children who insist on living in an apocalyptic fever dream, always conjuring up some new monster to lash out at in dramatic spectacle, lest — God forbid — we attend to the darkness of our own souls.

    Desperate to make a dollar, the news industry has long been willing to capitalize on our collective catastrophizing, constantly looking for the next shiny object to spin into a lightning rod for controversy. It’s not always successful, though.

    Such was the case in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 1892 and 1893, when the local press attempted to stir the public’s ire over a weather vane atop the new city hall, designed by G.L. Norrman.

    When construction on the building topped out in October 1892, it was festooned with a large tin weather vane shaped like a slithering mythical dragon.2 3

    The Charlotte Observer was scathing in its assessment of the dragon, opining that “it may be classic, but not even its maker can say it’s pretty.”4 The paper added:

    Yesterday afternoon after the monstrosity was placed, the universal query was “Why did they put such a looking thing up there?” The only answer that could be gotten was, “because the architect said so.” The mayor, nor any of the aldermen will own it; each declares he didn’t select it. But there’s no use in disapproving, the dragon has come to stay; may be it will improve on acquaintance.5

    The dragon was designed by John Osborne, a Charlotte tinsmith, and Norrman reportedly pronounced it as “a work of genius”, claiming Osborne could get a position with him in Atlanta whenever he wanted. “It is hoped that this invitation includes the dragon,” the Observer cattily quipped.6

    Norrman’s selection of the dragon no doubt stemmed from his fascination with Norse mythology, but he also had a history of adding mirthful creatures to his buildings. On the City Hall and Opera House in Newberry, South Carolina, for example, he topped the central tower with a weather vane in the shape of a garfish.

    “Why this primordial and repulsive fish was chosen is not known”, a local historian later huffed — a touch overdramatic, I’d say.7 It’s also not known why local historians are so pompous and humorless, but that’s a discussion for another time.

    Detail of weather vane on City Hall and Opera House (1882). Newberry, South Carolina.

    A week after the dragon was placed on Charlotte’s city hall, a “Constant Reader” of the Observer anonymously wrote the following letter:

    Can you kindly enlighten the public as to what the fiery dragon on top of the new city hall steeple is emblematic of? About the only reference the writer can find in regard to the dragon is found in the 20th chapter of Revelation and judging from what we read there it is not at all complimentary to the good people of Charlotte to be guarded over by a beast of that description. Why wouldn’t an American eagle or a hornets’ nest, for instance, be good enough for the Queen City?8

    The newspaper responded: “The Observer‘s only answer to “Constant Reader’s” first interrogatory is that the design on top of the steeple is emblematic only of the way the work on the hall has drag(ged) on. Bang!”

    It was a fair point: construction on Charlotte’s city hall began in December 18909 and was supposed to end in December 1891.10 However, the project was plagued by delays and was finally completed in April 1893.11

    The Observer‘s campaign against the dragon was on a roll, and when Norrman visited Charlotte in November 1892 to check on the building’s progress, the newspaper couldn’t help but be disparaging:

    Mr. Normann [sic], architect of the city hall, is here. He met with a cordial reception from the dragon–for he is its only friend. Mr. Normann says he is willing to take the dragon down if the people would prefer something else; but perhaps the dragon is a good safety valve; everyone can cuss it as much as he pleases, without fear of retaliation, and it is best for it to remain on high.12

    Norrman’s offer to remove the dragon was unusually deferential and seemingly diffused the newspaper’s criticism, as it didn’t make another peep about the matter for weeks.

    In December 1892, the Observer had apparently warmed to the dragon’s appearance, reporting: “The city hall tower shows up well from any direction around about the city–even the dragon looks handsome.”13

    G.L. Norrman. City Hall (1893, demolished 1926). Charlotte, North Carolina. Illustration from an undated postcard.

    By March 1893, the Observer was clearly resigned to the dragon’s existence. In an article championing the work of the city’s mayor, R.J. Brevard, the writer proclaimed: ‘We can stand upon our city hall, beneath “that dragon” without fear, but pride, for we can say the hall and ‘dragon” are paid for…’14

    In December 1893, the dragon was threatened by a zealous objector, although The Observer had nothing to say about the matter. Instead, The Charlotte News reported on the following incident from the annual conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South that had just concluded in the city:

    “…one large portly member sprung to the aisle and said: “It is time something were done. Even here in the city of Charlotte, the dragon, the image of the old devil himself sweeps around ‘with every wind that blows,’ from the top of the city hall. The country is on a gallop to the devil and let’s head it off.“15

    The newspaper added: “It cannot be denied–the brother is right. The devil overlooks Charlotte.“16 Sensationalist much?

    It seems nothing came of the impassioned threat, and the dragon remained on the city hall until the building was demolished in 1926 — the only Southern city that has destroyed its historic fabric more than Atlanta is Charlotte.

    The exact date of the dragon’s demise was February 2, 1926, with The Charlotte News documenting its final dramatic moments:

    The giant dragon, which once proudly flaunted its head to every whim of the weather, was a mass of twisted metal and steel at the foot of the tower. Piles of brick and stone were falling upon it in utter disregard of its former proud station high above the street.17

    And thus ended the saga of Charlotte’s dastardly dragon, buried in a heap of rubble after 33 years.

    References

    1. “The Dragon in Conference.” The Charlotte News (Charlotte, North Carolina), December 5, 1893, p. 1. ↩︎
    2. “Local Briefs.” The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), October 5, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎
    3. “The Dragon–It May Be Classic, But Is Not Pretty.” The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), October 7, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎
    4. ibid. ↩︎
    5. ibid. ↩︎
    6. ibid. ↩︎
    7. “No restoration in foreseeable future for opera house”. The Index-Journal (Greenwood, South Carolina), February 10, 1983, p. 8. ↩︎
    8. “The Observer Has Solved the Riddle.” The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), October 15, 1892, p. 1. ↩︎
    9. “Local Ripples.” The Charlotte News (Charlotte, North Carolina), December 4, 1890, p. 1. ↩︎
    10. “Our New City Hall.” Charlotte Chronicle (Charlotte, North Carolina), November 29, 1890, p. 4. ↩︎
    11. The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), April 8, 1893, p. 4. ↩︎
    12. “A Pretty Little Theatre Could Be Made in the City Hall.” The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), November 1, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎
    13. “Local Briefs.” The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), December 2, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎
    14. “The Coming Municipal Election.” The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), March 25, 1893, p. 4. ↩︎
    15. “The Dragon in Conference.” The Charlotte News (Charlotte, North Carolina), December 5, 1893, p. 1. ↩︎
    16. ibid. ↩︎
    17. “Falling Bricks at Old City Hall Menace Traffic”. The Charlotte News (Charlotte, North Carolina), February 2, 1926, p. 14. ↩︎

  • Newton County Courthouse (1884) – Covington, Georgia

    Bruce & Morgan. Newton County Courthouse (1884). Covington, Georgia.1 2

    References

    1. “Notice!” The Atlanta Constitution, June 1, 1884, p. 8. ↩︎
    2. “Newton’s New Court.” The Atlanta Constitution, September 23, 1885, p. 2. ↩︎

  • Words About G.L. Norrman: On the United States vs. Europe (1909)

    G.L. Norrman. Ella B. Wofford Residence (1909). Spartanburg, South Carolina.1 2 3

    The following item was published in The Atlanta Journal on April 25, 1909. G.L. Norrman died 7 months later.

    The Old World

    G.L. Norrman, the architect, says that in Europe one asks who designed a house, not who owns it; but here it is, who owns it, not who designed it. In the sleepy old countries of the old world the interest has the artistic and not the money tendency.4

    References

    1. “A Great Building Era Now On In The City”. The Spartanburg Herald (Spartanburg, South Carolina), May 28, 1909, p. 1. ↩︎
    2. “Converse To Show Fruits Of Recent Funds Campaign”. Spartanburg Herald-Journal, October 6, 1957, p. A4. ↩︎
    3. Conley, Linda. “Restoring the shine to an old jewel”. Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, South Carolina), October 17, 2008, p. D1. ↩︎
    4. “The Old World”. The Atlanta Journal, April 25, 1909, p. 2. ↩︎

  • Gwinnett County Courthouse (1885) – Lawrenceville, Georgia

    E.G. Lind. Gwinnett County Courthouse (1885). McKinney. Clock Tower (1908). Lawrenceville, Georgia.1 2 3 4

    References

    1. Belfoure, Charles. Edmund G. Lind: Anglo-American Architect of Baltimore and the South. Baltimore, Maryland: The Baltimore Architectural Foundation (2009). ↩︎
    2. “The Proposed Gwinnett Courthouse.” The Atlanta Constitution, May 22, 1884, p. 2. ↩︎
    3. “It Is Finished.” The Atlanta Journal, July 2, 1885, p. 4. ↩︎
    4. “The Court House Clock In Place”. The News-Herald (Lawrenceville, Georgia), December 7, 1908, p. 1. ↩︎

  • Words About G.L. Norrman: The Ideal Southern Gentleman (1902)

    G.L. Norrman. Gable detail of Bisbee Building (1902). Jacksonville, Florida.1 2 3 4

    The Background

    As if he hadn’t already gushed enough over G.L. Norrman, in a December 1902 article for The Augusta Chronicle, Wallace Putnam Reed — under the pen name Major Junius — pontificated on why he considered Norrman “the ideal of the best type of southern gentleman”.

    These were Reed’s final published remarks about Norrman — he died less than 5 months later, in April 1903.5

    Article Excerpt:

    In Mr. G.L. Norrman, the well-known Atlanta architect, I have found my ideal of the best type of the southern gentleman of the old school. To me this is somewhat remarkable because Mr. Norrman is a foreigner by birth—a member of one of the noble families of Sweden.

    He is a sort of “Admirable Crichton,” the master of many arts and accomplishments, a scholar, philosopher, man of society and a recognized leader in his profession.

    Sam Small once said that a man could not ride a few hours side by side with Norrman in a car without getting enough ideas from him to fill a bright, strong, original book.

    He is an instructive, fascinating talker, and a polished, epigrammatic writer whose contributions are always welcomed by the press. His views of character, conduct and life are those which made our ante-bellum southern gentlemen recognized the world over as the most honorable and chivalric of men. Some of his ideas were so strikingly expressed some time ago in his lecture on “Architecture As Illustrative of Religious Belief, and as a Means of Tracing Civilization,” that I hope he will be induced to deliver it again, in Atlanta and in other cities. It is just the kind of lecture to interest broad-minded, cultured fearless thinkers.6

    References

    1. “Plans Made for Bisbee Building”. The Florida Times-Union and Citizen (Jacksonville, Florida), September 17, 1901, p. 6. ↩︎
    2. “Filling in the Blank Spaces”. The Florida Times-Union and Citizen (Jacksonville, Florida), February 24, 1902, p. 5. ↩︎
    3. “Dr. Armstrong Back.” The Sunday Times-Union and Citizen (Jacksonville, Florida), May 25, 1902, p. 5. ↩︎
    4. “H.C. Seaman.” The Sunday Times-Union and Citizen (Jacksonville, Florida), June 1, 1902, p. 5. ↩︎
    5. “Wallace P. Reed Yields to Death”. The Atlanta Constitution, April 18, 1903, p. 1. ↩︎
    6. Junius, Major. “Pen Pictures of Well-Known Atlanta Men”. The Augusta Chronicle (Augusta, Georgia), November 23, 1902, p. 11. ↩︎

  • North Carolina Legislative Building (1963) – Raleigh, North Carolina

    Edward Durrell Stone with Holloway-Reeves. North Carolina Legislative Building (1963). Raleigh, North Carolina.1

    References

    1. “New N.C. State House Is First of Its Kind”. The Asheville Times (Asheville, North Carolina), January 22, 1963, p. 7. ↩︎