Yesterday, I examined the drop curtain for the Empire Theatre
by Hugh Logan Reid. It was described in the article “Well-known Drop
Curtain in Philadelphia Theatres” (The Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 18, 1894). While looking for information about
Reid, I came across another project that I feel compelled to share.
Reid painted the scenery and drop curtain for the Columbia
Theatre in Boston. On September 13, 1891, “The Boston Globe” described the new
theater in detail. Located at 978 to 986 Washington Street, the building
occupied an entire block. Of the architectural style, the article reported, “In
design it follows the Moorish style. Its towers, grand in their proportions,
rise far above the surrounding buildings. The front is composed of pressed
brick and terra cotta, supported by cast iron columns and arches, while a
second circle on the fourth floor level is surmounted with the name of the
theatre in bas-relief letters. The upper portion of the lower arch is so
constructed as to form a magnificent window of cathedral and stained glass. The
architect has taken ‘The Alhambra,’ the perfection of Moorish art, as his ideal
for the construction of the Columbia, and both exterior and interior have been
worked out of the minutest detail.”
The Columbia Theatre in PhiladelphiaThe interior of the Columbia Theatre in Philadelphia
Of the drop curtain painted by Reid, the “Boston Globe” described,
“It depicts the Conquest of Granada, and shows the surrender of the city by the
Moors to the Spaniards in 1492. On the right of the picture is seen the Moorish
generals delivering the keys of the city to King Ferdinand, who is accompanied
by Queen Isabella and retinue. There are over 60 figures painted on the canvas,
most of them being life size. The work is from the brush of Scenic Art H. L.
Reid.” This particular description made
me think of the Scottish Rite Cathedral in Santa Fe that was also based on the
Alhambra, almost two decades later.
There are numerous nineteenth and twentieth century buildings in American that were inspired by the Alhambra, and were considered Moorish-revival style buildings. Many were Masonic, including various Shrine mosques with massive theaters. Another example was the Santa Fe Scottish Rite Cathedral, completed in 1912. However, the mural above the proscenium arch in Santa Fe depicts the same composition as the drop curtain painted by Reid and described above. Above the proscenium arch is a mural painted by J. G. Vysekel depicting the moment when Boabdil (Mohammad XII of Granada), the last Nasrid king of the Emrirate of Granada in Iberia surrendered the city of Granada to the Catholic monarchs. The mural was installed at the Santa Fe Scottish Rite in 1915; three years after the building opened. Vysekel was a commercial artist who worked for Mandel brothers of Chicago.The painting was almost identical to ”La Rendición de Granada” by Francisco Pradilla y Oritz from 1882.
”La Rendición de Granada” by Francisco Pradilla y Oritz, 1882.The mural above the proscenium arch at the Santa Fe Scottish Rite Cathedral by J. G. Vysekel. Photograph by Jo WhaleyThe drop curtain by Sosman & Landis studio of Chicago for the Santa Fe Scottish Rite. Photograph by Jo WhaleyThe Santa Fe Scottish Rite Cathedral auditorium
In regard to the Columbia Theatre’s stage, “The Boston
Globe,” reported, “A visit behind the curtain reveals one of the largest, best
arranged and most perfectly appointed stages in the United States measuring 75
feet from the floor of the stage to the gridiron. On either side, far above the
stage, are two fly galleries, used for working all the overhead rigging, such
as border lights, grooves, borders, drop scenes, etc. To the left are the prompter’s
quarters, which are indeed worthy of more than casual notice. The gas table for
all the gas lighting in the house controls about 800 burners. The gas table is supplied
with all the necessary valves and by-passes, and contains the most modern and improved
appliances.
Close at hand is the electric switchboard with its
elaborate and handsomely finished switches and appurtences for working the 1378
electric lights required to illuminate the theatre. The curtain or proscenium
arch is 36 feet in height by 38 feet in width.
The depth of the stage is 50 feet; width from wall to
wall, 71 feet; the first fly gallery is 30 feet; the second fly gallery, 71
feet; and the gridiron is 75 feet above the stage.
In fact the stage is large enough to set any production
that may be desired. The trap cellar is of unusual size, with an extra pit for
trick scenes. A full set of working traps, bridges, etc., are all available
when required…
The curtains, drops, scenes, etc., are of the most
complete character. First there is the asbestos fireproof curtain, an absolute
preventative of fire communicating with the auditorium from the stage, notably
so in this theatre, as at either side the curtain runs through a slot in the
brick wall, and is held in place by a strong cable.
The act drop, as well as the drop curtain, is a marvel of beauty. A full set of borders and one of the largest scene lists ever put into a new theatre are to be placed in this house as fast as they can be prepared. This important work has been entrusted to the hands of Mr. H. L. Reid, one of the most noted scenic artists in the country. The stage furniture consists of a set in white and god, upholstered in brocatelles of different colors; a set covered in Wilton rugs with mohair plush trimmings; a set of English oak with tapestry coverings, and asset of gothic design. There is the usual inventory of stage cloths, carpets, rugs, etc.”
Part 610: Theatre Architects Col. J. W. Wood and Sidney Lovell
For the past five days, I have focused on the “Detroit Free Press” article about the Temple Theatre roof collapse and the that testimony of theater architect Col. J. M. Wood (1841-c. 1907).
Theatre architect J. M. Wood
Wood was a theatre architect, born in New York City during 1841. Early in his career, he moved to Chicago and soon started working as an architect. Some records indicate that Wood started his own firm in 1870, but I question that particular date. In 1892, Wood was noted as “an enthusiast in this branch of his profession, and has devoted a great deal of time and study to the comfort, convenience, acoustic qualities and effect in the design and arrangements of opera houses, theaters and concert halls” (“The Bay of San Francisco,” Volume 1, 1892). By 1905, the “Indianapolis News” reported that Col. J. M. Wood, had “built ninety-eight theaters, some of them the finest in the country” (24 Oct., 1905, page 2).
I have briefly mentioned Wood in past installments, including # 214 (Wood’s Theatre in Bay City, Michigan) and #532 (Jefferson Theatre in Goshen, Indiana). When Wood was the architect for the Opera House in Goshen, Indiana during 1905, Thomas G. Moses provided the drop curtain and scenery. While researching Wood, I discovered an interesting post about his work with Sidney Lovell. It was posted at Under Every Stone blog spot. This blog primarily focuses on gravestones and cemeteries. Wood’s one-time assistant and later business partner, Sidney Lovell designed several mausoleums for Chicago’s Rosehill Cemetery.
Theatre architect Sidney Lovell
Sidney Lovell was raised in Racine, Wisconsin, one of nine children born to English immigrants, Phillip Lovell and Louisa Maria Knill Lovell. At the age of fifteen, Sidney met James M. Wood. The year was 1882 and Wood was in town to attend the grand opening of the Blake Opera House, for which he had worked as the architect. The “Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada, 1800-1950”mentioned that Sidney Lovell became Wood’s architectural assistant in 1883, confirming what was posted in the blog. The publication also notes, “During the period from 1883 until 1892 Wood was described as ‘..having designed and erected more large theatres, opera houses and hotels in the leading cities west of the Ohio River than any other architect’ (biog. of Sidney Lovell in The Bay of San Francisco: The Metropolis of the Pacific Coast and its Suburban Cities, 1892, Vol. ii, 462-3).
When Wood headed to his next theater project in Wausau, Wisconsin, Lovell went with him. After the Wausau project was completed, Wood returned to Chicago with Lovell in tow. The two found worked with a Chicago scenic studio. In Chicago, Lovell transitioned from architectural assistant to architect. An article in the “Racine Daily Journal” announced that Lovell became a “full-fledged architect in Chicago” by 1885 (10 April 1885). That same year, Wood returned to Racine and designed the new opera house. He submitted an article to the “Journal Times” describing the plans for a Moorish style building based on the Alhambra. The stage was to be ten feet deeper than the Blake Opera House, and separated from the auditorium by a brick fire wall and iron drop curtain, “thus effectively shutting off the extra hazardous department from that portion where the major portion of money is invested” (11 Nov. 1885, page 3).
From 1885 to 1888, Wood and Lovell traversed the country, both designing new and remodeling existing opera houses. The well-known architect John Galen Howard also worked as a draftsman for Wood in Chicago during this period, in 1887. Some sources note that Wood worked in close connection with a Chicago scenic studio; the studio was never named. In looking at the theaters and comparing them to Thomas G. Moses’ records, I suspect that the studio could have been Sosman & Landis. Thomas G. Moses worked with Wood during 1885-1886 on Wood’s Theatre in Bay City, Michigan, and in 1889-1890 on the Riverside Opera House. In regard to the Riverside Opera House, “The Daily Courier” mentioned the contributions of “J. M. Wood, the architect of Chicago, considered the finest theatrical architect in the country” as well as “the scenery has been painted by Thomas G. Moses of Chicago, one of the best scenic artists in the United States” (San Bernardino, California, 27 Dec 1889, page 3).
In 1891, Lovell was later added a partner by Wood, forming the architectural firm of Wood & Lovell. Their partnership’s first office was established in San Francisco, turning out a remarkable amount of work between 1888 and 1893. In 1890, the “Journal Times” reported Lovell “has a reputation of being one of the finest draughtsman in the western country” (Racine, Wisconsin, 25 Feb 1890, Page 3). It was in San Francisco that Lovell met and married Jane Winters Bruner, the daughter of noted surgeon William Happersett Bruner. By 1893, Wood and Lovell transferred their business offices to Chicago. The firm was now located in the new Ellsworth Building, located at 537 S. Dearborn Street.
Wood is credited as the principal architect for theaters, opera houses and concert halls throughout the United States. His projects include the New California Theater (Los Angeles), the Grand Opera House (Portland), the Tacoma Theater (Tacoma, Washington), New Broadway Theater (Minneapolis), Blake Opera House (Racine, WI), the Grand Opera House (Warsaw, WI), Rockford Opera House and Grand Opera House (Danville, IL), Academy of Music (East Saginaw), Academy of Music (Kalamazoo, MI), Redmond’s Opera House (Grand Rapids, MI), Academy of Music (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), Academies of Music in Franklin, Oil City and Altoona (Pennsylvania), and the Academy of Music (Cedar Rapids, IA), just to name a fewWood was noted as “an enthusiast in this branch of his profession, and has devoted a great deal of time and study to the comfort, convenience, acoustic qualities and effect in the design and arrangements of opera houses, theaters and concert halls” (“The Bay of San Francisco,” Volume 1, 1892). In 1905, the “Indianapolis News” reported that Col. J. M. Wood, had built ninety-eight theaters, some of them the finest in the country” (24 Oct., 1905, page 2).
Little is known of Wood beyond 1907. The theaters designed and erected by Wood include the New California Theater [San Francisco, CA]; Grand Opera House, Los Angeles [CA]; Grand Opera House, Portland [OR]; the Tacoma theater [Tacoma, WA]; New Broadway, Denver [CO]; Hennepin Avenue Theater, Minneapolis [MN]; Blake Opera House, Racine [WI]; and Grand Opera House, Warsaw, Wisconsin; Rockford Opera House [Rockford, IL], and Grand Opera House, Danville, Illinois; Academy of Music, East Saginaw [MI]; Wood’s Opera House, Bay City [MI]; Academy of Music, Kalamazoo; Redmond’s Opera House, Grand Rapids [MI]; Academy of Music, Toronto, Canada; Academy of Music at Franklin, Oil City and Altoona, Pennsylvania; Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Lovell eventually established the firm of Lovell & Lovell, advertising as “architectural and consulting engineers.” Lovell was also widely known for his mausoleum designs. The first mausoleum he designed was the Community Mausoleum in Chicago’s Rosehill Cemetery. It is noted as being the prototype for the mausoleum at Forest Lawn in Glendale, California. Lovell also designed units 1 and 2 of the Old Mission Mausoleum in Wichita, Kansas.
Lovell worked as an architect for fifty years, passing away in 1938 at the age of 71 years old, decades after Wood.
Part 609: The Wonderland Disaster Investigation in Detroit, 1898, fifth and final section
The Temple Theater in Detroit is pictured on the left.
While researching the Temple Theatre in Detroit, I encountered an interesting article about an 1898 theater roof collapse. It was published in the “Detroit Free Press” (2 Dec. 1898, page 2). Here is the fifth and final section of the article.
Col. Wood’s Book.
When Col. Wood took the stand in the afternoon he produced the book that contained the record of all the trusses he had built in fireproof theaters. The book had the description and amount of the materials used in all theaters H said that he did not figure the carrying capacity of the Detroit Opera House truss, but had it done by Chief Engineer Fowler, of the Youngstown Bridge Co. The Witness then illustrated how the load to be carried by one of the opera house trusses which had a span of 96 feet 8 inches thick was figured. For the weight of the concrete for the roof, which was two inches thick, the concrete when dry was figured at 15 pounds to the square foot, top dressing and slate 13 pounds, snow 25 pounds and the corrugated iron trough 2 1/4 pounds, making for the roof a total of 55 ¼ pounds to the square foot, actual weight.
For safety this weight was figured at 60.4 pounds to the square foot, making a total of 90.493 pounds. To this was added the weight of the roof beams and girders, bringing the total weight to be carried by the truss up to 96,973 pounds, or 48 tons. The truss itself weighed 8 ½ tons and would carry 61 tons as a safe load, according to the figures of the engineer who determined it. The carrying area of the truss is 1,496.23 square feet. This showed that the truss of the opera house is many tons within the factor of safety.
Mr. Frazer, for the sake of comparison then had Col. Wood figure the load carried on the Wonderland truss, which weighed only three and a half tons. Using the same basis of computation, the concrete roof of the Wonderland building, which was four inches thick, was figured at thirty pounds to the square foot, the composition and gravel at 4 ¼ pounds and snow at twenty-five pounds, although only ten pounds was actually allowed by the architects. This made the load fifty-nine and a quarter pounds per square foot, which figured up a total of about forty tons.
The prosecutor then called attention to the fact that the Detroit Opera House the eight and a half ton truss carry forty-eight tons, while in the Wonderland building a truss weighing but three and a half tons carry forty tons.
In explaining the differences in the construction of the structural steel work in the two buildings, Col. Wood said that in the Detroit Opera House the roof beams were six inches wide and weighed twelve and a half pounds. They run longitudinally, four feet apart, with a 15-foot span. In the Wonderland building he said that the girders ran longitudinally, while the beam ran transversely. The latter, he said, were 9-inch “I” beams, spaced twelve feet apart. Asked which was the better, he said in the Detroit Opera House the beams tended more to hold the truss in place and in addition, it had a diagonal braces. Being only four feet apart, each one had a carrying area of sixty feet.
The attention of Col. Wood was called to the fact that Arthur Scott had testified that the 22 feet 2-inch “I” beam running from the front of the Wonderland building to the truss, was partly held by a brace six feet from the truss, and he was asked his opinion of such construction. He said that if he were to indicate the construction, he would have a beam running to the truss heavy enough to carry the intended load.
More Technical Talk
Prosecuting Attorney Frazer brought out the fact that in the Detroit Opera House there were three trusses between the proscenium wall and the dividing wall, a distance of 66 feet and 3 inches, while in Wonderland there were but two trusses in the distance of 63 feet 8 inches. Col. Wood said that the conditions were not the same, the opera house being wider; and therefore, it was necessary to use three trusses, putting them close together, so as to avoid using heavier ones.
Going back to the construction of the “I” beam, and the fact that it was rested partly on a brace, the witness said that different architects had different views of construction. He believed tha the brace helped to carry the load, but did not think that it carried half the distance between itself and the wall for the same load. Col. Wood favored a strong beam, resting on the truss, to using any braces.
In this connection, Col. Wood stated that John Scott had told hi that his brother, Arthur Scott, was an engineer.
When asked his opinion of the roof, Col. Wood said that he had only made an examination since the collapse and that he depended on the judgment of men he knew were authorities regarding roofs. They had told him that the girders and beams were too light.
“Those familiar with cinder-concrete construction,” he said, “know that there is s spring to the beams. When the cinder-concrete is knitting, it must be allowed to remain quiet. If it is pounded, you are simply mashing it up. The beams should be stiff enough so as to not disturb the concrete.
Concerning the rook, he said that he was not competent to say what it should carry, though he could with some difficulty figure out such a problem. He stated that he submitted a quarter-inch drawing of the Wonderland truss to an engineer company and was told that if it had been properly detailed, constructed and erected it would undoubtedly carry the load intended for it. Col. Wood said that he had been unable to furnish the company with any particulars regarding the plates, or distance between the beams. In answer to Mr. Frazer, he said that the company found that the sizes of steel indicted by him could be combined to hold the necessary load.
“Do you know what made this fall down?”
“No; we all have our opinion.”
“What’s yours?”
Why the Roof Fell.
“Well, my opinion is that there was a general weakness in the whole roof and a general lack of attention to details in the construction, not alone in the roof. I do not want to reflect on the steel construction, as I do not know that the engineering company fulfilled its contract, according to the designs submitted to them. The 5-inch roof beams were overloaded.”
Here Mr. Frazer broke in wit another question, and Col. Wood did not get through expressing his opinion.
He was not of the opinion that under the conditions that prevailed at Wonderland the 5-inch beams would have sagged. Witness stated that the DeMan system was not used on the Detroit Opera House, but that the estate did the work, letting it out to Vinton & Co. for 5 percent of the cost. Col. Wood said that cinder and cement had been shown to make fireproof concrete as the cinders were the residue of coal after everything else had burned, and the cement in the process of manufacture had to be subjected to a greater heat than a fire could cause. He was asked why the workmen of the Wonderland building simply had to light a fire on top of the concrete and then shovel it off, and he replied:
“They may only be shoveling what they had disturbed before.”
It was his opinion that the concrete ought to settle hard in two weeks so that the false work could be removed.
Attorney Boynton’s Question.
When questioned by Attorney Boynton regarding his business career, Col. Wood said that before becoming an architect he had been a decorator and before that a builder. He told an interesting story of his first business venture in Chicago, in order to pay this theological college debts, and said that after his first year the money came so fast at that time he continued as a decorator. His first theater, he said, was built at Cedar Rapids, Ia., and the first fire-proof theater he built in Memphis, Tenn. He showed the jury the plans of the truss used in that construction of that theater and said that it was the typed used in the Detroit Opera House, he having never used any other. He did not know the name of the truss, but said that it was a truss suspended from the top cord. Asked why he had always used it, he said that it was the first one given him by the engineer in whose hands he placed the matter, and as the truss had always proved satisfactory he had continued to use it. Before using that truss, he had always used the old Howe truss in the non-fire-proof theaters. Col. Wood showed the plans of some ten trusses he had built upon, on e now in the process of construction at Kansas City and the plan of another he recently drew for a theater he is to build in Denver.
Regarding the first interview in John Scot & Co.’s office, Col. Wood said that Mr. Wiggins left after a short time. There was no one else there and witness continued to talk with John Scott. He told the latter that all the plans should be drawn in one office, to which Mr. Scott was agreeable.
“I think,” said Col. Wood, “that I began some preliminary sketches the next day. Mr. Scott told me that his brother was an engineer., had had a good deal of experience and handled the steel work in their building. I did not tell him that I was engaged to do the steel work. No reference was made to my connection with the Detroit opera house.”
Adjournment was taken, with Col. Wood still on the stand.”
Part 608: The Wonderland Disaster Investigation in Detroit, 1898, fourth section
While researching the Temple Theatre in Detroit, I encountered an interesting article about the theater roof collapse. It was published in the “Detroit Free Press” on Dec. 2, 1898. This fourth section of the article focuses on the testimony of theater architect Col. J. M. Wood.
Col. J. M. Wood, theatre architect, from the “Indianapolis Star,” 16 April 1907, page 4
Wood was born in New York City during 1841. Early in his career, he moved to Chicago and started working as an architect. He completed many designs for theaters, opera houses and concert halls throughout the United States. By 1905, the “Indianapolis News” reported that Col. J. M. Wood, had built ninety-eight theaters, some of them the finest in the country” (24 Oct., 1905, page 2).
Back to the 1898 “Detroit Free Press” article:
Col Wood Takes The Stand.
Col. J. M. Wood followed Mr. Scott. He stated that he was 59 years of age, resided in Chicago, had been an architect since 1879, having been a builder and contractor previous to that time. He disclaimed being an engineer and said that his specialty was theaters and hotels, and had such buildings as come in connection with theaters. He had built over 80 theaters, and Mr. Frazer asked him if any of them had ever tumbled down, which he answered with a very polite “no.” Asked to enumerate some of the theaters he had built in different parts of the country, he mentioned Lafayette Square theater, Washington; Lyceum, Memphis’ Lake theater, Racine; California hotel and Theater, San Francisco, and others at Los Angeles, Denver, Cedar Rapids, Minneapolis, etc. Col. Wood was then asked to give the spans of some of the trusses in these theaters. He said that in all the theaters he had built he had buttresses in the walls two feet thick. He gave the span of the trusses in the Lyceum, at Memphis, which he said was the first fireproof building he had erected since he began the construction of that form of building, five years ago, as 70 feet. The Lafayette theater in Washington has a width of 67 feet, 6 inches. He stated that the trusses in this theater were of skeleton steel construction, with a clear span and carrys [sic.] a roof garden and restaurant above them. The Detroit Opera House he gave as 96 feet 8 inches between walls, and that the span of the Denver Auditorium, which is now being planned, will be 80 feet. “You use the same type of truss always?”
“Yes, sir; one has just been finished at a theater in Kansas City.”
“How does your truss differ from the Wonderland truss?”
“It is inverted. You would probably call it a suspension truss. It differs in many ways.”
Mr. Frazer made a diagram of the truss on the blackboard. He added that he received his knowledge form the strain sheets of two engineers to whom the truss was submitted.
Always Ask an Engineer.
“Do you always submit your trusses to engineers?”
“Where the truss differs in span from those I already have, I submit a sketch to engineers and ask them to furnish a strain sheet and also to designate the members they believe are necessary to carry the load. For the theater at Memphis I submitted the matter – not even a sketch, mind you – to Youngstown Bridge Co., and their chief engineer, Charles E. Fowler, returned to me the type of truss he believed best suited for the theater, together with the strain sheets and necessary members to carry the load. For the Lafayette theater in Washington, I submitted a sketch giving the type of truss I wanted, together with the columns, and gave the load on the chords, leaving the engineers to work out the strains and the members necessary to carry the load.
Col. Wood then started that he was the architect of the Detroit Opera House. With him were associates Mason & Rice and A. W. Chittenden. Asked why they were called associate architects, Col. Wood said that when the Clark estate decided to rebuild they wished to identify the building with local architects. For that reason sketches were asked from different firms for the front elevation and office portion of the building. They were not required to do anything regarding the theater. Continuing the witness said:
“Mr. Wells, the agent of the estate, clearly defined what he expected of each one. Mason & Rice were to design the front elevation and everything as far as the division wall. He left us to determine how we would divide the compensation. The construction of the theater proper was left in my hands.”
“Col. Wood then narrated how he became connected with the Wonderland work, stating that early in April Mr. Wiggins called on him at the Russell House and referred to building a new theater. Mr. Wiggins told him that he had contracted for the upper floors of the Barbour building for the museum, which made it necessary to employ the same architect.
“He asked me,” said Col. Wood, “to act in conjunction with John Scott & Co., and I said that I would, providing it was perfectly satisfactory to them, and Mr. Wiggins told me that they had already agreed. In talking to John Scott, he said that the Scotts would expect to control the construction of the building and act with me as designer of the theatrical arrangements of the building.
Col. Wood’s Duties.
In detailing conversation which took place at John Scott & Co.’s office, when he was introduced to the firm. Col. Wood said that he remembered distinctly Mr. Wiggins saying that he was determined to know the correct lines of vision and be up-to-date in building his theater. As to his part of the work, Col. Wood said that he was employed to design the interior arrangements, boxes, stage, seating, determine the lines of vision and secure proper acoustic conditions.
“What did you have to do with the truss and roof?”
“Nothing at all, sir.”
“Did you undertake to handle the steel work?”
“The only things I undertook to indicate were the lines in which the steel work must be kept to insure my lines of vision. In the rigging loft it was necessary that I should lay the beams, as they controlled the machinery of the stage.”
The witness also said that he laid out the pitch of the first floor, in order to get the proper line of vision for the seats, so that each one would give an equal view of the stage.
“What estimate did you give him a close approximate estimate of the cost of a building of that size – something that I have done for a great many and never charged anything. I told him $67,000. Mr. Wiggins did not try to scale down the price, but said that he would like the cost to be kept down to $65,000, if it could be done without detriment to the building. Mr. Wiggins put no limit on the cost, as far as I know. On the contrary, he wanted a modern theater, perfect in every particular.”
Col. Wood then stated that the first work on Wonderland he did was to lay out the floor plan.
Didn’t Furnish Truss Drawing.
“Did you furnish John Scott & Co. with drawings of the truss?”
“I never furnished them with anything except a sketch of the balcony and gallery, showing lines within which they had to keep.”
“Who made the drawings of the roof?”
“I do not know who made them. I am inclined to think that Arthur Scott made all the drawings.”
“Did you furnish Arthur Scott with the sizes of steel for the truss or roof beams?”
“I did not.”
“Did you give him the load the truss ought to carry?”
“No, sir.”
When asked to figure what the truss of the Detroit opera house would carry, Col. Wood started to figure, but said that he might forget some of the items and offered to bring a book which contained a record of every truss he had ever built in a fire proof theater, and he added:
“You will find that I have always been away below the factor of safety.” He said that for the Detroit opera house he allowed twenty-five pounds for snow and at Memphis fifteen pounds though the latter place was much further south. The Scotts allowed only ten pounds for Wonderland.
Asked to explain regarding the inspection of steel, he said that some architects allowed the company furnishing it to do the inspecting and furnish strain sheets, while others had the inspecting done by outside parties. The steel in the Detroit opera house was inspected by the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, at the mill, in Cleveland, in the shop and during the process of the work on the theater.
“Hear of any inspection of steel in the Wonderland building?”
“No. There was no reason I should, as I had nothing to do with it. Mason & Rice consulted me about the inspection of steel on the Detroit opera house, because it was part of my duty to design and construct the theater and control everything about it.”
“Who controlled the construction of the Wonderland building?”
“John Scott & Co.”
Col. Wood said that he never inspected the roof or steel work, but that once he saw that the had one of the trusses together in the back of the building and heard afterwards that in the raising the truss the gin pole broke.
“You furnished John Scott & Co. with the plans of the Detroit Opera House?”
“Only as a matter of friendship. It was a set of plans given me by Mason & Rice. I did not instruct Arthur Scott to use them, for I had no authority to do so, and they did not ask for them.”
“Did you get any plans from John Scott & Co.’s office?”
“I got a set of plans from there November 12, a week after the accident, and that was the first time I ever had a set of plans out of that office. I receipted for them on that date, November 12.”
Part 607: The Wonderland Disaster Investigation in Detroit, 1898, third section
The Temple Theater, also known as the Wonderland Theater. It was next to the Detroit Opera House
While researching the Temple Theatre in Detroit, I encountered an interesting article about an 1898 theater roof collapse. The testimony in today’s section is from John Scott (1850-1928), a well-known architect in Detroit, Michigan. He practiced there in partnership with his brother Arthur H. Scott from 1889 until after 1914. Born in Ipswich, England, he and his brother were the sons of the Detroit architect William Scott (1821-1889). By 1874 John joined his father in a formal partnership – William Scott & Son, renamed William Scott & Co. by 1875. After the death of their father in 1889, John and Arthur partnered with Louis Kamper, as Scott, Kamper & Scott, Architects. In 1891, the firm was renamed John Scott & Co. in 1891, remaining active until after 1920. John Scott retired in 1926 and passed away in 1928.
Here is the third section of the Wonderland Disaster Investigation published in the “Detroit Free Press” –
The Roof Contract.
Attorney Conely then took up the matter of the roof contract. Mr. Scott said that when the original specifications were being drawn for the roof, he understood that it was to be fireproof. He also understood that the DeMan system had been used to some extent on the Detroit Opera House. Witness then said that when the roof bids were first opened, John Scott and himself were in favor of giving the contract to a Cleveland firm, as Mr. DeMan’s bid was not complete. The later was so told, but wanted the matter reopened so he could fix his bid to meet the requirements. This was done and Col. Wood recommended the adoption of the DeMan bid. Mr. Scott stated that his bid was about $400 lower than the next lowest bid.
Attorney Boynton – “Who sent for Col Wood to consult him about the DeMan roof?”
“I did not, personally. Technically, I do not know who sent for him.”
Mr. Scott was then shown a longitudinal section of the roof beams, in which the brace on which he contended the beam running from the front wall to the truss rested, was missing. He admitted that the size of the roof beams was decided on before the details were worked out. He said that he took them from the opera house plans and standards, as far as possible, and worked the rest out himself.
Prosecuting Attorney Frazer asked the witness who arranged for the inspection of the steel, and the answer was that the inspection was determined on the advice of Col. Wood, which caused the prosecutor to remark that if he was not careful he would get the whole truss over on Col. Wood and break his neck. He then said that he wrote in the clause in the specifications referring to the inspection and said that he got it from the specification of the opera house, which Col. Wood told him to use as far as they applied.
“The clause called for the inspection of the steel at the mill?”
“It was optional.”
“Do you know enough to tell us how you drew them up?”
“I can’t remember the exact wording, but the clause stated that the architects had the right to appoint an inspector at the mill.”
Had No Inspector.
“Did you employ anyone as inspector of the steel put in the Wonderland building?”
The witness first tried to evade a direct answer and then said that no inspector was employed, outside of the one at the mill.
“Who inspected the steel at the mill?”
“The people who made the material had it inspected.”
“You paid the people who made the steel for inspecting it?”
“We did not pay for it.”
“As a protection for the owners of the building you had the steel inspected by the people who made it and did not pay the men they employed? Is not that a fool arrangement?”
Mr. Frazer had first made the question more pointed, but changed the form when Mr. Conely objected. Mr. Scott finally said that in his opinion the steel should be inspected by an inspector not connected with the mill.
“You had the authority to order an inspection of the steel at the mill?”
“Yes.”
“You did not have it inspected in Detroit?”
“Not to my knowledge.”
“There is also an inspection to see that the right sizes of steel are placed in the trusses being built?”
“Yes”
“You did not employ an inspector there?”
“I don’t know. I suppose the man on the building inspected it.”
“Who?”
“John Scott.”
“He had no inspector?”
“No.”
Witness added that he believed John Scott knew enough to see that the steel work conformed with the detail drawings. He said that he could not swear that John Scott had inspected it. Mr. Scott admitted that to have the steel inspected as the work progressed was the only safe way to see that the specifications were carried out by the contractors. Witness said that an engineering company could have skimmed the job in many ways, had it set out to do so. Mr. Scott stated that he had received strain sheets for all the steel made at the mill, showing the results of the tests made on the different pieces. He didn’t know whether Col. Wood saw them.
Part 606: The Wonderland Disaster Investigation in Detroit, 1898, second section
While researching the Temple Theatre in Detroit, I encountered an interesting article about an 1898 theater roof collapse. It was published in the “Detroit Free Press.” Here is the second section of the article.
Scott Finishes His Story.
The examination of Arthur Scott was concluded at the morning session. He admitted that he had figured on the strains to the members of the truss, using the Carnegie and Pencoyd tables as far as they applied, and then working out the rest with his own knowledge. On Wednesday, Mr. Scott was asked to figure out the strain on a three-inch channel, used in construction of the truss, but admitted that he could not find any table for it. The prosecution will contend that he could not find the table for the reason that there is none for a three-inch channel, such a size not being recommended for such work, on account of being too small for safety.
Attorney Boyton continued his cross-examination. He showed the witness the different plans of the new Wonderland building, which had been introduced in evidence and asked him to designate the work done by Col. Wood. Mr. Scott admitted that nearly all the drawing had been done by himself, but said that some had been made from rough sketches by Col. Wood. It was shown that the lines drawn by Col. Wood referred mostly to the pitch of the floor lines of vision and seating. The witness was unable to produce any other sketch made by Col. Wood, although he insisted that Col. Wood had made a great many small ones that had been destroyed and it was hard to recall what they were.
“In your direct testimony, you sated that in the balcony and gallery you put in the same weight of material as indicated in the Detroit Opera House plans, so that you practically followed them?”
Detroit Opera House under construction. pictured in the DeMan System of Fireproof Construction book published in 1901.
“Yes; I did not follow them literally. The overhang was smaller than in the other house.”
“How did you compute the strains if the truss?”
“Took them from the analysis of the truss.”
“It is a question of mathematical computation and you did the computing?”
“The truss was already analyzed.”
“Where did you get the type of truss used on the Wonderland building?”
“Took it from Carnegie’s book.”
“Did you take the load for all the members from Carnegie?”
“Not all. Took the channels from Pencoyd, the sizes and weights according to the tables.” Mr. Scott then admitted that he used the Pencoyd tables as far as they applied, and that he then worked out the rent from his own knowledge.
“You did not follow the opera house truss at all?”
“Not in form; only in detail.”
“You followed it because certain details in both trusses happen to conform?”
“Yes.”
“Is there any similarity in assembling the details, it lies in the fact that the Carnegie tables indicated such a similarity?”
“Yes.”
Witness was positive that Col. Wood took the plans of the Wonderland structural steel work out of the office, having seen him do so. Regarding the book in which Col. Wood is alleged to have kept all the weights of the iron and steel work, witness said that Col. Wood has told him that he had worked out the details of weights and would have them whenever it was necessary to make out an estimate to pay for work.
“Did he ever make an estimate to pay for work?”
“He did not. He was not here, I think.”
“Where are the specification that you gave him corrected?”
“The original ones were destroyed, after being corrected. He gave me verbal corrections.”
“It is not a matter of fact that the only suggestion Col. Wood made was regarding the corrugated iron, in connection with the balcony and seating?”
“At that time it was all that he made.”
“Did he ever take the general specifications?”
“Not at that time. He took them the day before they were given out to the contractors.”
Mr. Scott said, in reference to the shop drawings made by the Peninsular Engineering Co., that they had never been formally approved, but that he had examined them as to the measurements sufficiently to satisfy himself that they were made in accordance with his designs.
To be continued…
DeMan System of Fireproof Construction book published in 1901.
Many thanks to Richard Archer who discovered a DeMan System of Fireproof Construction book published in 1901. Here is the link: https://books.google.com/books?id=c9o0AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PT44&lpg=RA1-PT44&dq=deMan%20truss&source=bl&ots=Qsznjo39tt&sig=N3SlspWsgAbRm160yzPbhAJ43w4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC64i0tdTfAhWEVN8KHUJwCTUQ6AEwC3oECAEQAQ&fbclid=IwAR2GXwH1WhZNzn6ZMyK-tSG4xGPbBTxS9OTPbh7NIKvEG4ARTZRPM0-ZaAM#v=onepage&q&f=false
Part 605: The Wonderland Disaster Investigation in Detroit, 1898, first section
I have been exploring the Temple Theatre in Detroit and Detroit’s “Wonderland,” an entertainment company that offered everything from live theatre and minstrel shows to moving pictures and vaudeville acts; from aerial acts to talking dogs, everything was part of the vaudeville mainstream. From the time it opened in 1901, the Elks Temple theatre hosted the Wonderland Company, offering four vaudeville shows every day. Ticket prices included admission to the show, as well as a visit to see the oddities in the curiosity museum. In later years, Harry Houdini, W. C. Fields, Buster Keaton. Jack Benny, George Burns, Fred and Adele Astaire, were included among the stars that appeared on the Temple Theatre stage. As Vaudeville fell out of favor, the Temple closed about 1930, other than showing a few fly-by-night films.
Postcard detail depicting the Detroit Opera House and Temple Theater located next door.
The original Wonderland Theatre, known as Detroit’s “palace of amusement,” included both a variety show and oddities museum. Founded by Enoch “Pop” Wiggins, the Wonderland Theatre started on Woodward Avenue in 1886 in Merrill Hall, later known as the Avenue Theatre. Its popularity caused the company to move further up the road to Campus Maritus. Unfortunately, disaster struck on Nov. 5, 1898, when the roof of the theater collapsed during construction, crushing 12 workers to death and injuring nearly 20 others. In the end, fifteen lives were lost. The company temporarily used the Detroit Opera House until the new Temple Theatre was completed.
There is an interesting article about the Wonderland building and theatre architect J. M. Wood after the roof collapsed. It puts theatre construction within a historical context. Due to the length of the article, it will be posted over several installments. Published in the “Detroit Free Press,” the article “Positive Denial!” detailed the description of events surrounding the Wonderland Disaster investigation (2 Dec 1898, page 2). Here is the first section of the article:
POSITIVE DENIAL!
—
COL WOOD FLATLY CONTRADICTS SCOTT BROTHERS’ TESTIMONY.
—
DID NOT HAVE CHARGE OF STRUCTURAL IRON AND STEEL WORK.
—
SIMPLY HAD TO LOOK AFTER THEATRICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
—
THINKS THERE WAS A GENERAL WEAKNESS IN THE ROOF.
—
ALSO A GENERAL LACK OF ATTENTION TO DETAILS.
—
THE FIVE-INCH ROOF BEAMS WERE OVERLOADED.
—
Arthur Scott Concluded His Testimony Yesterday Morning.
—
“Col. J. M. Wood. The theatre architect was the main factor in the investigation yesterday, and he was on the stand nearly the entire day. He entered a positive denial of the statements of John and Arthur Scott that he had charge of the work, designed the truss and was responsible for figuring loads. Col. Wood stated that he had not only not designed the truss, but that he had not paid the least attention to it, being out of the city most of the time when it was being constructed and erected. He also displayed plans of every truss he ever used in fire proof theater buildings, showing that they were of the suspension type and nothing like the one used in the Wonderland building.
At the request of Prosecuting Attorney Frazer, he calculated the load carried by the Detroit Opera House truss, which weighs over eight tons, showing that he had figured many tons within the safety factor. He also showed that be computing the truss of the Wonderland building by the same method as that used for the opera house truss, the former, which weighs over eight tons, showing that he had figured many tons within the safety factor. He also showed that by computing the truss of the Wonderland building by the same method as that used for the opera house truss, the former which weighed three and a half tons, carried forty tons, while the eight and a half ton truss in the opera house carried forty-eight tons for the safety load. He indicated at some length the designing he did for the Wonderland building, stating that he had nothing whatever to do with the steel work, but had to indicate the lines of vision and general lines within which John Scott & Co. would have to keep the steel work.
Col. Wood testified that in the first interview with John Scott, the latter told him that his firm would insist on having control of the construction of the building and would consult with him regarding the arrangements of the theater. The witness had a book showing a record of all material used in all the theaters he had built of the fire-proof type, and he was able, without any hesitation, to answer any question regarding them. His answers were all s direct and positive that there was no chance to quibble with him. He asserted that he was employed to look after the stage, the seating acoustic conditions, line of vision, boxes and other matters pertaining strictly to the Wonderland theater, while with the architectural and steel construction he had nothing to do; and paid no attention to it.
Regarding the fact that he had loaned John Scott & Co., a set of plans of the Detroit opera house, he said that he did it simply as an act of courtesy, to a brother member of the profession, thinking that it might give him some idea of theatrical construction. He denied that he told Arthur Scott to follow those plans, saying that he had no authority to order him and had not been asked to have anything to do with the construction of the building. He also denied that he had given Arthur Scott the load the trusses would have to carry, or that he had anything to do with the designing or construction of the roof. Incidentally, Col. Wood stated that the DeMan system was not used on the Detroit Opera House.
Col. Wood showed his willingness to give his opinion regarding the cause of the accident, but Mr. Frazer spoiled a full answer by breaking in with another question. It was his belief that there was a general weakness of the roof and the construction, and he also thought that the 5-inch roof beams were overloaded. As to the truss, he did not feel competent to give an opinion, but stated that an engineering company had given him an opinion that steel members of the sizes mentioned for the Wonderland truss would probably hold the load intended, if properly detailed and constructed.”
Part 591: The Sixteenth Degree Setting for King Darius’ Palace
In 1908, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Starting on Wheeling, W. Va. Masonic work, a good contract and I enjoyed the work. The Darius Palace and the approach to Jerusalem were very interesting things to do, and a dozen others with the same amount of interest for others to do.” Instead of starting with the venue, I am beginning with the Sosman & Landis scenic design called “Darius Palace.”
Darius Palace setting by Sosman & Lanids for the Scottish Rite in Winona, Minnesota, 1909.
Painted detail on Darius Palace cut drop by Sosman & Landis, 1909
For the Scottish Rite’s sixteenth degree production, it is important to consider the historical context and inspiration for the stage work. The exiled Hebrews returned to Jerusalem in approximately 530 BCE, yet they had to wait for Darius’ ascension to the throne for the rebuilding of King Solomon’s Temple. The Second Temple was completed about 510 BCE. There is much more to the story, but this provides us with the basic context that inspired three Sosman & Landis scene designs: King Solomon’s Temple ruins, King Darius’ palace, and the rebuilding of the Temple. I have recently posted a series of images regarding stage settings that depict the ruins of King Solomon’s Temple from the 15th degree. This degree includes the story of when King Cyrus reigned and Zerubbabel was sent to check on the site. The 15th degree stage setting carries over the 16th degree and was often used again. Understand, however, that what appears on Scottish Rite stages now does not always use the scenery as intended.
Two of the sixteenth degree settings were noted in the “Buffalo Consistory” during 1908. An article describing the upcoming events at a Scottish Rite Reunion reported, “On Tuesday morning there is no class, but in the afternoon the sixteenth degree, prince of Jerusalem, will be presented in three sections. The first and third represent the ruins of the Holy City and the second the court of Darius, King of Persia” (Buffalo Morning Express, 21 April 1908, page 6).
That same year, the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle” also mentioned the 16th degree production at the Scottish Rite: “The sixteenth degree, Princes of Jerusalem, was the work in Brooklyn Consistory on Wednesday evening last.” After listing the cast members, the newspaper commented, “This beautiful, instructive, historic degree is one of the most interesting in the entire Scottish Rite system.” (5 April 1908, page 25).
For those unfamiliar with King Darius I, here is a brief recap. Darius the Great was born in 522 BCE. He is recorded as being one of the greatest rulers of the Achaemenid dynasty, ascending to power in 522 BCE and reigning until 486 BCE. Darius was known for his administrative genius and monumental construction projects, including his palace in Susa located at the center of the Persian Empire. Stretching from the Nile and the Aegean to the Indus Valley, at its peak, the Persian Empire included much of West Asia, the Caucasus, parts of the Balkans (Thrace-Macedonia and Paeonia), most of the Black Sea coastal regions, parts of North Caucasus, and Central Asia. It reached as far east as the Indus Valley with portions of north and northeast Africa including Egypt, eastern Libya and coastal Sudan. A great book on this subject is Jean Perrot’s “The Palace of Darius at Susa: The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid Persia.”
King Darius was known for centralizing and unifying the Persian empire, He divided land under his reign into provinces, placing satraps to govern it. Darius established a new uniform monetary system, introduced standard weights and measures, as well as making Aramaic the official language of the empire. He also instigated several construction projects throughout the empire, including Susa, Pasargadae, Persepolis, and Babylon. This is the part that we are most interested in as nineteenth-century archeological discoveries would greatly impact popular culture and Masonic stage design.
It was the information and illustrations published about archeological discoveries that were incorporated into Masonic degree productions designs by Sosman & Landis and other scenic studios. King Darius’ Palace at Susa (western Iran) was one of the most important of the Achaemenid Persian palaces. When it was rediscovered in 1851, details of the architecture and ornamentation remained in the public eye and were eagerly sought after by all types of artists.
These discoveries especially fueled the designs of stage settings for the 16th degree. Scenic studios labels became more description over time, going from a simple “Darius Palace” to Darius Festival Rose Palace.”
Darius Palace by Sosman & Landis for the Scottish Rite in Tucson, Arizona, 1914
Early twentieth century Sosman & Landis scenic designs were characterized by Persian columns and double-bull capitals, replicating discoveries in Persepolis and Susa. Floral garlands were draped throughout the scene, wrapping around orate columns. Skilled scenic artists at Sosman & Landis painted hundreds of roses in varying shades of pink, depicted from every conceivable angle. These floral garlands are some of the most beautiful examples of scenic art that I have encountered to date.
Painted detail on Darius Palace cut drop by Sosman & Landis, 1909
Painted detail on Darius Palace cut drop by Sosman & Landis, 1909
Painted detail on Darius Palace cut drop by Sosman & Landis, 1909
Painted detail on Darius Palace cut drop by Sosman & Landis, 1909
Painted detail on Darius Palace cut drop by Sosman & Landis, 1909
Artists in scenic studios relied on printed source material for these ancient palaces, such a Dr. Franz von Reber’s “The History of Ancient Art.” This publication provided beautiful examples of ancient architectural ornamentation for the sixteenth degree. Here is a link to Dr. Von Reber’s 1882 publication, as it is a wonderful addition to any library: imageshttps://www.gutenberg.org/files/42082/42082-h/42082-h.htm#page_025
Part 405: “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, fourth section
E. L. Blanchard wrote the article “Scenery and Scene-Painters” in 1871 for “The Era Almanack.” Here is the fourth of five sections.
“John Richards, the old Secretary of the Royal Academy, painted many years for the stage. His rural scenery for The Maid of the Mill is perpetuated in two line engravings, which are in the portfolios of all our old-fashioned collectors of English prints.
The first scene of “The Maid of the Mill,” designed by John Inigo Richards. Painting by John Inigo Richards (1731-1810)
Image: The first scene of “The Maid of the Mill,” designed by John Inigo Richards. Richards was a noted scenic artist, machinist and theatre designer. Engraving by William Woollett (1735-1785) after the painting by John Inigo Richards (1731-1810). 1768. Here is the link to the image: https://www.lubranomusic.com/pages/books/29668/samuel-arnold/the-first-scene-of-the-maid-of-the-mill-as-designed-by-mr-richards-fine-large-engraving-by-william
De Loutherbourg, who for some time delighted and astonished the town by his interesting dioramic exhibition, which he called “The Eidophusikon,” was the first to increase the effect of scenery by lighting from above the proscenium, and using colored glasses for the lamps.
De Loutherbourg’s “Eidophusikon.” Image from http://picturegoing.com/?p=4354
The key to De Loutherbourg’s “Eidophusikon, or Moving Diorama of Venice” from https://www.rc.umd.edu/gallery/key-eidophusikon-or-moving-diorama-venice
Philip-Jacques de Loutherbourg, R.A. (1740 – 1812), became known for his large naval works, scenic designs, and mechanical theatre called the “Eidophusikon.”
“An Avalanche in the Alps,” 1803, Philip James De Loutherbourg (1740-1812). Presented by the Friends of the Tate Gallery, 1965. Image at http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/philip-james-de-loutherbourg-145
Many ingenious devices, now familiar, in their effects at least, to a playgoing public, owe their adoption to the dashing, vigorous Flemish battle-painter, whose appearance was as martial as his pictures, and who Jack Bannister nicknamed “Field-Marshal Leatherbags.”
Another distinguished artist of the period was Mr. Greenwood, the grandfather of Mr. T. L. Greenwood, so long associated with the management of Sadler’s Wells Theatre. For many years the scenery of the Royal Circus (now the Surrey Theatre) was painted by Mr. Greenwood, who invested the ballets and serious musical spectacles brought out there by Mr. J. C. Cross with remarkable scenic attractions, and, when the artist was transferred to Drury Lane, he became even more prominent. Byron, in his “English Bards and Scottish Reviewers,” speaks of “Greenwood’s gay designs” as being then the chief support of the Drama of that period.
When John Kemble became Manager of Covent Garden Theatre, the accuracy of scenery and costume became more studied. One of the most eminent scene-painters of this period was William Capon, who died in September, 1827. He was born in 1757, and studied under Novosielski, the architect of the Italian Opera House, during which time he designed the Theatre and other buildings at Ranelagh Gardens, and painted several scenes for the Opera.
On the completion of New Drury, in 1794, Kemble engaged Capon for the scenic department, by which means the Manager was greatly assisted in his reformation of the stage. The artist had a private painting room, to which Kemble used to invite his friends to witness the progress of this scenic reform. Among these specimens were a Chapel of the pointed style of architecture, which occupied the whole stage, and was used for the performance of oratorios; six chamber wings of the same order, for general use on our old English plays, and very elaborately studio from actual remains; a View of New Palace Yard, Westminster, as it was in 1793, forty-one feet wide, with corresponding wings; the Ancient Palace of Westminster, as it was three hundred years back, carefully painted from authorities, and forty-two feet wide and thirty-four feet to the top of the scene; six wings representing ancient English streets; the Tower of London, restored to its earlier state for the play of Richard the Third; and for Jane Shore was painted the Council Chamber of Crosby House. All these scenes were spoken as the time as historical curiosities. Capon painted for John Kemble two magnificent interior views of Drury Lane and Covent Garden, for which he received about two hundred guineas. Unfortunately all his scenes were destroyed by the fire at Drury Lane in 1809, but he afterwards painted many scenes for Covent Garden which for several years must have completely satisfied the more critical eye of even a later generation, for several needed only a little re-touching to serve the Managements which preceded that of Mr. Macready.
In Elliston’s time Marinari and Stanton painted a beautiful drop scene for Drury Lane which was substituted for the green curtain. It was a fine composition of Grecian ruins, and figures within a splendidly-wrought frame, heightened with gold ornamentation. The figures were by Stanton, and the cost of the scene was nearly 700L.
Clarkston Frederick Stanfield
In 1828 the principal scene-painters of Drury Lane were Stanfield, Andrews, and Marinari. Stanfield’s panoramas, at this period introduced into each successive pantomime, were triumphs of pictoral art. The two drop scenes then used between the acts were much admired. One, including the Coliseum, with other remains of classic architecture, was painted by Stanton; the other, from a picture by Claude, was from Stanfield’s pencil. The weight of each of these drops, with the roller and necessary adjuncts, was about 800lbs. In marine scenery Clarkston Stanfield had never been surpassed. Born at Sunderland in 1798, he had commenced life as a sailor, and he had well profited by his early experience of the lights and shadows of the seas. For many years Stanfield taught the pit and gallery to admire landscape art, and the occupants of the boxes to become connoisseurs. He decorated Drury Lane Theatre with works so beautiful that the public annually regretted the frail material of which they were composed, and the necessity for “new and gorgeous effects,” which caused this fine artist’s work to be successively obliterated. He create, and afterwards painted out with his own brush, more scenic masterpieces than any man, and in his time Clown and Pantaloon tumbled over and belabored one another in front of the most beautifully dazzling pictures which were ever presented to the eye of the playgoer.”
Part 333: J. B. McElfatrick & Sons, Theatre Architects
The architectural firm of J. B. McElfatrick & Sons was chiefly known for its theater designs. By 1896, the company advertised that they were responsible for the design and construction of seventy-one theaters in New York, Washington, D.C., Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington and Texas. They also designed theaters in Canada. Started by John Bailey McElfatrick, his two sons soon joined the business. John Morgan McElfatrick (1853-1891) and William H. McElfatrick (1854-1922) became architects to establish J. B. McElfatrick & Sons. John passed away in 1891, but his brother William continued as an architect throughout the remainder of his life, continuing the family business after his father passed away.
Advertisement for J. B. McElfatrick & Son, Architects, from Julius Cahn’s Official Theatre Guide, 1896.
J. B. McElfatrick (1826-1906) is credited with designing over one hundred theaters throughout the course of his career, changing the audience expectations of the physical structures. Born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he studied architecture and engineering with his own father Edward McElfatrick. By 1851, J. B. soon started his own architecture business in Harrisburg, and then established his business in Philadelphia. From there, he continued to journey west, opening offices wherever he moved – Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, and St. Louis. He finally returned to New York where he ran the main firm.
He focus on theater design began in approximately 1855. It was a subject that would remain his specialty throughout his career. Architectural historians cite his innovations concerning auditorium seating and the implementation of ground-floor performance venues. In the 1917 publication, “Modern Theatre Construction,” Edward B. Kinsila wrote, “The greatest individual strides in American theatre construction have been effected through the personal endeavors of a single architect, Mr. J. B. McElfatrick of New York City, who should be revered as the Father of American theatres.”
Kinsila’s publication describes that in the 1880s American theaters were designed and constructed in a similar manner to their English prototypes; specifically, they shared a comparable subdivision of main floor seating. The American use of “parquet” and “parquet circles” were the equivalent to the English use of “pit” and “stalls.” He notes that they both shared the “same lyre-shaped balcony, the same stage projection or apron, and the same extravagant and distracting ornamentation.” McElfatrick, is also credited with improving the sight lines by arranging continuous front-to-back seating on the main floor, without aisles. He also designed balconies that were flatter and deeper. I am fascinated with his front-of-house innovations, but curious about how his designs affected the backstage areas. We only catch a glimpse of his alteration to the front of the stage.
He greatly reduced the “projecting apron,” a common nineteenth-century stage feature. The projecting apron was at the forefront of the stage, and from a time when much of the scenery remained primarily decorative, placed behind the actors to suggest locale. This was part of the wing and shutter system that also incorporated roll drops. Once the painted shutters were opened to reveal a scene, the actors moved forward (downstage) to play the scene, allowing the background to change behind them while they continued the performance. For me, this is interesting timing. That I would get to this point in my blog as the wing/shutter/roll drop system has been part of my weekly, and sometimes daily, discussions with Rick Boychuk since last November after we examined the 1906 Matthews Opera House. 1906 was also the same year that J. B. McElfatrick passed away in New York.
The projecting apron was at the forefront of the stage, and from a time when much of the scenery remained primarily decorative, placed behind the actors to suggest locale. This was part of the wing and shutter system that also incorporated roll drops. Once the painted shutters were opened to reveal a scene, the actors moved forward (downstage) to play the scene, allowing the background to change behind them while they continued the performance. For me, this is interesting timing. That I would get to this point in my blog as the wing/shutter/roll drop system has been part of my weekly, and sometimes daily, discussions with Rick Boychuk since last November after we examined the 1906 Matthews Opera House. 1906 was also the same year that J. B. McElfatrick passed away in New York.
In terms of another significant characteristic of McElfatrick’s theater designs was the placement of the theatre on the first floor. Often his renovated or newly constructed theaters were the first in an area to place the entertainment venue on the ground level. He also included multiple exits, sprinkler systems, and improved dressing rooms. As I surveyed newspaper reviews of his buildings, I noticed that many of his theatre designs lowered the stage floor and constructed a raked floor for the auditorium seating. Furthermore, a secondary floor to place over stationary auditorium seating was also another feature that McElfatrick used. This transformed the space into one long banquet hall that extended the entire length of the room that continued onto the stage.
William H. McElfatrick, of the architectural firm J. B. McElfatrick & Son
William McElfatrick initially studied architecture in his father’s office, but moved to Chicago after the 1871 fire. There he joined the firm of W. W. Boyington, as work was so plentiful and presented great opportunities for a young architect to make his mark. He returned to New York in the 1880s and began working with his father again. From the mid-1880s until his father’s passing in 1906, the firm was incredibly productive. In Canada, William H. McElfatrick and his father designed theatre buildings in Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec.
What I found fascinating in looking at various articles during the mid-1890s, is that many of the new theaters credited to the firm were remodels. For example, the Lowell Opera House, the Avenue Theatre in Pittsburg, and the Howard Auditorium in Baltimore were three examples; all remodeled during 1894-1895. In each case the stage was enlarged, necessitating the purchase of a new drop curtain and scenery. Thomas G. Moses was there to create the stock scenery. Just as Moses had travelled throughout the west in the 1880s, painting scenery for new theaters that replaced burned predecessors, he was now following the theatre renovation parade.
And there was also a fraternal connection for both J. B. and his son William. William was a member of the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.). He was a member in the Brooklyn Lodge at Atlantic City (The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 11 July 1895, page 1). I have not been able to find a Masonic connection, but his father was a Freemason and it was unlikely that William would not follow in his footsteps. J. B. McElfatrick’s obituary published, “He was a Mason, was widely known to theatrical people all over the country, and was in active charge of his business to the last” (New York Times, 7 June 1906, page 7).
So here is where my two worlds intersect; McElfatrick was an architect who renovated dozens of existing buildings to include a stage and was also an active Freemason. His work was well known in Indianapolis, Columbus and Cincinnati, all cities that implemented some of the earliest stages for Scottish Rite degree productions in renovated buildings. What are the possibilities that McElfatrick was involved in the transformation of degree work that shifted the historical reenactments from the lodger room floor to the elevated stage?
