Typologies and Intersectionality by rioarchi

A BRIEF HISTORY OF OPPRESSIVE TYPE SOMETHING WITH DUALITY? AN INVESTIGATION OF OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES A CLOSER LOOK AT STRATIFIED TYPOLOGIES TYPOLOGIES & INTERSECTIONALITY QUINCY CASEY JAIME DUNLAP ANASTASIA FEDOTOVA CRESCENT FENG FAWZ HUSSEIN JOSEPH INGLIMA TAMARA MALHAS VANESSA SHIMADA CRAYTONIA WILLIAMS

INTRODUCTION As a studio, we examine a selection of architectural types salient to the economic and political situation in which the profession of architecture was emerging as a distinct practice. Further, it is through the drawing of distinctions between types that architectural knowledge was demonstrated by practitioners. This situation calls into question the validity of typological distinction as well as genealogical connections between past and present building forms and spatial arrangements. To begin engaging with and questioning these histories, we perform our own series of typological analyses within the transatlantic space, 1610–1929.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii ............................................................................ Introduction iii ....................................................... Typological Precedents 04 ......................................................................... Big Houses 110 .................................................... European Coffeehouses 120 ............................................................................... Prisons 160 ................................................................... Slave Markets 216 .................................................................. Slave Quarters 258 ............................................................... Worker Housing 300 ....................................................... Typological Analysis 301 ........................................................ Big Houses & Prisons 316 ...................... European Coffeehouses & Slave Markets 324 .................................. Slave Quarters & Worker Housing

Ashland | 06

Belle Grove | 12

Monticello | 30

Montpelier | 36

BIG HOUSES

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Evergreen | 18

Hermitage | 24

Riversdale | 42

Staunton Hill | 48

The Big House Type, also known as Plantation Homes, were symbols of power and oppressive control over the enslaved populations which were the backbone of the Plantation economy. The design of the homes were closely managed by the owners of the plantation, generationally remodeled and expanded to meet their political, societal, and moral standards.

ASHLAND James Gallier, Sr. Darrow, LA 1841 Big House

Prominent sugar planter, Duncan Kenner, was the owner of the Ashland plantation and big house. The design of this big house is very simple, consisting of a “...square box surrounded by twenty-eight piers, each thirty feet high, supporting a two-story gallery and a simple but massive wooden entablature that hides the pyramid roof.” Analyzing the interior, it is important to note the unusual height choice where the first floor walls were taller than the second story walls. To continue, both floors are “... bisected by a central hall, with three rooms on each side.” The first floor rooms consisted of parlors on one side and a library and dining room on the other while the second floor consisted of bedrooms. In terms of the facade, the house is faced with “Exterior brick walls, scored to resemble masonry, are painted their original pastel yellow color, and the brick piers, each three feet square, are stuccoed and painted white.”. Additionally, the repetition of entablatures on the exterior and interior of the structure allows for a dilution of the distinction between inside and outside.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/16

32 FT

Ashland | Big House

Plan

1/16

32 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/16

32 FT

Ashland | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/16

32 FT

BELLE GROVE Henry Howard, James Gallier Sr. White Castle, LA 1857 Big House

Known as one of the largest big houses to ever be built in the south, Belle Grove was owned by sugar planter John Andrews. The house “...stood 62 feet (19 m) high and measured 122 feet (37 m) wide by 119 feet (36 m) deep, with seventy-five rooms (including a jail cell) spread over four floors.” John Andrews oversaw and owned over 150 enslaved people at Belle Grove. Marked by corinthian columns, the house’s style leaned more towards Classical architecture and the curvature of the drawing rooms demonstrates an influence of Victorian thought. Analyzing the interior, it can be observed that the entrance is not on the axis of the portico but to its side which is a typical feature in Greek Revival houses. Significantly, there is a wide hall “...which leads to the circular staircase in the rear separates the living quarters from the service section.” Notably, Belle Grove is known for the spaciousness of its rooms. On the exterior, the house is faced with “...brick cemented and painted a pale lavender rose. Scaling the wash, it is evident that the plaster was painted first blue, then pink, with a final wash of lavender. … The columns of the portico are also of cemented brick, but the caps are carved cypress.”

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/24

48 FT

Belle Grove | Big House

Plan

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/24

48 FT

Belle Grove | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/24

48 FT

EVERGREEN John Carver Edgard, LA 1832 Big House

The main house of Evergreen plantation was first constructed in 1777, but was rebuilt in 1832 in Greek Revival style as it stands now. The first house built by the owner Christophe Heidel was in Creole style, to adapt to the hot climate of Louisiana. Interestingly, the main house was built as a bousillage structure with wooden beams with filling of mud and moss or horse hair. Evergreen went through several renovations, the last one in 1835 superimposed an American facade on the Creole-style old structure, the decision which was inspired by Pierre Clidamont Becnel’s (descendant of Heidel) trip to Philadelphia. Labor of enslaved people was the backbone of Evergreen for nearly 200 years. The big house was built by slaves, sugarcane cultivation was done entirely by enslaved African Americans, who then continued their labor as free workers. It is noted on the official website for the research of the plantation that all slaves were greately skilled workers and performed a considerable number of complex, profeccional tasks. The plantation is currently in private possession and cultivation of sugarcane is still being carried out there.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/16

32 FT

Evergreen | Big House

Plan

1/16

32 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/16

32 FT

Evergreenvv | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/68

132 FT

HERMITAGE William Jay Savannah, Chatham County, Georgia 1825 Big House

Hermitage was built around 1825 for architect and builder Henry McAlpin and his wife. McAlpin asked his friend, William Jay, to design the main house of the plantation which was completed in a classical style. The plantation was of 220-acres run by 65-slaves who worked on producing bricks and cultivating cotton. The bricks were used to rebuild the old plantation house into the grand classical Greek Revival structure designed by Jay, it is this iteration of the house that our study focuses on. McAlpin later expanded the property to 600-acres with 172 slaves, as his work expanded too: he was a part of the construction of the one of the first railroads in America, owned an iron foundry and a sawmill. House Histree describes the layout of Hermitage saying: “The principal exterior features were the double, curving marble staircases that descended from each of the porches. Internally, both floors were laid out on a center-hall plan. The ground floor contained the dining room and a reception room plus servants quarters, kitchens and wine cellars. The hall of the upper floor opened up on to a double drawing room and library on one side, and five bedrooms on the other”. Hermitage overlooked a grand driveway with oaks on both sides of the road with slave quarters tucked away behind the trees.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/24

48 FT

Hermitage | Big House

Plan

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/24

48 FT

Hermitage | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/112

112

224 FT

MONTICELLO Thomas Jefferson Charlottesville, Virginia 1772 Big House

Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello drew inspiration from Palladio’s Temple of Vesta. Thomas Jefferson’s obsession with geometry, symmetry, octagons and the neoclassical style at the time reflects the power dynamics between Jefferson and the enslaved within Monticello. Thomas Jefferson’s specific fixation with octagons was stated by architectural historian Irene Chenge as “... inspired in overdetermined ways by the ideal of a modern, autonomous, sensory and political subject that could only be conjured in reference to its obverse—an unfree and unaesthetic racial subject.” Additionally, the architectural and sociological effects of an octagonal form is that it creates a space that is meant to be viewed both ‘within’ and ‘without’. Furthermore, Cheng explains that “Eight-sided forms were associated with garden follies, with devices that allowed owners to look out over privatized and domesticated landscapes.” Through analyzing the floor plans of Monticello, it becomes very apparent that Thomas Jefferson wanted to the enslaved people at Monticello to have very little presence. Significantly, the slave chambers of Monticello were sunken in wings connected to the big house through south and north passages on each side on the building.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/28

56 FT

Monticello | Big House

Plan

1/72

144 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/28

56 FT

Monticello | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/28

56 FT

MONTPELIER Ambrose and James Madison Orange County, VA 1797 Big House

Montpelier was founded in 1732 by Ambrose Madison, the grandfather of President James Madison, and at the time was named Mount Pleasant. The main house went through several changes and grew bigger over the time. The first structure built in 1764 was a two story building with a modest one story portico entrance, the version that followed in 1797, built by president Madison, is closer to what we can see today: the same structure with a grand two-story portico that took over ⅔ of the entire facade. This is the iteration best documented in original architectural drawings, so the 1797 structure is the one we are focusing on in our analysis. The house then grew bigger with the addition of one-story wings on both sides of the main house. In 1797 Montpelier had a two-passage system, common for plantations at the time; the house is organized around two passages that run through the building connecting the facade with the portico to the backyard. The slave quarters were located down the hill to the side from the main house and were hidden from sight of owners of the plantation.The structure now belongs to the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/24

48 FT

Montpelier | Big House

Plan

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/24

48 FT

Montpelier | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/72

144 FT

RIVERSDALE William Thornton Riversdale Park, MD 1801 Big House

Riversdale was designed and constructed between 1801 and 1807 by William Thornton (though it is unconfirmed) for Henri Stier, a Flemish aristocrat, and was a 739-acre estate. The initial design of the main house was made by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, one of the first well-known architects in America, though it has never been completed for an unknown reason. In this precedent study we examine both the structure existing today and the one proposed by Latrobe, to study the typology of the plantation in reality and in the contemporary designs, as an idea. The version that was never built is detailed in a book “The Domestic Architecture of Benjamin Henry Latrobe”, which is used as one of the primary sources for our investigation. The existing structure is an example of a fire-part Federal mansion type. The estate was later owned by a prominent family in Maryland, the Calverts, and now serves as a museum. The slave quarters are located to the left from the main house and are compressed into a single two-story building. Being a museum, Riversdale now has on display “the journal of Adam Francis Plummer, enslaved by the Calverts, [which] provides a rare first-person account of the experiences of the enslaved individuals and families at Riversdale.”

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/28

56 FT

Riversdale | Big House

Plan

1/28

56 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/28

56 FT

Riversdale | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/56

112 FT

STAUNTON HILL John Evans Johnson Charlotte County, VA 1848 Big House

Staunton Hill is a plantation built by John Evans Johnson in rather unusual style for typology of a main plantation house - Gothic Revival. The construction of the main house was commissioned by Charles Bruce, one of the richest men in Virginia at the time, and was started in 1848. All the property on the estate was erected solely by the labor of enslaved people. Staunton is located on a hill and overlooks Staunton River and its alluvial plains, the houses of the laborers are located behind the main house and are connected to it. The plantation produced wheat, tobacco, livestock, and corn, and was a very profitable estate. The house features a grand two-story staircase and an Italian marble portico, as well as lavish gothic adornments. It was also designed with elaborate stained glass windows and a large garden. Staunton Hill is still in private possession and was recently on the market for 5.5 million dollars, labeled as a “fairytale castle”.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/28

56 FT

Staunton Hill | Big House

Plan

1/28

56 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/28

56 FT

Staunton Hill | Big House

Plan

Section

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/48

96 FT

Lloyd’s Coffee Shop | 56

The Exchange Coffee House, RI | 62

The Philharmonic Hotel | 86

Exchange Coffee Ho

Willow Tea Rooms | 92

EUROPEAN COFFEEHOUSES

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

ouse, MA | 68

Café Central | 74

American Bar/Kärntnerbar | 98

Café Bauer | 80

Caffe Bar Craja | 104

This chapter explores various Coffeehouses across Europe as well as the US. It delves into historically established aspects of these Coffeehouses that have contributed towards the creation of a certain typology over the years. It speaks to the social, political, and economic elements that make up the rise of coffeehouse “culture” under the lenses of architectural design and societal standards. The role of social gathering at the Coffeehouse becomes symbolic for the typology as it places emphasis on commerce and righteous interactions woven into the fabric of “upscale” and modern urban societies.

LLOYD’S COFFEE SHOP Architect unknown London, UK 1688 European Coffeehouse

Edward Lloyd’s coffee house was firstly established by 1688 on Tower Street in the City of London. In the 17th century, London’s importance as a trade center led to an increasing demand for ship and cargo insurance. Lloyd’s coffee house soon became an early hub for maritime interests. This small club of marine underwriters moved to Lombard Street, closer to the heart of the City, in 1691. While Britain was powered by the vast shipping industry, Lloyd’s was the global center for insuring shipping including the Transatlantic Slave Trade. During this dark period of history, enslaved people were transported as cargo, and insured as cargo in the Lloyd’s market. Much of Lloyd’s business at the time involved commodities – (wheat, rice, sugar, tea and coffee; tobacco, cotton or rubber; copper and gold) which were also likely to have been produced by enslaved people which meant some Lloyd’s members were enslavers or had interests in properties and estates that held enslaved people.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

Lloyd’s Coffee Shop| European Coffeehouses

Plan

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

Lloyd’s Coffee Shop| European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

THE EXCHANGE COFFEEHOUSE Architect unknown Providence, Rhode Island 1792 European Coffeehouse

The Exchange Coffee House, a three-story gambrel-roof building, was built near the bridge at the corner of the new waterfront street and one floor became the post office and office of the Gazette in 1793. In a second official listing of street names in 1805, the former Towne Street was renamed Main Street ; Hanover Street was changed to College Street; and the new street north of the Parade, on which the Coffee House stood, was named Water Street ( now Canal). As the first considerable improvement along the river of Providence, the Coffee House was recognized as the old building adjoining westward to the splendid granite block on the north side of Market Square. In its day it was considered as a wonderful effort in the architectural line. It was the first building erected in Providence where the floor joists were laid upon the plates or frame, instead of being let into them by means of tenons and mortises, as had previously been the practice. This innovation was soon acknowledged by the craft as generally being an improvement, inasmuch as labor was saved, and strength was added to the building by preserving the timber whole, and since that time this mode has been generally adopted by most other architects.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

The Exchange Coffeehouse | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

The Exchange Coffeehouse | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

EXCHANGE COFFEEHOUSE Asher Benjamin Boston, Massachusetts 1809-1818 European Coffeehouse

The Exchange Coffee House was built in 1809 and functioned as a hotel, coffeehouse, and place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Designed by architect Asher Benjamin, it was located at Congress Square on Congress Street, and it was one of the tallest buildings in the northeastern United States -- seven stories in height made it a sky-scraper of its day. It was built of stone, marble and brick, and ornamented by the three orders of architecture. it was seven stories in height and was in fact a sky-scraper of its day. Boston coffeehouses were generally meeting places of ‘Courtiers’ who were conservative in their views regarding church and state, being friends of the ruling administration. The coffeehouses also functioned as meeting spaces for business, politics, theater, concerts, exhibitions and other secular activities. However, the Exchange Coffee House burned down in November 1818. Its owners and financial backers lost most of their investment, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Despite this, the Exchange Coffee House was more than just a coffeehouse; its public rooms included a large hall, topped with a dome, which served as a merchant’s exchange, and it was also one of the only hotels in Boston in the early 1800s. Another distinguishing feature of the Exchange Coffee House was that it maintained a reading room, which had a selection of political and commercial documents, journals, and newspapers. Local merchants and patrons of the Exchange Coffee House who paid a yearly subscription were welcome to use the reading room. Much like today’s coffeehouses, the reading room and coffeehouse at the Exchange served as a hub of activity where people could gather to exchange ideas and discuss current events.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

Exchange Coffeehouse | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

Exchange Coffeehouse | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

CAFÉ CENTRAL Heinrich von Ferstel Herrengasse/Strauchgasse, Vienna, Austria 1875 - 1876 European Coffeehouses

The Palais Ferstel houses the Cafe Central as part of its multifunctional complex where intellectuals would often congregate and discuss various things within the lavish setting provided by the architects’ use of Viennese “romantic historicism”. While it did not initially start off as this massive intellectual center, it eventually took the place of a neighboring cafe that shut down and became a spot where highly educated groups of people, “literati”, and artists would gather to work, talk, read, or even gossip. In trying to uphold Vienna’s aspiration of being a hub of cultural diversity as well as a notable center for new culture, the coffeehouse provided “over 250 newspapers in 22 languages” for its guests to further incentivise them into frequenting this outwardly fancy establishment in the same typological fashion of early coffeehouses. Both interior and exterior played major roles in captivating the attention of these types of customers; the main entrance is beautifully adorned with classical sculpture/ ornament and is cleverly placed in a way that is immediately the focal point for many passer-byers who may be shopping in the area. As for the interior, chandeliers, velvet curtains, groin vaults, stucco paintings, glass roofs and much more contributed to this idea of grandeur and self-importance.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

Cafe Central | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

Cafe Central | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

CAFÉ BAUER Ende and Böckmann Corner of Unter den Linden und Friedrichstraße, Berlin, Germany 1878 European Coffeehouses

Cafe Bauer was an institution designed to attract various middle class customers with its particularly elaborate architectural and decorative design modeled after the luxurious stylings of the Belle Époque.. Two out of the five stories of the Bauer building were dedicated to the cafe’s space while the rest were a hotel. In terms of location, being placed by a main commercial street gave Cafe Bauer a highly desirable status; one of powerful prominence where respectable social interactions would take place. Not only did the interior offer its customers spaces with highly sought after “signs of wealth and civility” such as famous wall paintings, billiards/reading rooms with daily global newspapers and professional periodicals, and ladies rooms, but Cafe Bauer was also technologically advanced as gas fittings were placed in the crystal chandeliers and provided unprecedented amounts of lighting for a Viennese Cafe at the time, thus making it a popular destination for nightly activities and gatherings. The inclusion of ladies’ rooms were significant since, during the time period, visiting coffeehouses was typically part of a man’s agenda and was considered inappropriate for women to participate.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

Cafe Bauer | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

Cafe Bauer | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

THE PHILHARMONIC HOTEL Walter Thomas Hope Street and Hardman Street, Liverpool, England 1898-1900 European Coffeehouses

The Philharmonic serves as both a hotel on the top floors and a high-to-middle middle class coffeehouse on the ground level. The style of layout and decoration conformed to the type that attracted many artists/ journalists/ philosophers.. etc. to its doors. This was made possible by Walter Thomas’ use of combined traditional archetypes: modern Liverpudlian pubs and late Victorian London buildings. Like many other early coffeehouses, the Philharmonic was a public institution that gained popularity via uniquely immersing itself within the urban landscape. The classic English vernacular gives the building, as a whole, a comfortingly domestic sensation that still alludes to the familiarity of a gentleman’s pub interior. It aspired to emulate the wide-ranging feeling of either being in a small, intellectual public building such as a library or a wealthy man’s very large home. Whether people sat out in the open where the main cafe was situated or within the private ‘Brahms’ and ‘Liszt’ rooms (News and Smoke rooms), they were always met with a cool sense of comfort and belonging as the design aimed to follow a typology that took advantage of all of its combined inspirations’ attractive qualities.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

The Philharmonic Hotel | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

The Philharmonic Hotel | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

WILLOW TEA ROOMS Charles Rennie Mackintosh Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, Scotland 1904 European Coffeehouses

A relatively more contemporary coffeehouse where the Northern Art Nouveau style/ the Glasgow style takes over in terms of design and interior layout. The modern elements of simple facade decor as well as the open plan meant to convey a new, yet equally luxurious, cafe experience. The proprietors of this establishment were originally women with the intention of making their space one that caters to various types of high class customers. This is possible via the architect’s use of multiple room layouts that could accommodate various programs. Ranging from businessmen to society’s noble ladies, distinct and gendered room layouts lent themselves useful to dictating where everyone is supposed to end up. Designated smoking and billiards rooms were for the men to convene and discuss all types of business and various intellectual topics while “delicately decorated” tea rooms were for women only to attend gatherings without their male companions. Despite the variation on the interior, many still felt that, although they were still quite luxurious, the Willow Tea Rooms were vastly feminine and largely hosted womanly affairs.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

Willow Tea Rooms | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

Willow Tea Rooms | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

AMERICAN BAR/KÄRNTNERBAR Adolf Loos Kärntnerdurchgang, Vienna, Austria 1907- 1908 European Coffeehouses

The creation of an “American bar” in a European country was a relatively new idea at the time which made Adolf Loos’ Kärntnerbar all that more attractive to customers during that time period seeking expansion on their global and cultural knowledge. Hard liquor and “American” drinks were introduced to the coffee, tea, and beer drinking culture. On the outside, the cafe seems small, yet quite eye-catching to anyone walking by with its colorful facade that stands out amongst the adjacent, and more discreet looking buildings. The also small interior is elaborate in the sense that its minimalist form of ornamentation became striking as Loos insisted on creating a “private club room” feeling for anyone visiting the coffeehouse. The expensive nature of its decorative elements as well as elaborate architectural set-up make the small space feel large in importance - a space where non-trivial conversations and intellectual meetings could take place amongst certain groups of people. Since early coffeehouses were typically thought of as sort of “politely toned” spaces that are above common humor, they became a sort of tabula rasa of self-proclaimed civility amongst certain societal classes.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

American Bar/Kärntnerbar | European Coffeehouses

Plan

100

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

101

American Bar/Kärntnerbar | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

102

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

103

CAFFE BAR CRAJA Luciano Baldessari with Luigi Figini and Gino Pollini Piazza Cardinal Paolo Ferrari (Via San Dalmazio), Milan, Italy 1930 European Coffeehouses

104

The Caffe Bar Craja was designed based on futurist and expressionist movements to try and fit the more “logical” design language of the time period. Its design and layout, in typical coffeehouse convention, once again attracted many types of “high class” peoples such as philosophers, typographers, sociologists, critics, sculptors, writers, poets, musicians, thinkers and painters. With the Avant-garde art and philosophy movement being in full bloom, the Craja bar provided a space where the innovative and unorthodox are cultivated by its clientele. It was said that the rationalist space became a hub where visitors would sit in such arrangements that allowed for hierarchies and different social dynamics to occur within the small square footage of the entire caffe, thus further contributing to the longstanding coffeehouse tradition of “exclusivity and aloofness”. However, as opposed to previously discussed precedents, Craja had a seemingly uncomfortable and sterile environment (i.e., the use of extreme lighting conditions due to hidden lighting and reflective floor panels) to further provoke the notion of the power of modern, minimalistic expression. This was aimed at only attracting “elite” customers that would understand and appreciate the aesthetic enough to be able to hold the desired conversations once inside the caffe.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

105

Caffe Bar Craja | European Coffeehouses

Plan

106

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

107

Caffe Bar Craja | European Coffeehouses

Plan

Section

108

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

109

Eastern State | 112

Maison des Jeunes Detenus | 118

Newgate | 136

Panopticon | 142

PRISONS

110

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Mazas | 124

Millbank | 130

Presidio Modelo | 148

Projet De Prison | 154

The Prison Type contains precedents from Cuba, England, France, and United States. Solitary confinement was commonly seen as the best method for reformation of individuals in most precedents, especially in France and the United States. The concept of the Panopticon arises to redesign these prison ideologies which often possessed heinous brutality towards the prisoners. The panopticon optimizes the resources needed to adequately survey the cell block, but ultimately inventivenesses corruption within the guards.

111

EASTERN STATE John Haviland Philadelphia, PA 1829 Prison

112

At the time of its construction, Eastern State Penitentiary was one of the largest and most expensive public structures in America. The system created and designed around a new form of ‘rehabilitation’, known as solitary confinement, was revolutionary at the time. This somewhat new idea of solitary confinement in prisons became known as the ‘Pennsylvania System’ due to the conception of Eastern State Penitentiary. After heavy criticism, this system was abandoned and looked down upon in 1913 which is reflected in the prison’s additions. In terms of the individual cell designs they “...were made of concrete with a single glass skylight, representing the ‘Eye of God’...”. Outside of the cells there was access to some individual areas for exercise which were enclosed by significantly high walls to ensure the continuation of this solitary confinement method even outdoors. Additionally, during this outdoor time the system was created so that “... no two prisoners next to each other would be out at the same time.” Notably, the wings of cell blocks in the prison all converge to a ‘central surveillance rotunda’ which echoes the continued influence of the panopticon in western prisons.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/256

256

512 FT

113

Eastern State | Prison

Plan

114

1/256

256

512 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/16

32 FT

115

Eastern State | Prison

Plan

Section

116

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/16

32 FT

117

MAISON DES JEUNES DETENUS Unknown Architect Paris, France 1876 Prison

Maison des Jeunes Détenus was a prison for “reforming” juvinale criminals. Children were held there in solitary confinement, which was believed to repent their wrongdoings. However the isolation was not as rigorous as in adult prisons: children could communicate with staff of the prison and hear noises from other cells. The walks outside were also solitary confined in special semi-open structures outside. Every sunday children were attending the prison church in individual closed cubicles. Description of individual cells reads: “Each child has his cell lit by a window and containing a bed-hammock composed of a box spring, a mattress, blanket and bolster, a wooden stepladder, a table and toilet utensils. His workbench and tools are placed against the wall. Wooden shelves support his tableware and small items for his use.” The prison has since been demolished.

118

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/48

96 FT

119

Maison des Jeunes Detenus | Prison

Plan

120

1/140

140

280 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/24

48 FT

121

Maison des Jeunes Detenus | Prison

Plan

Section

122

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/20

40 FT

123

MAZAS Émile Gilbert Paris, France 1845 Prison

Designed by architect Émile Gilbert, Mazas was opened in 1841 and used to be located near the Gare de Lyon in Paris, France. The building was destroyed in 1900 for the upcoming Paris Exhibition. Inmates were mostly held in solitary confinement, however, there were exceptions and some have been living in pairs. The “cell prison” structure was inspired by the American prison system and was popular at the time, hoping that isolation would reform the prisoners. Prisoners were taking walks outside confined into individual “promenoire cellulaire”. The description of the structural and prison system of Mazas states: “Built to accommodate 1,200 inmates, the prison consisted of six three-storey buildings, radiating around a central tower 45 meters high, at the level of which was a glazed rotunda giving a view of the entire interior of the prison. Above stood a chapel where Sunday masses were given which could be seen by all the prisoners. There was also a parlor and a library . Six 80-meter corridors converged on the rotunda. Each had two hundred cells on three floors. Mazas was guarded by seventy overseers. No escape attempt succeeded. … The individual cells were 2.60 m high by 1.85 m wide and 3.85 m long with a brick floor. The furniture, however basic, consisted of a hammock suspended from crampons 50 cm from the ground, a table, a wooden stool, a water container, two wrought iron bowls, an odorless commode fan, a gas burner and four wooden supports placed at the corners.”

124

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/128

128

256 FT

125

Mazas | Prison

Plan

126

1/128

128

256 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/16

32 FT

127

Mazas | Prison

Plan

Section

128

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/16

32 FT

129

MILLBANK William Williams Westminster, London 1816 Prison

130

Architect William Williams based the design of Millbank directly from the principles of Bentham’s panopticon. The prison held both male and female prisoners. The quality of life at Millbank was horrifying and psychologically damaging as “Prisoners were not permitted to speak to one another or socialize in any way for the first half of their sentences. Masks were worn so they could not see each other’s faces during exercise periods and there was a single cell occupation rule throughout the prison.” Additionally, prisoners were forced to conduct non-productive tasks “...such as turning a screw until it clicked…” until they were permitted to stop. A large design flaw that hindered their ‘reform’ methods were the lengthy corridors that caused guards to get lost on surveillance duty. To continue, because the prison site was located in the ‘marshy banks’ of Thames the prison quickly became disease infested. This along with other design related issues caused the downfall of Millbank and the prison closed only 8 decades later in 1890.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/168

168

334 FT

131

Millbank | Prison

Plan

132

1/168

168

334 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/16

32 FT

133

Millbank | Prison

Plan

Section

134

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/16

32 FT

135

NEWGATE Unknown Architect London, UK 1880 Prison

Newgate was one of London’s oldest prisons, it worked for over 700 years. It was demolished and rebuilt many times, but the precedent we are studying is the way it looked in 1880’s. In that time period it moved its famous public executions, events that drew crowds, from the outside of the prison to its quarters. Prisoners in Newgate were ranging from debtors to ones awaiting execution. The prison was notorious for its unsanitary conditions and epidemic outbreaks: “Newgate Prison was a dismal, unhealthy place. Approximately thirty people died there every year. Physicians often refused to enter the prison and people passing by held their noses.” (Linebaugh, 28) In 1880’s the building had an almost impenetrable facade with fake windows, prisoner cells were designed around inner courtyards and had no windows to the outside of the prison building. Newgate was also very overcrowded, thus it kept expanding over the years. The prison was finally demolished for the last time in 1904, after closing in 1902.

136

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/64

128 FT

137

Newgate | Prison

Plan

138

1/64

128 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/24

48 FT

139

Newgate | Prison

Plan

Section

140

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/24

48 FT

141

PANOPTICON Jeremy Bentham Concept 1785 Prison

142

Philosopher and social theorist, Jeremy Bentham, invented the conceptual design and prison system that is known as the ‘Panopticon’. The panopticon is referred to as a ‘social control mechanism’ that influenced the western world’s ideas and beliefs in terms of methods of imprisonment and discipline. The founding principle of this system is described as a way “...to monitor the maximum number of prisoners with the fewest possible guards and other security costs.” The layout consists of a central tower that is surrounded by prison cells in a ring-like shape. Additionally, every cell has one open side that only has a view to the central tower. What is significant about this view is that prisoners can not see guards inside of this central tower. This creates a psychological terror and a sociological effect where “...the prisoners are aware of the presence of authority at all times, even though they never know exactly when they are being observed.”

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/24

48 FT

143

Panopticon | Prison

Plan

144

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/24

48 FT

145

Panopticon | Prison

Plan

Section

146

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/50

12.5

100 FT

147

PRESIDIO MODELO Dictator Gerardo Machado Chacón, Cuba 1928 Prison

148

The Presidio Modelo in Cuba is an example of a panopticon and demonstrates the westernized shift in penal theory. The design consists of five circular blocks that are heavily influenced by Bentham’s panopticon. Each of these blocks has a central guard tower. The prison held up to 2,500 prisoners, some of them being important political figures such as Fidel Castro. Due to overcrowding which led to protests, the prison eventually permanently shut down in 1967.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/40

80 FT

149

Presidio Modelo | Prison

Plan

150

1/40

80 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/40

80 FT

151

Presidio Modelo | Prison

Plan

Section

152

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/40

80 FT

153

PROJET DE PRISON Claude Nicolas Ledoux Aix-en-Provence, France 1786 Prison

154

Claude-Nicholas Ledoux designed Projet de Prison to act as both a ‘tomb’ and a ‘fortress’. The design of the prison, in plan, consists of a square with four inner courts surrounded by prison cells on the perimeter of the space. This prison was designed only one year after the conception of Bentham’s panopticon, so there is no presence of a central surveillance. The form consists of four towers on each end of a central cubic form.

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Elevation

1/72

144 FT

155

Projet De Prison | Prison

Plan

156

1/72

144 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Section

1/72

144 FT

157

Projet De Prison | Prison

Plan

Section

158

Elevation

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Overlay

1/72

144 FT

159

Dickinson’s Slave Auction Site | 162

New York Slave Market | 168

Lumpkin’s Jail | 192

SLAVE MARKETS

160

St. Louis Hotel | 198

Market Squ

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

uare | 174

Price, Birch, & CO | 180

Montmollin Building | 204

Old Slave Market, FL | 186

Old Slave Mart, SC | 210

The Slave Markets discussed in this chapter were all situated within the US where explorations of architectural design, location, and programmatic function are being analyzed. The typology of Slave Markets is multifaceted one that deals with many oppressive socio-economic implications. Through historical and pictorial documentation, the markets, here, are looked at with a critical and scrutinizing point of view.

161

DICKINSON’S SLAVE AUCTION Architect unknown Richmond, Virginia 18th Century European Coffeehouse

162

R. H. Dickinson was a slave trader in Richmond. Born probably on his parents’ Caroline County plantation, he moved to Richmond and went into the slave-trading business there with one or both of his brothers. They purchased slaves in Virginia and Maryland for resale in bigger, Deep South markets. A group of African Americans stand at the corner of Franklin and Wall streets in Richmond, beside the building that once served as an auction room for slaves. Originally a tobacco warehouse, the building was later used by slave dealers, including R. H. Dickinson. This image was made by an unknown photographer before 1920, when the building was demolished.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

163

Dickinson’s Slave Auction | Slave Markets

Plan

164

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

165

Dickinson’s Slave Auction | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

166

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

167

NEW YORK SLAVE MARKET Architect unknown New York, New York 1711 European Coffeehouse

168

With the aggressive increase in the slave trade and the expansion of the New York city, an official slave market opened in 1711 by the East River on Wall Street between Pearl and Water Streets. By 1730, the enslaved population—which ranged between 15 and 20 percent of the total—literally built the city and was the engine that made its economy run. The slave market on Wall Street closed in 1762 but men, women, and children continued to be bought and sold throughout the city. After the abolition of slavery, which became effective on July 4, 1827, New York’s shameful history of discrimination, racism, rigid segregation, and anti-black violence continued. By the 1850s, the city was dominating the illegal international slave trade to the American South, Brazil, and Cuba. New York benefited much from slavery and the slave trade: southern cotton and sugar sailed to Europe from its harbor.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

169

New York Slave Market | Slave Markets

Plan

170

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

171

New York Slave Market | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

172

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

173

MARKET SQUARE Architect unknown Providence, Rhode Island 1775 European Coffeehouse

174

As the commercial hub of colonial Providence, Market Square has been suggested as the likely site of slave sales, which constituted a significant portion of commerce in the 18th century city. The identification of the site as a slave market, however, has not been confirmed by primary sources. Market House was built by many hands beginning in 1775. Black laborers were essential in this work, beginning with site preparation, masonry, material-gathering and more throughout the whole process. Pero Paget, Thomas Shoemaker and Pomp Smith all made significant contributions to labor. Once it opened, Black entrepreneurs worked the market stalls inside and out. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Market Square served as an important commercial venue for free Black entrepreneurs in the city. The Market House was given to Rhode Island School of Design for educational purposes in the autumn of 1950. Market Square is located at the intersection of present-day North Main Street and College Street at the base of College Hill nowadays.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

175

Market Square | Slave Markets

Plan

176

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

177

Market Square | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

178

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

179

PRICE, BIRCH & CO Architect unknown 1315 Duke St, Alexandria, Virgina 1810 European Coffeehouse

180

The Price, Birch & CO building was built as a private residence in 1810 for Robert Young. It was then converted to the offices of Isaac Franklin and John Armfield, the owners of the largest slave trading firm in the United States. The building was infamous at the time and was known as the Franklin and Armfield Office. Along with the offices, it included slave holding pens where slaves awaited auction. In 1858, Price, Birch & CO, another slave trading company took over the building and the building’s name changed accordingly. It is estimated that as many as one million slaves occupied the building in its time as a slave market between both companies. It is documented that when slavery was abolished, the Union Army found the building abandoned- everything was taken with the exception of one slave who was an older man who was chained to the floor. It was then used as a military prison by the Union until 1866. Then it was used as a hospital for black soldiers called L’Ouverture Hospital during the Civil War. The building is now home to the Freedom House Museum which devoted its exhibits to documenting the slave trade. The second floor of the building is now occupied by the Northern Virginia Urban League. The building is made of mortar and seamlessly blends in the visual scenery of the rest of the city, successfully disguising the dark business that took place on the inside.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

181

Price, Birch & CO | Slave Markets

Plan

182

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

183

Price, Birch & CO | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

184

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

185

OLD SLAVE MARKET Architect unknown 170 St. George St, St. Augustine, Florida 1824 European Coffeehouse

186

The Old Slave Marktet was first built in 1824 in St. Augustine near the mouth of the Matanzas River which leads to the Atlantic Ocean. In 1888, the market was expanded and only one year later it burned down and was then rebuilt in 1893. When it was first built, it was used as a market to exchange food and commercial goods but city records and newspaper reports document that slave sales took place in the market. Today, the market still stands and is located in the Plaza de la Constitución, a public park. It is noted that although the market has a dark history, it is mostly used as a public gathering space that is often filled with craft vendors and musicians. This slave market was an open air market with main entrances in the front and back. Because the market was open air, it is easy to infer that the act of slave selling was more of a casual, everyday occurrence. The violence of slave selling/trading was so engrained in everyday life that there was no need to hide the act behind closed doors as it is seen in more northern slave markets.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

187

Old Slave Market | Slave Markets

Plan

188

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

189

Old Slave Market | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

190

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

191

LUMPKIN’S JAIL Architect unknown Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, Richmond, Virginia 1830 European Coffeehouse

192

Richmond, Virginia was the largest slave trading hub in the United States outside of New Orleans from the 1830s to the Civil War. Lumpkin’s Complex, otherwise known as “the Devil’s Halfacre” sat in the heart of Richmond in Shockoe Bottom among a multitude of other buildings including gallows, tobacco warehouses, and African American cemeteries. The lot of the complex measured about 60 feet by 160 feet and included Lumpkin’s Jail which held slaves as they awaited sale. The complex also included Robert Lumpkin’s house (the master’s house) where many-a-party were held, just a stone’s throw away from the jail. Lumpkin was a “bully trader,” known for his violent and cruel manner. His acts of violence were reported to be both in public and in private in the whipping room inside of the jail. Although the complex was only about three blocks away from the State Capitol Building, the dark business that was conducted there went highly unrecognized. When Lumpkin died, his property was left to his wife, Mary, a light skinned slave that he owned and fathered five children with. Mary sold the property which was then used as an exclusively black seminary. In 1888, the lot was excavated to be used by Richmond Iron works and today, an embankment for Interstate 95 and a parking lot currently occupy the space. In 2005, the James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc. began an archaeology investigation of the site, uncovering the foundation of the jail about 14 feet below the ground. The Lumpkin Complex was architecturally blended into the rest of Richmond, which partially enabled the violent acts to take place. Lumpkin’s Jail is, in a way, visually unassuming. It reads as any other building on a residential lot as it looks very similar to a residential home.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

193

Lumpkin’s Jail | Slave Markets

Plan

194

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

195

Lumpkin’s Jail | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

196

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

197

ST. LOUIS HOTEL J.N.B. de Pouilly 621 St. Louis St, New Orleans, Louisiana 1838 European Coffeehouse

198

The St. Louis Hotel, built in 1838, was located in the French Quarter of New Orleans. The hotel provided a space for aristocratic Creoles and visiting Europeans to take part in many social activities including: eating, drinking, and buying and selling slaves. Slave auctions took place in the rotunda of the hotel where there elevated auction blocks that were noticeable from the entrance of the hotel. There is one account by Joseph Le Carpentier, a slave trader, that records $57,000 of slave trading revenue in1840. Today, that is the equivalent of about $1.6 million dollars. Before the Civil War, the hotel was extremely popular and often hosted balls and meetings. In 1841, the whole hotel burnt down and was rebuilt soon after. During the Civil War, the hotel was used as a hospital for Union soldiers, completely losing its glamorous reputation. Over time, it changed hands many times and was eventually completely destroyed in a hurricane in 1915. It was not rebuilt until the 1960s as a hotel named the Royal Orleans. Today, it is owned by the Omni Hotels & Resorts company which functions as a hotel, meeting, and wedding venue. The ornate exterior and interior of the hotel create an enticing appeal toward the building. The rotunda, which is where the slave auction took place, was nearly invisible from the street level, successfully hiding the dark act of commerce that took place within.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

199

St. Louis Hotel | Slave Markets

Plan

200

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

201

St. Louis Hotel | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

202

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

203

MONTMOLLIN BUILDING Architect unknown 23 Barnard St, Savannah, Georgia 1855 European Coffeehouse

The Montmollin Building is located in Savannah, Georgia in Decker Ward. The third floor was used as a slave trading space by John Montmollin and Alexander Bryan from the mid 1850s to December 1864 when the surrender of Savannah took place. Once slavery was abolished and the slave trading was shut down there, the building became a school for freed slaves, called the Bryan Free School and was opened in early 1865. Though the building is still standing and houses a pet supply store called Woof Gang Bakery, the condition and/or use of the third floor is unknown and the store does not acknowledge that it was once used in the slave trade. Similar to the Price, Birch & CO Building, the Montmollin building was a mortar building that blended into the landscape of the city. Most images of the building at the time that it was used as a slave market show all of the windows boarded up, hiding the slave trade.

204

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

205

Montmollin Building | Slave Markets

Plan

206

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

207

Montmollin Building | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

208

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

209

OLD SLAVE MART Architect unknown 6 Chalmers St, Charleston, South Carolina 1859 European Coffeehouse

210

The Old Slave Mart of Charleston, South Carolina functioned as a slave mart from the late 1850s until Union occupation in Charleston in February 1865. It provided an enclosed, private space to buy and sell slaves as public slave auctions were banned by the city in 1856 and went by the name of Ryan’s Mart because it was established by Thomas Ryan, a broker and City Councilman. In 1859, another slave autoneer named Z. B. Oakes bought the building and built what is now still standing and called the Old Slave Mart. Under the new ownership, the building was used as an auction gallery. The gallery was one open room with a 20 foot ceiling height. With the abolishment of slavery, remaining slaves held in the Old Slave Mart were released by Union forces in 1865 and the building was converted into a tenement with an addition of a second floor. Now, it houses the Old Slave Mart Museum which has dedicated its collection to the acknowledgment and preservation of the buildings history as it is considered the last standing slave auction mart in the state. The building at the time that it was a slave market had a facade of stucco covered mortar and the entrance was made of shanty wood paneling. The building number was carved into the wood doors, creating a somewhat informal or secretive feeling to the building. To add to that, the lack of eye-level windows visually hid what was going on inside the building.

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Elevation

211

Old Slave Mart | Slave Markets

Plan

212

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Section

213

Old Slave Mart | Slave Markets

Plan

Section

214

Elevation

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Overlay

215

Slave Lodge | 218

Magnolia Plantation | 222

Mount Vernon | 226

Kingsley Plantation | 236

Santo Domingo | 242

Hamilton Plantation

SLAVE QUARTERS

216

Casey | Shimada| Williams

Mulberry Row | 230

Wallblake House | 234

| 246

Evergreen Plantation | 250

Uncle Sam Plantation | 254

As a group, discussion around the Slave Quarters included topics such as program, location, separation and size. We decided to add Site Maps to our precedents to emphasize the importance of separation between masters and slave living conditions. This also creates an understanding of size variety and plantation program. Through a series of Elevations, the progression of slave Quarters can be seen as progressive within a Type. Many simple and repetitive geometries.

217

SLAVE LODGE Architect Unknown Cape Town, ZA 1669/ 1693/ 1752/ 1809 Slave Quarter

218

Second Oldest building still standing in Cape Town, the Slave Lodge was originally designed in 1669 to house the Dutch East India Company, and through time progressed to become a hoarding lodge for the enslaved to be transported until 1811. It was then re-birthed to government offices and the 287 slaves who remained in the slave lodge were relocated. The consistent rebirth of the architectural type was due to things like insufficient space, overcrowd and program. With a growing history, the slave lodge also contained many different programs, facades, and adaptations in accordance to the changing societal needs in South Africa. From slave lodge, to government offices, to now a museum, the Slave Lodge proves the concept of societal renovation.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

1752 Site Plan

0 10

100m

219

Slave Lodge | Slave Quarters

Plan

Section

220

30m

Elevation

30m

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 10

100m

221

MAGNOLIA PLANTATION Architect Unknown Charleston, SC 1676 Slave Quarter

222

In 1753, Jean Baptiste LeComte I received a land grant on both sides of the Cane River laying the foundation for a cotton plantation unrivaled in the Cane River region. Magnolia plantation has an interesting history with war. At the plantation’s peak 275 enslaved persons were housed in 70 cabins. Many family members and workers were killed and wounded during the civil war. During the Red River Campaign in 1852 union troops retreating killed the Overseer and burned the plantation’s main house. Formerly enslaved workers remained on the plantation as sharecroppers, tenants, and day laborers, with the main house being rebuilt in the 1890’s.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

CA ER

RIV

Site Plan

200

400

800ft

223

Magnolia Plantation | Slave Quarters

Plan

0 12

10ft

Section

0 12

10ft

224

Elevation

0 12

10ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

CA ER

RIV

Overlay

200

400

800ft

225

MOUNT VERNON Client: George Washington Mount Vernon, VA 1758 Slave Quarter

226

Mount Vernon was the home of George Washington. It was composed of five farms that spanned around 8000 acres. The enslaved people at the “Mansion House Farm” lived in the wings of the greenhouse. Where the enslaved people lived depended on the tasks that they were made to perform, the big majority assigned to field labor. The homes and workspaces of the enslaved people were separated from the mansion by trees and walls that blocked sights, sounds and smells.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 25 50 100

200ft

227

Mount Vernon | Slave Quarters

Plan

Section

228

80ft

Elevation

80ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 25 50 100

200ft

229

MULBERRY ROW Thomas Jefferson Monticello, VA 1772 Slave Quarter

230

Mulberry Row was the center of the plantation activity at Monticello, it was the site of a row of mainly temporary structures that served the 5000 acre plantation and the big house. In the Mulberry Row there were 4 slave quarters that housed hundred of men, women and children between the 1770s and 1831. Thomas Jefferson tried to reduce the use of violence in slavery, Jefferson offered tips and percentages of the workshops profits instead. As well as working on crops, the slaves in Mulberry Row learned skilled trades. In 1794, Jefferson started a nail making enterprise and in 1812, he established a textile enterprise in his plantation.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 25 50 100

200ft

231

Mulberry Row | Slave Quarters

Plan

8ft

Section

8ft

232

Elevation

8ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 25 50 100

200ft

233

WALLBLAKE HOUSE Will Blake Anguila 1787 Slave Quarter

234

Wallblake House, a 97 acre sugar and cotton plantation was assumed to be primarily owned by Will Blake, there’s an assumption the name of the plantation was a skewed perception of his name. While most documents mention the consistent change in owners of the house, there are documents showing that the Wallblake house had the largest slave compensation for a single estate on the island (£5,565 for 135 slaves) in the early 1800’s. Home to many slaves, the only location documented for the living of the slaves, is a small quarter near the house, although the original plans of the extended plantation are unavailable, the plans of the known buildings shows the lack of space for the amount of slaves owned.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

100m

Site Plan

235

Wallblake House | Slave Quarters

Plan

Section

236

Elevation

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

100m

Overlay

237

KINGSLEY PLANTATION Architect Unknown Jacksonville, FL 1797 Slave Quarter

238

Located in a rather different geographical location from other plantations in the US on our list, this plantation lies on Fort George Island in a large marshy ecological preserve in Florida. The history of this plantation has roots outside American rule as it was built in Florida during Spanish rule. The plantation owner Zephiniah Kingsley came with his wife Anna who was a born enslaved Senegalese woman full name Anna Madgigine Jai. During their time in Florida under Spanish rule Zephiniah and Anna both jointly looked over the plantation as business partners. Anna ended up owning a couple of slaves herself as well as land. She later moved abroad to Haiti with her children to establish a new plantation as a result of a change in rule. (Shifted to the United States at that time her status as a freed woman and ability to own property was jeopardized).

FORT G

EORG

E RIVE

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 50 100

200

400ft

239

Kingsley Plantation | Slave Quarters

Plan

0 2

20ft

Section

0 2

20ft

240

Elevation

0 2

20ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house

FORT G

EORG

E RIVE

Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 50 100

200

400ft

241

SAINT DOMINGUE Pierre Joseph Laborie Saint Domingue 1798 Slave Quarter

242

Pierre Joseph Laborie was a planter from Saint Domingue, a French colony that sat where Dominican Republic and Haiti are today. He wrote a manual for building and operating a coffee plantation. Laborie provides plans and sections for the slave quarters and states that “every Negro must make a couch or hurdle-bed for himself”. He suggests that every enslaved person be given a lot that is “twenty five paces square”, since “property of this sort is what most attaches them to the estate”. Laborie advises on how to treat the enslaved people and says that “chastisement is unfortunately necessary”.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 5 10

40m

243

Saint Domingue| Slave Quarters

Plan

0 1 2

Section

0 1 2

244

Elevation

0 1 2

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 5 10

40m

245

HAMILTON PLANTATION Architect Unknown St. Simons Island, GA 1793 Slave Quarter

246

The Cabins were designed to house slaves on the Hamilton plantation, a smaller portion of the Gascoigne bluff. Great examples of Tabby architecture, these cabins were owned by James Hamilton and were parked right next to Frederica River. The plantation was burned down in 1890 and later turned into a mill. Although there’s no trace of the pre-existing plantation plans, the tabby cabins were restored by a historical reservation organization and turned into a garden across from a church who now owns the land. The cabins were assumed to house 2 families.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

100

200ft

247

Hamilton Plantation | Slave Quarters

Plan

0 1

10ft

Section

0 1

10ft

248

Elevation

0 1

10ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

100

200ft

249

EVERGREEN PLANTATION Architect Unknown Wallace, LA 1832 Slave Quarter

250

Considered to be among the most intact plantations in the South and not open for tours, the Evergreen Plantation stands out in its modern day use with a focus on historical record and telling the stories of the enslaved. Historically the evergreen plantation produced sugar cane crops and over the course of 150 years, held 400 slaves. The plantation had a very skilled array of enslaved workers ranging from skilled long sawyers, coopers, carpenters, blacksmiths, engineers, seamstresses, and domestics. This plantation resembles what one could call a stereotypical southern plantation used in movies. Large mature oak tree rows line the 22 slave quarters, a pattern seen amongst many plantations throughout the south.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

SUGAR FIELDS

SLAVE QUARTERS

SUGAR FIELDS

Site Plan

0 100

300

600

1200ft

251

Evergreen Plantation | Slave Quarters

Plan

0 2.5 5

10ft

Section

0 2.5 5

10ft

252

Elevation

0 2.5 5

10ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

SUGAR FIELDS

SLAVE QUARTERS

SUGAR FIELDS

Overlay

0 100

300

600

1200ft

253

UNCLE SAM PLANTATION Colonel Joseph Constance Convent, LA 1829 Slave Quarter

254

The Uncle Sam plantation, originally named Constancia Plantation after the architect, was roughly 1300 acres, with presence of the great house, slave quarter, mills and a slave hospital. All of which were made of brick except the slave quarter. The plantation store was a big business maker for the owners where they sold the sugar milled on the plantation. The plantation contained both white and black workers. White workers lived near the great house in bricked forms. While slaves lived further in the back of the plantation in rows of cabins.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

100

250

500

1000ft

255

Uncle Sam Plantation| Slave Quarters

Plan

2.5

20ft

Section

2.5

20ft

256

Elevation

2.5

20ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

100

250

500

1000ft

257

Sion Hill | 260

Salt Works | 264

Worker Houses | 26

Bay State Mills | 280

Menier Chocolate Company | 284

Cotton Mills | 288

WORKER/COMPANY TOWNS

258

Casey | Shimada |Williams

Worker Cottages | 272

Boott Cotton Mills | 276

Oficina Maria Elena | 292

Morgan Park | 296

Worker/Company Towns are distributed homes, normally built in repetitive styles, for white workers on plantations. These individuals are seen as “less than” the White Plantation owners by the Plantation Owners because of their financial status. The Separation creates a hierarchy in power and places “poor” white men and women in a place of working, and living within these worker towns. Most worker towns are low budgeted constructions.

259

SION HILL Architect Unknown St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 1765 Worker/Company Towns

260

The 18th Century Sugar plantation and Rum Dispensary has remained structurally sound with many ruins still intact. The site includes a classical Revival Great House, sugar and rum mills, a privy, basements, cookhouse, stable and the factory. The Factory isn’t the normal “T” shaped plan, instead distilleries were added as well allowing the factory to be broken up into 5 main parts in planned to the site being on a hill, many retaining walls were added to sustain foundation for the structure.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

100

200

400ft

261

Sion Hill | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

40ft

Section

40ft

262

Elevation

40ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

100

200

400ft

263

SALTWORKS Claude-Nicolas Ledoux Arc-et-Senan, France 1779 Worker/Company Towns

264

Commissioned by King Louis XV, the Royal Saltworks was a civic campus with the purpose of standardizing and controlling the production of salt. The 11 buildings are arranged in a semicircle with the house of the director in the center for surveillance. Ledoux believed that the architecture and the ensemble of the Saltworks would “elevate the soul of its people” and generate social progress.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 12 25

100m

265

Salt Works | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

0 2 4

16m

Section

0 2 4

16m

266

Elevation

0 2 4

16m

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 12 25

100m

267

WORKER HOUSING, CHIPPENHAM James Wyatt / Thomas Sandys / John Tharp Chipperham, UK 1782 / 1880 Worker/Company Towns

Chippenham is a village and civil parish in Cambridgeshire, England, part of East Cambridgeshire which covers 4,300 acres. The great house, by James Wyatt, was later bought by John Tharp, who had a large fortune in Jamaican Plantations. Tharp hired Sandys to design the workers’ cottages later down the line to accommodate for his growing plantation. Cottages housed a minimum of 8 employees.

268

Casey | Shimada | Williams

1880 Site Plan

100

200

400m

269

Worker Housing, Chippenham | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

2.5

10m

Section

2.5

10m

270

Elevation

2.5

10m

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

100

200

400m

271

WORKERS COTTAGES, PRESTON Architect Unknown Preston, UK 1830 Worker/Company Towns

272

The Workers Cottages in Preston, UK were used for workers in the cotton industry. They were also very unsanitary which led to sickness and sometimes death. This led to a “report of sanitary conditions in Preston” by the reverend at the time. He Highlighted the conditions of the cottages. That being in the backyards of the two rows of cottages, where the privies were present, was a guide to contents within the Privy down the drains and into the streets. Doors were torn down to be used as tables,

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 10

100m

273

Workers Cottages, Preston | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

Section

274

0 1

2.5

20m

10m

Elevation

0 1

20m

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 10

100m

275

BOOTT COTTON MILLS Architect Unknown Lowell, MA 1835 Worker/Company Towns

276

Built in Lowell, MA on the same river as the Bay State Mills; This development embodied what most closely resembled a fortress. For more than 100 years the bell called people to work, ranging anywhere from 10 to 14 hours a day. Sounds of machinery clanking, and rushing water from wheels & turbines could be heard throughout the day. The fortress-like walls, the constant sound of productivity and the bell were all constant reminders of one’s duties and regulated workers’ lives.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

100

200

400ft

277

Boott Cotton Mills | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

0 5 10

40ft

Section

0 5 10

40ft

278

Elevation

0 5 10

40ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

100

200

400ft

279

BAY STATE MILLS Architect Unknown Lawrence, MA 1860 Worker/Company Towns

280

Located in Lawrence, MA a city of many mills. The Bay State Mills machinery first began operating in 1848. The Bay State Mills consisted of three almost identical brick buildings each a good 9 stories tall. Main manufactured staples were manufactured woolen, worsted and cotton goods. The Mill initially shut down as a result of the financial crash of 1857 and it was later renamed to Washington Mills.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

CANAL

MERRIMACK RIVER

Site Plan

100

200

400

800ft

281

Bay State Mills | Worker/Company Towns

PRIVY

CESPOOL

CLOSET

BACKSTAIRS

WELL

Plan

282

5 10

40ft

Elevation

5 10

40ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

CANAL

MERRIMACK RIVER

Overlay

100

200

400

800ft

283

MENIER CHOCOLATE COMPANY Jean-Antoine Brutus Menier Noisel-sur-Marne, France 1872 Worker/Company Towns

284

Located 15 miles outside of Paris, Menier Chocolate Company of Noisiel was an industrial village designed to serve the chocolate factory. With the expansion of the factory and the long distance from Paris, the company needed to build housing to attract employees. The company town was composed of the main factory that was built in 1825, 156 semi detached cottages for two families, a school, library, restaurants, a church and a cemetery. The cottages were well lit and ventilated and contained piped water, storm sewers and gas and later electricity. Although modest, the two family houses won a medal at the Paris Exhibition for its quality in materials and construction.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 50 100

200

400m

285

Menier Chocolate Company | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

Section

286

Elevation

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 50 100

200

400m

287

COTTON MILLS Author: Daniel Tompkins South Carolina 1889 Worker/Company Towns

288

In Cotton Mill: Commercial Features, Daniel Tompkins lays out how to build and operate a cotton mill. The company town was set in rural settings in order to isolate itself from the city. Tompkins says that the isolation allows for “freedom from city taxes and intrusive lawyers, as well as more efficient workers, who, without the distractions of urban amusements, went to bed early.” Tompkins provides plans for the construction of the houses for the workers and advises that “the house ought to furnish one operative for each room in the house”. In his plans, Tompkins segregated black workers from white workers. He claims that it “would seem impossible to work a force of mixed white and black labor” and that “there is no instance (...) where a mixed organization of whites and blacks of both sexes have worked together successfully”

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

0 100 200

400

800ft

289

Cotton Mills | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

0 2 4

16ft

Section

0 2 4

16ft

290

Elevation

0 2 4

16ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

0 100 200

400

800ft

291

OFICINA MARIA ELENA Architect Unknown Canton El Toco, Chile 1926 Worker/Company Towns

292

Designed to be an ideal city, the Oficina Marina Elena, a nitrate mining district, uses formal geometry to organize its spaces. It has an octagonal shape with four bigger sides and four smaller ones that are one third of the bigger ones. The community buildings for everyday use, such as the grocery store, school, church, theater, museum and library, are placed in the center, near the plaza. The ones not used as frequently such as the hospital and retirement home are placed further from the center. The town had about 1500 housing buildings that housed over 10,500 people.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

100

200

400m

293

Oficina Maria Elena | Worker/Company Towns

Plan

0 24

16m

Section

0 24

16m

294

Elevation

0 24

16m

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

100

200

400m

295

MORGAN PARK Architect Unknown Duluth,MN 1930 Worker/Company Towns

296

Originally Constructed by US Steel as a planned community for its employees, this mini town resembled the suburban sprawl. In its initial design phase the town’s name was Model City. The town included a plethora of community buildings including a school, churches, a hospital and even law enforcement. The Morgan Park Company assumed responsibility for all exterior and facility maintenance and failure to comply with company standards could result in deductions from one’s paycheck. In this town all aspects of one’s life was in a way owned by the company as health facilities, public safety, religious facilities, educational facilities and groceries were all owned by the company and therefore because of the company.

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Site Plan

50 100

200

400ft

297

Morgan Park | Worker/Company Towns

FLOOR 1

FLOOR 2

Plan

40ft

Section

40ft

298

Elevation

40ft

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Community Plantations / Industires Slave Quarter / Worker house Big House / Manager House

Overlay

50 100

200

400ft

299

300

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

BIG HOUSES & PRISONS Typological Analysis Through the study of precedents within each typology and across the two types we reach an understanding of a specific design language. This understanding is informed by distinguishing symbolic facade typologies within Big Houses. Comparing the repetitive sectional order of prisons. The modular geometric systems used in prisons to promote uniformity. Similarities within the programmatic layout of different Big Houses. Finally, by comparing across the types we begin to understand how design contributes in establishing a hierarchy of governance and promotes systems of containment, surveillance, and dominance

301

Montpelier | Ashland

Hermitage | Evergreen

Panopticon | Presidio Modelo

Staunton Hill | Mon

Eastern State | Mazas

SPLIT FACADES This set of drawings explores the typology of big houses as outward facing structures. By taking the facades and comparing them, we explore how the building presents to the viewers, how it asserts power and dominance over the land and the enslaved people. The comparisons try to find similarities in varying big houses to establish a typology of this structure.

302

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

nticello

Riversdale | Montpelier

Maison des Jeunes Détenus | Millbank

Riversdale | Staunton Hill

Newgate | Projet de Prison

SPLIT SECTIONS Prisons, in turn, are the inward facing structures focused on controlling and containing everything inside. Thus, the facade becomes less important and our study shifts to the inside - the sections. Here, we again investigate the similarities in prisons to establish the parts to the typology of a prison in the selected time period.

303

Panopticon | Octogonal

GEOMETRIC MODULARITY 304

Presidio Modelo | Decagonal

The Prisons Commonly the cell repetitive modular stripping individua

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Millbank | Hexagonal/Pentagonal

Mazas | Octogonal

that were studied often followed a modular system within a geometric order. ls are facing to the radial origin where watch towers were placed. This practice of r design supported the desire for uniformity within the prison structure as a way of ality and identity from the imprisoned. 305

PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS The programmatic layouts of the Big House type reveals how the design was influenced by the plantation owners policies regarding their relationships with their slaves. Homes which have connected slave housing possess stark differences in layout to those that had clear separation from the slave quarters. Most common among the precedents is a central corridor that connects front entry to the rear entry. The program usually spawns from the sides of the corridor and is symtrically mirrored on either side.

Belle Grove 306

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

1/16

Evergreen

1/16

32 FT

307

Programmatic Analysis | Big Houses & Prisons

Hermitage

308

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Monticello

1/72

144 FT

309

Programmatic Analysis | Big Houses & Prisons

Montpelier

310

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Staunton Hill

1/28

56 FT

311

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS In this series of drawings, we draw on similarities between the typology of big houses and the typology of prisons as systems of power, inward- or outward-facing structures, and surveillance networks. Ashland and Eastern State Penitentiary could be compared on the basis of border and interstitial space. Both delineate a clear boundary of the domain, while in Eastern State the power is distributed inside the structure, Ashland is using the main house as a sort of control tower stretching its influence outside over the whole plantation. In a gradient going from green to yellow, we explore the transitional spaces each structure has between the border and the core. The Panopticon and Monticello both use octagonal geometry to create an inward and outward hierarchical relationship of sight lines between the oppressor and the oppressed. The Panopticon revolves around this octagon to force the prisoners to always feel as if they are being watched, without being able to see if someone truly is watching them. The octagonal rotunda of Monticello allows for surveillance in 360° of the surrounding area and also serves at the entry threshold to the wings of the house. In comparing the layout of prison Mazas to the plan of Montpelier, we draw on similarities of control, which if enforced by the double-loaded corridor system, and the architecture of seeing, the power of seeing through the space and thus having power over the estate.

312

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Eastern State | Ashland

1/256

256

512 FT

1/16

32 FT

313

Comparative Analysis | Big Houses & Prisons

Panopticon | Monticello

314

1/24

48 FT

Fedotova | Inglima | Malhas

Mazas | Montpelier

1/24

48 FT

315

EUROPEAN COFFEEHOUSES & SLAVE MARKETS Typological Analysis Although seemingly very different, European coffeehouses and American slave markets both acted as architectural spaces that enabled the manifestation of whiteness through the brutalization of slave trading. To elaborate, both of these spaces hosted white men concerned with the politics and economics of the buying and selling of black bodies. Although the history of both the European coffeehouses and the slave markets have gaps in their historical documentation, especially the slave markets, similarities can be made through architectural analysis and the limited history that is still in existence. For one, it is necessary to understand that there was just as much of a social element to the participation and attendance of these spaces as there was an economic one. Showing up to coffeehouses, like in the case of slave markets, was a social event where men would get together to show off power and cement their place in society. In European coffeehouses, a patron that was knowledgeable about coffee was considered of a high social status. Similarly, in the case of the slave markets, the knowledge of the slave trade and ability to analyze and thusly commodify slave bodies was highly respected. Further, there was societal judgment in the buying of slaves in that a slave owner/buyer’s social standing and reputation was influenced by which slaves he bought. In these ways, both the European coffeehouses and the slave markets enabled space for the performance of the slave trade.

316

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

It is also important to understand architecture’s role in both of these building types. For one, both were designed with the patron in mind. Even though there were certain programs designed just for the slaves in the slave markets (holding cells, morgues) the comfort of the patrons and sellers were prioritized over the slaves. The European coffeehouses were highly ornamented which created an inviting, enticing, and even trustworthy environment for the patrons to conduct business. Beauty and trustworthiness are closely tied and in this way, we can further compare the European coffeehouse to the slave market. Additionally, the ornate architecture of the coffeehouse is comparable to the visual incentives put up at slave markets such as bright posters and neatly presented slaves to attract their target audiences. Another point of interest in this study is the comparison of the internal programmatic adjacencies of both building types to each other. In both types, it was evident that there was a front of house and a back of house. To elaborate, certain things were located in the front of the buildings and were meant to be viewed right away. At the same time, there were some things that were not so obvious in the case of the slave markets such as holding cells, morgues...etc because they weren’t meant to be seen by the general public, at least not right away. In general, what both share is that they were places of commerce and displays of social hierarchy - the slave markets exclusively dealt with the buying and selling of slaves while the European coffeehouses dealt with the politics and economic of the buying and selling of coffee.

317

Typological Analysis

EUROPEAN COFFEEHOUSES & SLAVE MARKETS: How whiteness was manifested through the brutalization of slave trading

318

Lumpkin’s Jail + Philharmonic Hotel

St. Louis Hotel + Cafe Central

Montmollin Building + Cafe Bauer

Lloyd’s Coffeehouse + NY Slave Market

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Exchange Coffee, RI + Market Square

Exchange Coffee, MA + Dickinson’s

Old Slave Market, FL+ American Bar

Price, Birch & CO + Caffe Bar Craja

Slave Mart, SC+ Willow Tea Rooms 319

Typological Analysis

EUROPEAN COFFEEHOUSES •

Many of the coffeehouses are multi-programmatic to accommodate the different services offered within the establishment. For example, privately designated smoking and reading rooms were very often seen in coffeehouses and worked in tandem with the cafes to make up the typology. • More contemporary coffeehouses offer smaller spaces for their target clientele which slightly shifts the interior dynamic into a more private, and exclusive one. • There are typically grand/ main entrances that indicate how the flow of program starts - the back/hidden parts of the building are not the easiest or fastest to access.

320

Willow Tea Rooms

Caffe Bar Craja

Lloyd’s Coffeehouse

American Bar/Kärntnerbar

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Cafe Bauer

The Philharmonic Hotel

Cafe Central

Exchange Coffeehouse, RI

Exchange Coffeehouse, MA 321

Typological Analysis

SLAVE MARKETS • Smaller spaces/less square footage compared to coffeehouses. • With the exeption of two open air markets, most slave markets were tucked between other buildings, meaning that usually only the front of the market had windows. • Programmatically, the slave markets were almost entirely concerned with the ecomonics of the slave trade.

Old Slave Market, FL

Dickinson’s Slave Auction Site 322

Market Square

New York Slave Market

Dunlap | Feng | Hussein

Lumpkin’s Jail

Old Slave Mart, SC

Price, Birch & CO

Montmollin Building

St. Louis Hotel 323

324

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Slave Quarters Typological Analysis In this analysis a table was made with a standardized grid in order to compare slave quarters to other slave quarters. What can be understood through this study is the similarities, as well as the difference between slave quarters throughout time and location. The left column indicates the scale for the entire row in order to use size as a comparative indicator. As the grid grows, repetitive comparisons happen, cell labels are placed in its spot indicating where to reference for the initial comparison. The Precedents are placed in chronological order. Following the Matrix are callouts of the highlighted cells which blow up the most similar comparisons within each precedent row.

325

Slave Quarters | Analysis

Slave Lodge| 1679

MongoliaDomingo Plantation | 1676 Saint

Mount Vernon Slave

Kingsley Plantation | 1797

Saint Domingue | 1798

Hamilton Slave Cab

Kingsley

326

Hamilton

e Quarters|1758

bins | 1806

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Mulberry

Mulberry Row | 1772

Wallblake House | 1787

Evergreen Plantation | 1832

Uncle Sam Plantation | 1837

Evergreen

Uncle Sam

327

Slave Quarters | Analysis Mulberry Slave Quarters Slave Quarters 1

Mulberry

1”=180’

Mulberry

1”=75’

Mulberry

328

1”=125’

Mulberry

1”=28’

Kingsley

Saint Domingo HamiltonHamilton

Kingsley

Kingsley Mulberry

Kingsley

Saint Domingo

Evergreen

Hamilton 7

Hamilton

Evergreen

Saint Domingo

Saint Domingo Mulberry

Saint Domingo

Hamilton Hamilton

Evergreen

Casey | Shimada | Williams Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

Hamilton Hamilton Mulberry

Evergreen Mulberry

Uncle Sam Mulberry

Hamilton Hamilton

Evergreen

Uncle Sam

329

Slave Quarters | Analysis Mulberry Slave Quarters Slave Quarters Kingsley

Saint Domingo f

gHamilton

h Evergreen

Uncle Sam i

330

1”=28’

1”=65’

1”=30’

Kingsley

Saint Domingo HamiltonHamilton

6Saint Domingo Kingsley

Casey | Shimada | Williams Uncle Sam

Evergreen

7Hamilton Kingsley Hamilton

Saint Domingo Hamilton Hamilton

Kingsley Evergreen

Saint Domingo Evergreen

Uncle Sam Kingsley

Saint Domingo Uncle Sam

Hamilton Evergreen

Hamilton

Hamilton Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam Evergreen

Hamilton

331

Analysis

Slave Quarters | Slave Quarters Saint Domingo

1”=100’

1”=42’

Slave Lodge| Saint Domingue

Mongolia Plantation | Mount Vernon Slave Quarters

Hamilton Kingsley Evergreen

1”=15’

Mount Vernon Slave Uncle Sam Plantatio

Saint Domingo Evergreen

1”=36’

Kingsley Plantation|Evergreen Plantation Saint Domingue |Evergreen Plantation

332

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Hamilton

Mulberry

1”=70’

1”=15’

e Quarters| on

1”=15’

Mulberry Row | Wallblake House

Hamilton amilton Evergreen

1”=16’

Hamilton Slave Cabins | Evergreen Plantation

Wallblake House | Hamilton Slave Cabins

Uncle Sam Evergreen

1”=16’

Evergreen Plantation | Uncle Sam Plantation

333

334

Casey | Shimada | Williams

Worker Towns Typological Analysis In this analysis a table was made with a standardized grid in order to compare Worker Towns to other Worker Towns. What can be understood through this study is the similarities, as well as the difference between Worker Towns throughout time and location. The left column indicates the scale for the entire row in order to use size as a comparative indicator. As the grid grows, repetitive comparisons happen, cell labels are placed in its spot indicating where to reference for the initial comparison. The Precedents are placed in chronological order. Following the Matrix are callouts of the highlighted cells which blow up the most similar comparisons within each precedent row.

335

Worker Town | Analysis

0 1 2.5 5 10

200

Sion Hill | 1765

FEET

16m

Saltworks | 1779

Chippenham Village

1/20”=1’-0”

Morgan Park Company Town | 1837

336

0 2 4

Menier Chocolate Company | 1872

Cotton Mill | 1889

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

Casey | Shimada | Williams

e | 1782

Workers’ Cottages in Preston | 1830

Boott Cotton Mills | 1835

16ft

0 2 4

Bay State | 1890

16m

Oficina Maria Elena | 1926

337

Worker Town | Analysis

0 1 2.5

Worker Town

16m

0 2 4

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

Worker Town

0 1 2.5 5 10

200 0

1”=75’

200

0 2 4

200

16m

0 1 2.5 5

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

1”=110’

2.5

0 2.5 5

1”=50’ SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

1”=75’

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

338

1”=110’ 0

Casey | Shimada | Williams

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

FLOOR 1

16m

FLOOR 2

0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0”

200

01 2

0 30

200

FEET

FLOOR 1

FLOOR 2

0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 01 2

0 2 4

16ft

FEET

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 1 2.5 5 10

2.5

FEET

0 5

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

FLOOR 1

16ft

FLOOR 2

0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 01 2

FLOOR 1

0 1FEET

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0”

30 5

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

30 5

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

FEET

01 2

16ft

30 20

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

0 2 4

1/20”=1’-0”

FEET

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

339

Worker Town | Analysis

0 1

Worker Town

2.5 5

Worker Town

FEET

0 2 4

16ft

1”=50’

1”=150’ 0 2 4

16m

1”=50’

340

1”=50’

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

Casey | Shimada | Williams

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

FEET

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

16ft

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

16m

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

16ft

341

Analysis

Worker Town | Worker Town

0 1 2.5 5 10

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 01 2

200

FEET

0 2 4

1”=40’

Sion Hill | Bay State

FEET

Chippenham Morgan Park

1/20”=1’-0”

Morgan Park Company Town | Bay State

FEET

Saltworks |Oficina Maria Elena

1”=28’

342

1”=60’16m

0 2 4

16ft

1”=28’

Menier Chocolate Company | Cotton Mill

Casey | Shimada | Williams

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 5

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

01 2

FEET

1”=28’ 10

1”=60’

1”=40’

/20”=1’-0”

Village | Company Town

0 2 4

Workers’ Cottages in Preston | Oficina Maria Elena

Boott Cotton Mills | Bay State

16ft

1”=28’

Cotton Mill | Oficina Maria Elena

1”=28’

Bay State |Oficina Maria Elena

343

344

Casey | Shimada | Williams

SLAVE QUARTERS & WORKER TOWNS Typological Analysis In this analysis a table was made with a standardized grid in order to compare Slave Quarters to Worker Towns. While both different types, an interest can be formed in the link between the two typological studies. What can be understood through this study is the similarities, as well as the difference between slave quarters and workers towns throughout time and location. The left column indicates the scale for the entire row in order to use size as a comparative indicator. As the grid grows, repetitive comparisons happen, cell labels are placed in its spot indicating where to go for the initial comparison. The Precedents are placed in chronological order. Following the Matrix are callouts of the highlighted cells which blow up the most similar comparisons within each comparison row.

345

Slave Quarters and Worker Towns | Analysis

0 1

Worker Town

2.5 5 10

Slave Quarters 1

200

0 2 4

16m

0 1 2.5 5 10

200

0 2 4

1”=180’

1”=75’

16m

1 2.5 5 10

200

0 2 4

16m

0 1 2.5 5 10

200

0 2 4

1”=150’

1”=50’

16m

1 2.5 5 10

200

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

1 2.5 5 10

346

1”=50’

200

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

Casey | Shimada | Williams

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

FLOOR 1

16m

FLOOR 2

0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 01 2

FEET

0 2 4

FLOOR 1

16m

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 01 2

FEET

FLOOR 1

FLOOR 2

0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 01 2

FEET

0 2 4

FLOOR 1

16m

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

FLOOR 1

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

16ft

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

347

Slave Quarters and Worker Towns | Analysis

0 1

Worker Town

2.5 5 10

Slave Quarters 1

200

0 2 4

16m

0 1 2.5 5 10

1”=50’

200

0 2 4

16m

0 1 2.5 5 10

200

1”=75’

1”=50’

0 2 4

16m

1 2.5 5 10

200

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

16m

0 2 4

1 2.5 5 10

1”=50’

200

0 1 2.5 5 10

348

1”=50’

200

SCALE: 1/30”= 1’-0”

Casey | Shimada | Williams

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

FLOOR 1

16m

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

0 2 4

FLOOR 1

16ft

FLOOR 2

0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

0 2 4

1/20”=1’-0”

16ft

SCALE: 1/240”= 1’-0” 01 2

FEET

FLOOR 1

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

FLOOR 1

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

16ft

0 2 4

16ft

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

FLOOR 1

FLOOR 2 0 1 2 4 8m

FEET

1/20”=1’-0”

349

Analysis

Slave Quarters | Worker Town

0 1 0

2.5

1 2.5

5 5 10

1”=90’

1”=38’

Slave Lodge| Workers’ Cottages in Preston

Mongolia Plantation | Chippenham Village

1”=25’

Kingsley Plantation | Bay State

350

Mount Vernon Sla Chippenham Villa

1”=38’

Saint Domingue | Workers’ Cottages in Preston

Hamilton Slave Ca

Casey | Shimada | Williams

1”=75’

ave Quarters| age

1”=25’ 200

Mulberry Row | Sion Hill

FLOOR 1

1”=25’ 200

Wallblake House | Sion Hill

FLOOR 2

0 1 2.5 5 10

FEET

1”=25’ 200

abins | Sion Hill

1/20”=1’-0”

1”=25’

Evergreen Plantation | Morgan Park Company Town

1”=25’

Uncle Sam Plantation | Chippenham Village

351