Historic structure report july 14 by WIFI LUO

Allegheny Observatory Historic Structure Report

A Project of The University of Pittsburgh Architectural Studies Program HAA 1921 Documentation and Conservation Spring 2014

ExEcutivE Summary During the spring semester of 2014, six University of Pittsburgh students collaborated for a period of 16 weeks and created a Historic Structure Report for the Allegheny Observatory. The Allegheny Observatory is owned by the University of Pittsburgh and is located in Riverview Park on Pittsburgh’s North Side. The class, Documentation and Conservation Studio (HAA 1921), is part of the University of Pittsburgh’s Architectural Studies program in the Dietrich School of Arts and Science. The purpose of the intensive six credit course is to give a hands-on, real world experience to prepare students for graduate level programs and the work place. The overall goal of the class is to produce a final Historic Structure Report (HSR) and a presentation which corresponds to the major aspects of the Historic Structure Report. This report is divided into four categories: physical description; historic contexts; recommendations; and benchmarks. The physical description notes the character defining features of the observatory including the domes, building materials, and design of the interior. The historic contexts section notes the historic significance of the observatory including topics such as the old observatory; the current observatory’s discoveries; the Neoclassical architectual style and Architect Thorsten Billquist; astronomers James Keeler and John Brashear; and artists Frank Vittor and Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast. These sections help explain the significance of the Allegheny Observatory. Following these two sections are recommendations. As part of the report, seven character defining features have been noted along with recommendations following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for treating these features. Features include: terra cotta; brick; stone; the domes; marble; wood; and the stained glass window. In addition, this section includes recommendations regarding funding and promotion of the Allegheny Observatory. The final section, Benchmarks, relates to investigations done on other university-owned observatories around the country that were constructed in the same time period. This assessment compares the observatories for preservation issues and funding over the years. A few major discoveries have developed as a result of this class. One discovery was the finding the names of the original contractors for the observatory. They were Thomas Egan in charge of the excavation; Buente, Martin & Company- stonework; Lovet Brothers- brick and sandstone, and others for additional construction work. The companies included: Northwestern Terra Cotta Company, Carnegie Steel Company, and Pittsburgh Steel Construction Company. In addition, we discovered two architects that were involved in designing the observatory. These two architects were Thorsten Billquist, who designed the majority of the observatory, and Lee, designer of the crypt. Director Wadsworth also helped in planning the building. Other findings included in the report cover funding and promotional ideas. These ideas were incorporated to bring awareness of the Allegheny Observatory to the public and to suggest possible ideas for funding. These components and findings create a complete historic structure report that allows the Allegheny Observatory to be better understood and cared for. A better understanding of the building leads to a greater awareness of the challenges the building faces. One challenge is bringing more awareness of the building. An involved public would likely pursue long term funding for the building. The historic structure report builds a foundation for realizing the importance of a building like the Allegheny Observatory. The historic nature and complexity of this structure is integral to the history of the city of Pittsburgh, the state, and the country. This historic structure report is the foundation needed to address the major concerns of the Allegheny Observatory while creating an awareness of the importance this building holds.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowlegements Methodology 1.0 Physical Description 1.1 Exterior 1.2 Interior 1.3 Window Survey 1.4 Masonry Survey 2.0 Historic Contexts 2.1 Origianal Observatory 2.2 James Keeler 2.3 John Brashear 2.4 Current Observatory 2.5 Neoclassical Architecture and Thorsten Billquist 2.6 Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast and Frank Vittor 2.7 Historic Maps and Summaries 3.0 Recommendations 3.1 Character Defining Features and Treatments 3.11 Terra Cotta 3.12 Brick 3.13 Stone 3.14 Domes 3.15 Marble 3.16 Wood 3.17 Stained Glass 3.2 Promotion and Fundraising 4.0 Benchmarks 4.1 Astronomical Observatory 4.2 Fuertes Observatory 4.3 Ladd Observatory 4.4 Theodor Jacobsen Observatory 4.5 Washburn Observatory 4.6 Yerkes Observatory 5.0 Major Sources

ackNOwLEdgmENtS This class would not have been possible if it were not for the contributions of various individuals. We would like to thank Mr. Lou Coban, the electronics specialist at the observatory; Mr. Coban was present at the Observatory each week. Without Mr. Coban, it would not have been possible to perform our work at the observatory. Mr. Coban was also our first guest consultant; he helped to familiarize our class with the Allegheny Observatory as well as introduce us to what an electronics specialist does at an observatory. The class would also like to thank the Associate Dean for Administration and Planning, W. Richard Howe as well as Operations Manager Jeremiah McKain. Associate Dean Howe and Operations Manager McKain are responsible for the transportation provided to get to and from the Allegheny Observatory every Thursday evening. Without their contributions this class would not have been able to occur. In addition to Associate Dean Howe and Operations Manager McKain, the class would like to thank Mr. Christopher Drew Armstrong. Without the guidance of Professor Armstrong this class would not be part of the curriculum. Thank you Professor Armstrong for the work you have done in improving the University of Pittsburghâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Architectural Studies Program. Ten guest consultants helped make this class a success. A guest consultant is a local professional who visits with the class and shares their area of expertise. Each guest consultant brought valuable information to the class which helped to improve each of our projects. The class would personally like to thank Structural Engineer, John Schneider who introduced the structure make-up of the Allegheny Observatory as well as problems occurring at the observatory. We would like to thank Miriam Meislik and David Grinnell, employees of the University of Pittsburgh Archives Center. Both helped the class greatly by explaining how an archives works as well as sharing examples of materials the Archives has relating to the Allegheny Observatory. The class would also like to thank Bill Callahan, the Western Pennsylvania Community Preservation Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Mr. Callahan introduced the class to what State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) does as well as some of the basics related to SHPOs. Two employees of Cost Company deserve a special thank you: Mr. Michael Nardozzi and Mr. Tony DeChellis. These two gentlemen came to the observatory and discussed the masonry of the observatory. The helped the class better understand where the products came from, how the products were made, and how to treat these masonry products. A special thank you to Mr. Kirk Weaver is extended. Mr. Weaver visited the class and discussed the Mary Tillinghast stained glass window, and its proper care. Thank you to Mr. Mike Bellman, a bronze sculpture expert, who discussed the John Brashear bronze designed by Frank Vittor. Mr. Ron Leibow of the University of Pittsburghâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Facilities Management deserves a special thank you for his information regarding what facilities management does and his advice relating to future careers working with the built environment. Finally, we would like to thank Mr. Derek Wahila who visited the class and helped improve our understandings of graphic design and design techniques which we incorporated in this Historic Structure Report. Again, a sincere thanks is given to all of the guest consultants for their contributions to our class. Last, but certainly not least, the class would like to give our sincere thanks to our professor: Mr. Jeff Slack. Professor Slack came to class every Tuesday and Thursday excited and well prepared to teach the class. Professor Slack brought real world applications to the class which is unparalleled. Professor Slack was the driving force and motivation behind the projects and creation of the final Historic Structure Report. Professor Slack, acting as the Project Manager, was readily available to classmates and clarified areas of concern with the class ensuring our success. Thank you, Professor Slack, for your hard work and dedication to teaching the class, it is greatly appreciated.

METHODOLOGY The class title for the University of Pittsburgh Architectural Studies Program is Preservation Documentation and Conservation, also known as History of Art and Architecture (HAA) 1921. The preservation class focuses on hands on fieldwork, real world applications for students pursuing a degree in Architectural Studies or a Preservation Minor. Professor Jeff Slack designed the six-credit capstone course to be academically rigorous. This yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s class had only six students compared to the normal twelve, providing an additional challenge for the students. The class was challenged to study the Allegheny Observatory, its significance, and its preservation issues. This is the first University of Pittsburgh owned building the class has studied. Previously the class had been taught at the Waldorf School (also known as the former Ursuline Academy) located in the Bloomfield neighborhood of Pittsburgh and Ludwig Mies van der Roheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Richard King Mellon Hall on the Duquesne University campus. The course title defines the two major concepts of the class. Documentation refers to the recording of information gained from investigation and research, while conservation refers to determining proper treatments using the Secretary of the Interiorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Standards: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Using both these methods, the class completed numerous projects leading to a comprehensive Historic Structure Report. As with all classwork, assigned readings were given to inform the class on various topics. These readings provided a basic understanding of the topic at hand before more thoroughly exploring a particular topic or beginning a new one. The readings varied each week and were used to accompany weekly assignments. To keep the class engaged and moving, quizzes were also assigned for the readings. These quizzes emphasized the major points of the assigned readings. The readings provided a background for two types of projects completed throughout the course: projects which created sections of the Historic Structure Report (HSR) and Foundational Assignment projects. A total of five HSR projects were completed. They included a physical description of the building; historic contexts; significant features and treatments; report production; and final presentation. Foundational Assignments were used to introduce or improve specific preservation skills. Foundational assignments included identifying characterdefining features, sketching the front portico of the building, benchmarking preservation issues at another observatory, analyzing historic maps of both the original and current observatory sites, photographing the building, evaluating the condition of windows, and assessing masonry problems. These exercises helped guide students in producing the components of the historic structure report assignments. A series of guest consultants further informed the class throughout the semester. Assignments summarizing the key points of consultant visits were given. The guest consultants discussed their various areas of expertise. These consultants were experts in their fields of study and brought valuable information to the class which in turn helped the class in other assignments. The topics of discussion included details about the observatory itself, archival research, structural engineering, historic masonry, stain glassed windows, bronze sculpture, facilities management, the work of the state historic preservation office, and graphic design. After spring break, the class took on individual assignments to complete the final Historic Structure Report. Using the table of contents, each student was given a task in building the final report. The class was laid out in an organized manner. The itinerary was presented to the students at the beginning of the semester making all objectives and expectations very clear. Although the assignments appeared to be overwhelming at the onset, as the class progressed, the work became less intimidating, but no less important. The class collaborated well and created a cohesive and comprehensive final Historic Structure Report. Professor Slack composed a program that simulated real world applications. He did so in an engaging, interesting and informative manner; this most definitely has helped prepare students for their future in historic preservation.

disclaimer This report was written in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Documentation and Conservation Studio (HAA 1921), offered by the University of Pittsburgh. All findings and recommendations in this report are part of an academic exercise intended to provide the students with a “hands-on” learning experience in historic preservation planning. The building owner is advised that, while based on sound academic theories and preservation principles, the recommendations proposed in this report must be validated as “appropriate“ and designed by a licensed architect, licensed engineer, or other accredited personnel prior to their implementation. In all cases the University of Pittsburgh, the personnel associated with the administration of this course, and the report author(s) shall be held harmless in any action concerning damage to the subject property and/or improvements as well as injuries to occupants based on the implementation of any portion of the material content of this report. All photographs were taken by the authors of this report unless otherwise noted.

Administrative Data Location Data Building Name: Allegheny Observatory Building Address: 159 Riverview Avenue Location: Pittsburgh County: Allegheny State: Pennsylvania

Real Property Information Owner: University of Pittsburgh Years Built: 1900-1912 Architects: Thorsten E. Billquist, Edward Lee, F.L.O. Wadsworth

Size Information Number of Stories: 4 Domes: 3 Domes

Telescopes 30 inch Thaw Refractor 30 inch Keeler Memorial Reflector 13 inch Fitz-Clark Refractor

Cultural Resource Data National Register Status: Listed National Register Date: 1979 Period of Significance: 1900-1924

CHAPTER 1.0 HSR1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the building, identifies its character-defining features, and explains alterations over time.

1.0 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION FIGURES

Figure 1. The Allegheny Observatory front facade, photo taken facing southwest.

1.1 EXTERIOR OF THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY EXTERIOR FACADES Accessed by a narrow road, the Allegheny Observatory (Figure 1) sits atop Observatory Hill in Pittsburgh’s TERRA COTTA Riverview Park. Two acres of sprawling park landscape surround the Observatory’s site which is located about four miles from the city’s downtown commercial district. Characterized by three large domes, the Allegheny Observatory is a two-story structure with a partially exposed sandstone foundation. To aid in research and observation of the skies, its facades are oriented along the cardinal directions, with the primary façade facing east. The Allegheny Observatory’s east facade follows strict symmetry, though the domes flanking it vary in size. The Fitz-Clark BRICK dome SANDSTONE tower is located at the southeast corner, the Thaw dome tower at the southwest, and the Keeler dome tower on the northeast. On the south facade, an enclosed porch extends south from the Thaw Dome tower. In between the FitzClark tower and the Keeler tower is the east portico, or the front entrance. Though the exterior façade as a whole varies in proportion and ornamentation, it primarily consists of an exposed sandstone foundation, buff brick walls and terra cotta ornamentation. While adapted to a unique function and floor plan, the Allegheny Observatory is generally consistent in its expression of the Neo-Classical architectural style en vogue at the turn of the twentieth century.

Figure 2. Front facade of the Allegheny Observatory. Exposed sandstone foundation, buff brick walls and glazed terra cotta ornamentation noted.

Figure 1. The Allegheny Observatory front facade, photo taken facing southwest.

TERRA COTTA

BRICK

SANDSTONE

Figure 2. Front facade of the Allegheny Observatory. Exposed sandstone foundation, buff brick Figure 2. Front facade of the Allegheny Observatory. Exposed sandstone foundation, buff brick walls and glazed terra walls and glazed terra cotta ornamentation noted. cotta ornamentation noted.

FOUNDATION

Figure 3. Detail of oxidation of exposed sandstone foundation.

Typical of buildings constructed in the Neo-Classical style, the foundation is partially above grade, or partially exposed. The exposed foundation consists of a light brown ashlar sandstone that extends upwards approximately six feet from the ground, running along the entire base of the Observatory (Figure 2). The sandstone is rectangular in shape and contains a two-inch high rustication at the top emphasizing the horizontality of the foundation masonry course. The rectangular blocks differ in height, changing between a tall course and a shorter course with thin mortar joints in between. They are largely discolored, having an orangish hue, due to oxidation from age and weathering in particular spots (Figure 3). Certain portions of the ashlar sandstone have started to spall, meaning the front faces of the layered sandstone have begun to delaminate.

WALL AREA

Figure 4. Detail of thin mortar joints of the buff brick walls of the exterior of the Allegheny Observatory.

Figure 5. Detail of terra cotta ornamentation on the east facade Figure 5. Detail of terra cotta of the Allegheny Observatory. ornamentation on the east facade of the Allegheny Observatory.

The first and second story of the Observatoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s exterior is predominantly finished in twelve inch wide buff brick. The brick is laid in a standard stretcher bond with slightly contrasting pointing and thin mortar joints (Figure 2 and Figure 4). Glazed white terra cotta decorative elements stand out against this buff brick faĂ§ade (Figure 2 and Figure 5).

THE EAST FACADE The east facade of the Allegheny Observatory consists of the aforementioned sandstone foundation, with brick walls and terra cotta ornamentation, capped by a balustrade; the south balustrade is made of terra cotta, while the north balustrade is made of copper, each concealing the roof behind. At the center of the east facade, a symmetrical portico with sandstone façade and front-facing gable roof marks the primary entrance to the building (Figure 6).

EAST FAÇADE ENTRANCE PORTICO

Sandstone stairs ascend from the east, culminating at the portico, which is rectangular in plan. In plan, the approach to the entrance portico is divided into three sections: the steps, the columns and pilasters, and the front doors (Figure 7). In elevation, the portico is also divided into three sections: the sandstone foundation, the brick walls, and the terra cotta ornamentation. The symmetry, materials, and Ionic order of the portico are fundamental Neo-Classical traits.

FITZCLARK

KEELER

EAST PORCH

Figure 6. East facade of the Allegheny Observatory with the FitzFigure 6. East facade of the Allegheny Observatory with the Fitz-Clark dome tower, east porch and Keeler dome tower marked. east porch and Keeler dome tower marked. Clark dome tower,

2. COLUMN

EAST FAÇADE PORTICO FOUNDATION & WALLS

The foundation of the entrance portico is the same as the foundation explained above. The portico foundation contains a single hung window on both its north and south sides. The portico foundation extends eastward, forming the cheek walls of the front steps. Above the foundation are brick walls, which support the frieze, roof, and pediment. On the north side of the portico, the terra cotta frieze is inscribed with the name Hershel; on the south side, it contains the name Galileo. Above the frieze, the terra cotta continues westward until it reaches the roof and balustrade of the Observatory.

EAST FAÇADE PORTICO STEPS

Two cheek walls are located on each side of the portico steps. Atop each cheek wall is a black metal lamppost topped with a round, opaque-glass globe. The north pier is connected to the stair base, but the south pier is freestanding. These stone piers were intended to delineate a stone terrace on the south lawn, however, due to insufficient funding, the terrace was never built. Fifteen steps with a central black metal railing lead to the entrance of the portico. The steps are constructed of blocks of sandstone.

2. PILASTER

3. FRONT DOORS

1. STEPS

Figure 7. The east facade of the Observatory. The east porch, in plan, divided into three sections: the steps, the columns and pilasters and the front doors.

PEDIMENT CORNICE

Figure 8. East facade of the Observatory, diagram of terra cotta ornamentation. Pediment and entablature (cornice, frieze, architrave) are noted.

FRIEZE ARCHITRAVE

Figure 8. East facade of the Observatory, diagram of terra cotta ornamentation. Pediment and entablature (cornice, frieze, architrave) are noted.

EAST FAÇADE COLUMNS AND PILASTERS

A landing leads to the front door, where a pilaster and column, each with an Ionic order capital, flank each side of the door. The pilasters and columns are made of architectural precast concrete, but were originally made of terra cotta. They were altered from their original materials due to deterioration. Water infiltration corroded the interior steel framing and thus, the outer terra cotta encasement began to break apart from the expansion of the corroding steel. The University of Pittsburgh hired Pfaffmann + Associates to address the problem starting in 2007. Architectural precast concrete and glass fiber reinforced concrete, used on the pediment, were used as substitute materials because they are less affected by water. These materials also tend to be more cost efficient and can be obtained more quickly than terra cotta, but have similar durability and look. The strength of materials of the pilasters and columns is imperative as they hold up the pediment that adorns the top of the portico. The terra cotta pilaster capitals are decorated with egg and dart molding with a linear fret pattern underneath.

EAST FACADE TERRA COTTA ORNAMENTATION

Above the columns and pilasters is the pediment. The pediment is a triangular architectural element that sits on an entablature consisting of an architrave, frieze, and cornice, which in the case of the Allegheny Observatory, is of the Ionic order (Figure 8). The frieze reads, “Allegheny Observatory.” Below the pediment, recessed behind the columns and pilasters, are the front doors of the Observatory.

EAST FAÇADE FRONT DOORS

The front doors are surrounded with terra cotta trim. The lintel above reads, “ANNO DOMINI MCM,” which transSOUTH BALUSTRADE NORTH BALUSTRADE lates to, “The year of our Lord 1900.” This was added to commemorate the year that the cornerstone of the Observatory was laid. Above the door and below the pediment, is a clear glass transom window, framed in mahogany. The Figure 9. East facade of the Observatory, comparison of the cut-out south balustrade and solid north balustrade. doors contain clear beveled glass framed in mahogany.

EAST FACADE FOUNDATION

The foundation of the east facade is the same as the foundation of the portico described above. In this foundation, there are four single-hung windows, two on each side of the portico. Above the foundation, the walls are brick.

EAST FACADE WALL

The brick is the same as the buff brick noted above. There is a set of paired center pivot windows on each side of the portico. The brick continues upward on the façade until a frieze is reached at the top. The frieze is inscribed with the name “Copernicus” to the south of the portico, while “Newton” and “Laplace” mark the north side of the portico. A decorative cornice adorns the top of the frieze. The balustrade sits on top of the decorative cornice.

Figure 8. East facade of the Observatory, diagram of terra cotta ornamentation. Pediment and en architrave) are noted.

PEDIMENT CORNICE

Figure 10. East facade of the Observatory, window detail.

FRIEZE ARCHITRAVE

Figure 8. East facade of the Observatory, diagram of terra cotta ornamentation. Pediment and entablature (cornice, frieze, architrave) are noted.

SOUTH BALUSTRADE SOUTH BALUSTRADE

NORT

Figure 9. East facade of the Observatory, comparison of the cut-out south balustrade and solid nort

EAST FAÇADE TOP BALUSTRADE

The balustrade to the south of the entrance is similar to the balustrade to the north of the entrance but with a few minor differences. Both balustrades consist of three panels and a pilaster-like baluster post that separates the next set of three panels. Six panels flank each side of the portico. These panels are decorated with geometric cutouts, reminiscent of Roman latticework. The mixture of Classical Greek and RoFigure 9. East facade of the Observatory, SOUTH BALUSTRADE NORTH BALUSTRADE man forms is characteristic of Neo-Classical architecture. The indented comparison of the cut-out south balusdesign on the south balustrade contrasts with the more solid design of trade and solid north balustrade. Figure 9. East facade of the Observatory, comparison of the cut-out south balustrade and solid north balustrade. the north balustrade (Figure 9). This contrast can be explained when looking at each balustrades respective building material. Only the south balustrade is made of terra cotta, while the north balustrade is made of sheet metal, but each continues to the dome tower in closest proximity. They are also connected to the portico in the middle. Behind the balustrade is the main roof of the observatory.

EAST FAÇADE ROOF

The roof of the portico attaches to the balustrade of the Observatory, which is the upper-most section of the east façade, and is the same as the east façade. It is covered with hot melt bitumen coating.

EAST FACADE WINDOWS

The two pairs of double hung windows on each side of the portico are identical in design. Each are surrounded by terra cotta decorated with intricate bead and reel ornamentation on the lintel and hood as well as detail on the sill and verticals and aprons (Figure 10). The windows contain brackets, also known as corbels, on each side of the lintels that are intricately detailed (Figure 11).

Figure 11. East facade of the Observatory, window corbel detail.

re 10. East facade of the Observatory, window detail.

Figure 11. East facade of the Observatory, window corbel detail.

FITZ-CLARK DOME TOWER Located on the southeast corner of the building, the tower of the Fitz-Clark dome (the first and second floor of the building) is the smallest of the three dome towers, yet has the most decorative elements (Figure 12). It houses the lecture hall on the main floor and the FitzClark telescope on the second floor. It can also be separated into three horizontal sections as described above: the exposed sandstone foundation, the brick façade the terra cotta ornamentation and colonnade, with the addition of a dome.

FITZ-CLARK DOME TOWER FOUNDATION

Figure 12. Fitz-Clark dome tower, located on the southeast

Figure 12. Fitz-Clark dome tower, located on the southeast corner of the Allegheny corner of the Allegheny Observatory. Photo taken facing northeast.

The foundation of the Fitz-Clark tower shares the characteristics of the foundation noted above, except the stones are curved. There are wooden casement windows with white wooden frames that repeat in a pattern (two windows separated by a space of about one foot, followed by a space of about two feet) along the foundation of the dome tower base). These windows are protected by acrylic sheets on the exterior, and fall in between the columns of the section above. On the Fitz-Clark dome tower, lighter toned pointing bonds this sandstone coursing to a platform. This platform reflects a Greek temple stylobate, which provides a foundation for the colonnade to sit upon. Otherwise known as a watertable, this stylobate is flush with the wall along the rest of the building, separating the foundation masonry from the brickwork of the first and second floor.

FITZ-CLARK DOME TOWER WALL

The Fitz-Clark dome tower is made of the same buff brick as noted in the East Façade section, but the bricks are curved. This façade is six bays around, defined by the six curved center pivot windows of the first floor level. The ornamentation on these windows is the same as on the east façade, though a band of white terra cotta runs along the Fitz-Clark dome tower’s facade, connecting the windows, like a head frame and corner stone. On either side of these windows are pilasters (squared columns engaged to the wall, here, as aesthetic exteriors of an internal support structure) that correspond to a colonnade. There are seven fluted, Ionic order columns in the colonnade, which are positioned in between the windows to make the windows visible. Located just above are ornamental rectangular indentations in the brick that are the same width of each window.

FITZ-CLARK DOME TOWER TERRA COTTA ORNAMENTATION

The colonnade supports the entablature, and the soffit contains a coffered ceiling (Figure 13). The entablature, also made of white terra cotta, has an architrave like the east façade but it is missing a frieze and a cornice. Originally, this frieze was inscribed with the names of scholars (from east to west: Airy, Struve, Arago, Bessel, Kepler, Tycho) and an ornamental cornice (Figure 14). The entablature that encompasses the frieze and cornice is evident on the rest of the building today. Behind the architrave is a narrow flat roof, which marks the start of the third section of the tower. Constructed of curved blocks of white terra cotta, this section originally had five aluminum single hung windows and a door. Today, the second window in from the north most window have been infilled, as well as the door. In between each window are simplified, squared pilasters that correspond to the placement of the Ionic columns below.

13. Fitz-Clark dome tower’stower’s coffered ceiling.coffered ceiling. Figure 13.Figure Fitz-Clark dome Figure 13. Fitz-Clark dome tower’s coffered ceiling. Observatory. Photo taken facing northeast.

FITZ-CLARK DOME

The dome sits on a circular metal base (Figure 15), and houses the Fitz-Clark telescope, which is the smallest in the Observatory. The dome is fully rotatable. A retractable aperture, or shutter, allows the telescope to access the sky. The exterior of the dome is copper, but it is covered with a white protective coating like the other two domes to reflect the white terra cotta of the balustrade that lines the flat roof. This provides a cohesive relationship between the roof and its asymmetrical protrusions, or domes.

Figure 14. The original frieze and cornice on the Fitz-Clarkand dome tower. “Alleghenyon Observatory in Riverview Park.” dome Figure 14. The original frieze cornice the Fitz-Clark Pittsburgh City Photographer Collection, 1901-2002. Historic Pittsburgh, 1937. tower. “Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park.” Pittsburgh City Photographer Collection, 1901-2002. Historic Pittsburgh, 1937.

Figure 14. The original frieze and cornice on the Fitz-Clark dome tower. “Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park.” Pittsburgh City Photographer Collection, 1901-2002. Historic Pittsburgh, 1937.

Figure 15. The Fitz-Clark dome.

Figure 16. The south facade of the Allegheny Observatory. Photo taken facing west.

THE SOUTH FACADE Most of the elements of the Fitz-Clark dome tower and east facade are continued, however simplified, on the south façade (Figure 16). The exposed ashlar sandstone foundation is similar to the foundation of the Fitz-Clark dome tower, though it is not curved and the foundation windows are wooden double hung, with the exception of one paired casement window. The south façade is five bays wide. Two pairs of windows on the foundation flank one window in the middle of the south façade. This pattern parallels directly with windows above.

SOUTH FAÇADE TERRA COTTA ORNAMENTATION

The treatment of the windows on the south façade is similar to the east facade. The vertical center pivot windows of the south façade have the same terra cotta ornamentation as previously discussed, though the whole molding around the windows employs bead and reel ornamentation, commonly found in Greek and Hellenistic art and architecture (Figure 17). Most important is the stacked head molding, also in terra cotta, which has an architrave with egg and dart ornamentation (also Greek in origin) directly below it, before the bead and reel molding. A corbel, or heavily embellished scroll-like decorative structure, borders this composite architrave molding. The third section of this façade is comprised of the building’s original entablature, complete with a frieze containing historic names, and two ornamental cornices, one above the other. Just above this entablature is a flat roof, which is bordered by the terra cotta balustrade. This balustrade reflects the squared pilasters that separate the windows of the terra cotta register on the Fitz-Clark dome tower, and is a continuation from the east facade.

Figure 17. Detail of terra cotta window ornamentation on the south facade.

Figure 18. The Thaw dome tower, located on the southwest corner or west end of the Allegheny Observatory.

Figure 17. Detail of terra cotta window ornamentation on the south facade.

Figure 18. The Thaw dome tower, located on the southwest corner or west end of the Allegheny Observatory.

THAW DOME TOWER The Thaw tower is located at the west end of the observatory (Figure 18). The tower has eight pilasters that project from its surface (two of which are visible from the roof). The tower has a porch that extends off the south facade that is shorter in height than the main story of the dome. This porch projects from the building between the first and second pilasters in from the south.

THAW DOME TOWER FOUNDATION

The foundation of the Thaw tower is similar to the foundation described above; however, the foundation of the Thaw tower is capped with a water table course. A garage door was originally located between the fifth and sixth pilasters in from the south but has been removed and infilled with bricks. This former opening extends from the ground to almost a third of the way up the main level, and is capped with a terra cotta lintel (Figure 19). The Thaw dome tower contains casement windows in the basement level. Figure 19. Garage door infilled with brick on the Figure 19. Garage door infilled with brick on the Thaw dome Thaw dome tower. tower.

Figure 20. Infille lintel on the Thaw

Figure 19. Garage door infilled with brick on the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 20. Infilled window with remaining terracotta lintel on the Thaw dome tower.

THAW DOME TOWER WALL

Figure 21.window, Fixedandwindow, anddome venttower. on Figure 21. Fixed vent on the Thaw the Thaw dome tower.

The main body of the Thaw dome tower is also composed of buff brick and decorated with Neo-Classical elements using architectural terra cotta. Like the Fitz-Clark, the bricks of the Thaw tower are curved (though with a larger radius). The shafts of the large pilasters are composed of buff brick and the bases and capitals are composed of terra cotta, instead of full terra cotta pilasters like the rest of the exterior. The capitals of the pilasters are plain as well, with the exception of three flat, raised circles with a raised line running between the three circles (Figure 23). The windows on the main level of the Thaw tower align vertically with the windows of the basement level. The two openings between the second and third pilasters contain vents, but are similar in decorative elements to Figure 22. Vitruvian wave, or running dog pattern on on tower the sides of the porch: they have a larger terra cotta lintel the terra cotta on those the Thaw dome and a smaller sill underneath with a raised border. Between the third and fourth pilasters, a door has been infilled with buff brick, though the terra cotta lintel remains (Figure 20). This door was filled in after the removal of the transit house. Between the fourth and fifth pilasters the opening closer to the fourth pilaster contains a vent and the other is a fixed window (Figure 21). Between the fifth and sixth pilasters the two openings contain vents. The openings rest on the lintel of the section of wall that has been replaced by new brick (as mentioned above). These windows are fixed windows with a plain terra cotta lintel.

THAW DOME TOWER TERRA COTTA

dome

Figure 20. Infilled window with remaining terracotta lintel on the Thaw dome Figure tower.20. Infilled window with remaining terracotta lintel on the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 22. Vitruvian wave, or running dog pattern on the terra cotta on the Thaw dome tower

The terra cotta ornamentation of the tower is highlighted by two cornices that encircle the tower. The section under the lower cornice is composed of plain, curved terra cotta blocks laid using a stretcher bond. Beneath these, the terra cotta ornamentation is separated from the buff brick by a terra cotta course featuring a repeating running-dog pattern, or Vitruvian wave, (Figure 22). The upper cornice is capped with the defining dome. The dome is clad in tin and has been covered with a white coating. The dome features a raised shutter that allows the telescope housed inside to see the sky. The raised portion is in two pieces and is able to slide open.

F d

Figure 23. Simple ornamentation on the capitals of the pilasters on the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 24. The south porch/portico on the south end the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 24. The south porch/portico on the south end of the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 23. Simple ornamentation on the capitals of the pilasters on the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 24. The south porch/portico on the south end of the Thaw dome tower. Figure

Figure 25. Infilled (with buff brick) window on north side of south porch off the Thaw dome tower.

25. Infilled (with buff brick) window on north side of south porch off the Thaw dome tower.

SOUTH PORCH

The foundation of the south porch (Figure 24) resembles the foundation found throughout the Observatoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foundation. The brick porch is rectangular in shape and features terra cotta ornamentation. Its height reaches the base of the first cornice of the south facade. A decorative terra cotta entablature caps the porch, with a decorative egg and dart course that borders the top and bottom of the frieze, like on the east and south facades. The frieze features the names of famous astronomers. On the front faĂ§ade of the south porch, four terra cotta pilasters support the architrave. The terra cotta pilaster bases are not decorated. There is a doorway in the middle of the facade and two windows between the outer two pilasters on each side. These three openings have all been infilled using brick that is not as wide as the original buff brick and is a different color. A terra cotta lintel runs across the facade above the windows and the doorway. A decorative frame featuring flat, solid circles connected with a Figure 26. Infilled (with plywood) window on north Figure 25. Infilled (with buff brick) window on north side of south porch off the Thaw side of south surrounds porch off the Thawthe domedoor tower. and dome tower. line (like the pilasters mentioned earlier) there is a sandstone threshold at the base of the doorway. The two windows openings on the facade have a terra cotta apron underneath. The two sides of the porch have two windows as well, each with a terra cotta lintel and apron. These four windows have also been infilled using the same brick used to infill the openings of the front facade. The basement level of the south porch contains casement and fixed windows. There are two terra cotta pilasters with a capital and base that join the porch to the larger brick pilaster of the main body of the dome. The stairs leading to the porch are made of sandstone. The main stairway projects from the porch and two runs, parallel to the driveway, lead from the left and right to the main run. The two parallel runs are blocked from view from the driveway by a sandstone wall.

Figure 23. Simple ornamentation on the capitals of the pilasters on the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 26. Infilled (with plywood) window on north side of south porch off the Thaw dome tower.

Figure 26. Infilled (with ply side of south porch off the T

TILLINGHAST STAINED GLASS WINDOW Figure 27. The north facade of the Allegheny Observatory.

Figure 27. The north facade of the Allegheny Observatory.

NORTH FACADE The north facade of the building (Figure 27) is between the Thaw dome tower and the Keeler dome tower and is divided into two faces, north and northwest; the north face connects to the Thaw tower to the projecting octagonroom, while the northwest face extends from the octagon to the Keeler tower. The exterior of the Tillinghast stained glass window is located on the north facade of the octagon. The stained glass window has light bulbs on the exterior.

NORTH FAÇADE FOUNDATION

The foundation for both faces is the same as the foundation described above. The foundation of the north facade also continues behind the ADA handicap access ramp that leads to an entrance located on the north face.

NORTH FAÇADE WALL

There is a second, entrance located on this facade that is accessible by the ramp and a small staircase. The ramp and staircase are composed of concrete that somewhat matches the sandstone used for the foundation. An iron railing runs on both sides of the stairway and the ramp. The doorway, which has a light in the door and a transom above, is located on the north face, which connects to the Thaw tower. A terra cotta frame surrounds this transom and doorway. The windows on the right are smaller and rectangular and have a plain terra cotta lintel and sill. Above the two windows and the doorway, there are three rectangular windows, each of which are surrounded by a terra cotta frame. The northwest face has four single hung windows, each surrounded by a terra cotta frame. These windows are all uniform in size, with the two center windows paired and share a terra cotta frame. Figure 28. The Keeler dome tower on the northeast corner of the Allegheny Observatory. Photo taken facing north.

Figure 29. The Keeler dome tower taken facing

south. Note the infilled opening. NORTH FAÇADE TERRA COTTA SECTION

The terra cotta balustrade capping the northwest section of the facade is similar to the balustrade described in the east façade section. The balustrade runs from the Thaw tower to where the northwest face of the facade begins where it continues east along the roof over the octagon. The northwest face of the facade is lower in height than the north face and only features a terra cotta cornice.

TILLINGHAST GLASS WINDO Figure 27. The north facade of the Allegheny Observatory.

KEELER DOME TOWER The Keeler Tower, like the east faรงade, is divided into three horizontal sections: the foundation; the brick wall; and the terra cotta ornamentation (Figure 28).

KEELER DOME TOWER FOUNDATION

The Keeler dome tower foundation is identical to the main Observatory foundation. The sandstone, however, is curved like the other two domes. There are two single pane wooden casement windows in the foundation of the dome tower These windows are smaller than those found in the east faรงade foundation.

KEELER DOME TOWER WALL

The buff brick of Keeler tower is also curved. The wall contains five single pane casement windows, which are smaller than the windows of the east faรงade. An infilled door can be found on the west side of the Keeler dome tower (Figure 29). The infilled door is filled with buff brick, but still contains a terra cotta lintel.

KEELER DOME TOWER TERRA COTTA SECTION

A terra cotta cornice is located above the brick. The frieze located at the top of the brick ends less than a quarter of the way around the dome. The two names (from south to north: Langley and Newcomb) found on the frieze were actually added after the building was complete. The balustrade of the east faรงade also runs until it reaches the terra cotta cornice located around the top of the Keeler dome tower.

KEELER DOME

The dome is coated with copper and has three small, single pane, center pivot windows. When the shutter is facing south, the three windows are located facing north, east, and west. The copper is covered with a white coating and it rotates so that it can open in every direction, like the two other domes. At the top of the dome is the shutter, which opens and closes as the telescope is used.

Figure 29. The Keeler dome tower taken facing south. Note the infilled opening.

Figure dome tower oncorner the northeast Figure 28.28. The The KeelerKeeler dome tower on the northeast of the Allegheny corner of Photo the Allegheny Observatory. Photo taken facObservatory. taken facing north. ing north.

Figure 29. The Keeler south. Note the infilled

Figure 30. Original Floor Plan of the Allegheny Observatory.

Figure 32. Bronze Statue of Lens Maker John A. Brashear in the Octagon.

1.2 INTERIOR OF THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY FIRST FLOOR The first floor of the Allegheny Observatory (Figure 30) was designed for the public, as well as the private functions and research of the Observatory staff. At the east end of the building, after a small vestibule connecting the exterior, two woodframed doors are the interior entrance into the central public hallway. These doors have beveled glass with a frosted â&#x20AC;&#x153;AOâ&#x20AC;? crest denoting Allegheny Observatory. Figure 31. Central Hallway from the East Entrance to the Thaw Dome

HALLWAY

Interior spaces are oriented around the central hallway, which runs east from the entrance to the Thaw Dome (Figure 31). The central hallway is composed of marble, mahogany, and decorative plaster. The use of these materials shows that the space is intended for the public. The vestibule introduces marble flooring, marble pilasters, and marble wainscoting. The wainscoting reaches five feet up the wall. Mahogany trim surrounds the wooden framed, glass-panel double doors marked with the AO crest. The vestibule contains marble pilasters that mark the east and west walls at the corners and extend upward to a detailed plaster ceiling trimmed with egg-and-dart molding. Throughout

the central hallway, including the octagon (room 191 on current floor plan), each element of the vestibule continues: mahogany wood, plaster, and rectangular marble flooring, marble wainscoting, and pilasters. The marble pilasters with ornate capitals line the walls of the central hall also extending to the detailed plaster ceiling, each continuing the egg anddart pattern. Detailed mahogany trim frames the wooden doors uniformly throughout the first floor. The octagon contains an ornate, highly detailed plaster ceiling that also continues the egg-and-dart pattern. Within the octagon, a stained glass window, Urania, depicting astronomy is found on the north facade, and a bronze sculpture of John Brashear sits in the center, creating a focal point not only for the octagon, but also for the entire hallway (Figure 32).

Figure 33. Lecture Hall.

LECTURE HALL

Immediately to the south of the hallway, a lecture hall (Figure 33) (room 101 on current floor plan) is marked by two separate sets of double mahogany wooden doors. The lecture hall consists of a rectangular area that ends in a circular area at the south, inside the Fitz-Clark dome tower. The lecture hall consists of mahogany wood, and contains center pivot windows on the east wall, and curved center pivot windows on the area inside the Fitz-Clark dome tower.

THE STAIRCASE

The staircase (Figure 34) (space 181 on the current plan) is located to the south adjacent to the lecture hall and library, and ascends to the Fitz-Clark dome. The marble wainscoting and flooring of the hallway continues up the staircase. The staircase contains two small marble landings, which mark entrances to the library and its mezzanines. The first landing is two steps up from the hallway. Here, a mahogany door marks the entrance to the main floor of the library. The second landing lays nine more steps up the staircase, and is located at the mezzanine level of the library. The library rises to the second floor and is also accessible from the staircase on this level. The staircase continues from the second floor to the Fitz-Clark dome. A mahogany and glass door marks the entrance to the Fitz-Clark dome staircase which continues to use marble.

Figure 34. South Staircase.

LIBRARY

Continuing west down the south side of the hallway, the library (room 102 on current plan) contains an entrance immediately off the hallway beyond the staircase (however, access is currently blocked by furniture). The east wall of the library contains a corridor that leads to the director’s room and a vault. The west wall of the library contains two doors; one connecting the original secretary’s office and the original assistant’s office. The assistant’s office is also accessible from the octagonal area of the central hallway on the north south axis, and the secretary and assistant’s offices contain a door along the shared east-west wall between the two offices. The library is largely comprised of oak wood and contains a highly detailed tile and oak fireplace on the south wall,with an oak mantle and framing (Figure 35). Built-in oak bookcases display the high detail of millwork that is found throughout the Observatory. The materials of the library are similar to those in the director’s office, which is located to the west of the lecture hall, and south of the library.

DIRECTOR’S OFFICE Figure 35. Detail Millwork of the Library

The director’s office (room 105 on current plan) contains a similar oak mantle and framing with decorative tile work surrounding the fireplace on the north wall, and detailed oak wood built-in bookcases (Figure 37). Similar oak trim is carried throughout the secretary’s office, assistant’s office and the astronomer’s office.

THE OCTAGON

Figure 36. Library

The center of the octagon (space 191 on current plan) contains a statue of John Brashear, which faces east and is visible from the entrance (his back faces west towards the Thaw dome) (Figure 32). To the west, beyond the octagon, a short hallway leads to the Thaw dome. The clock room lies to the south off this hall. To its west is the entrance to the instrument room, marked by a wooden door. The instrument room runs north south, connecting with the draughting room and also with the Thaw dome. The instrument room is Tshaped, with the entrance to the Thaw Dome located at the northwest end, adjacent to the central hallway. From the octagon, a secondary hallway runs north-south, allowing access to the staff rooms, the men’s room, and a staircase leading to the basement. At the south end of this hall are entrances to the astronomer’s and director’s offices. West of the astronomer’s office lies the draughting room, which contains a curved west wall due to the Thaw dome tower, and also provides secondary access to the instrument room. West of the octagon, an addition was made for a secondary, handicap access point on the north facade of the Observatory. Where the window is shown in the original plan on the north

wall of the anterior hallway prior to the steps of the Thaw dome, a door has been added. The first floor culminates at the stairs that ascends to the Thaw dome, where a set of double wooden doors marks the entrance.

NORTH SIDE OF THE CENTRAL HALLWAY

At the east end of the central hallway, a reception room is located to the north (room 118 on current plan). The entrance to the reception room is directly across from the lecture hall’s first entrance on the north-south axis. A women’s restroom (room 119 on current plan) is located to the north end of the reception room. West of the reception room, directly across from the lecture hall’s second entrance is a wooden door that hides a stairwell that leads to the plate room and the Keeler dome (room 182 on current plan). Adjacent to the stairwell, the entrance to an enlarging room is located on axis with the south stairwell that ascends to the second floor. A single door marks the entrance to the computing room (room 113A on current plan), which is located on axis with the original entrance to the library. The computing room creates a trapezoid on the northwest wall due to the two-plane north facade. The computing room shares a secondary entrance to the computer’s office (room 113 on current plan) that is located adjacent on the west. The primary entrance to the computer’s office is located in the octagon, and is located on a north-south axis with the entrance to the assistant’s office. The computer’s office is also trapezoidal and shares the triangulated wall of the northwest facade.

Figure 37. Detail Millwork of the Director’s Office.

TELESCOPE LEVEL OF FITZ-CLARK TOWER

The Fitz-Clark dome is the smallest of the three domes being 25 feet in diameter. It holds the oldest telescope in the building. The telescope was brought over from the old observatory, and still retains most of its original pieces (Figure 38). The room itself is simple and circular in plan. The dome is comprised of tin with white-painted tongue-and-groove wooden cladding. At the base of the dome is a motor and black metal track that allows the dome to rotate. Around the walls of the room there are five four-foot square windows. The walls and doors are all painted white and are undecorated. There are three doors; one at the start of the Fitz-Clark staircase, one at the entrance to the dome, and one that leads to the circular roof. There is a glass window that leads to equipment for the telescope.

Figure 38. Fitz-Clark Telescope

KEELER TOWER BASEMENT OF KEELER TOWER - THE CRYPT

Figure 39. Crypt Located in Basement inside the Keeler Dome Tower.

At the bottom of the Keeler dome is the Crypt. A crypt is a room normally underground, that holds the remains of a person or people. The observatory contains five people in the crypt; John A. Brashear (1840-1920) and wife Phoebe S. Brashear (1843-1910), James Edward Keeler (1857-1900), and his son Henry Bowmen Keeler (1893-1918), and wife Cora Matthews Keeler (1854-1944). The room is small and round (Figure 40). It’s completely tiled except for the ceiling, which is detailed in decorative plaster and is similar to the ceiling in the octagon room on the first floor. Multiple thin circles of blue and aqua tiles border the floor. The bottom walls also have tiles in a fret pattern. The majority of the room’s tiles are cream colored. The names and placement of the deceased are evenly spread out. The Brashear’s are to the left of the entryway, then James Keeler and his son in the center (Figure 39), then Cora Keeler to the right. The entrance to the crypt contains a small rectangular vestibule painted in sky blue with a concrete floor and painted brick (Figure 40). The rest of the Keeler dome basement is open space. There are two wooden casement windows facing northeast right below the ceiling. In the center of this circular room is a concrete spiral staircase. The staircase wraps around the center circular wall of the crypt, which is brick and painted white. (Figure 43). This center structure helps support the telescope overhead. There is also a hole in the ceiling, to the right when leaving the vestibule. The hole goes from the top level of the dome tower to the basement. It was originally used in experiments with the telescope. Going up the stairs there is a small bridge that leads to a door and out into the rest of the basement.

FIRST FLOOR OF KEELER TOWER

Figure 40. Entrance to the Crypt

The first floor above the basement is mainly used for storage these days. It’s a very small space. The space was originally there for a machine that rotated the floor of the telescope. The floor and celling are wood, with brick walls. There are four wooden casement windows along the dome. In the center is the old machine that lifted the celling or floor of the dome. However after only eight years of use they no longer use it because of safety issues, and it hasn’t been used since. It is still there.

TELESCOPE LEVEL OF KEELER DOME

The upper floor is the telescope level. To get into the room there is a steep narrow stair that lead from the first floor hallway to the dome. This dome contains the telescope that is used by students, (which is about five years old) (Figure 41). The dome is 30 feet in diameter and is clad in tin. It is lined with wood planks painted white, similar to those in the Fitz-Clark Dome. Structurally it has small steel beams running up the dome, then one running horizontally. Where the dome opens, there are two long rounded doors that go from the top to the bottom of the dome. Supporting the two tin doors are crisscrossing

bars consisting of metal. The room lacks ornamentation and contains the telescope in the center. The dome itself has three twofoot wide copper center horizontal pivot windows. The floor is currently carpeted, and around the edge of the floor is a small train track mechanism that controls the movement of the dome itself.

INTERIOR MATERIALS

While the public spaces are highly ornate and marked with marble, mahogany, oak, and decorative plaster, the private spaces lack this level of ornamentation. The private spaces, such as the stairwell to the Keeler dome and the secondary hallway running north-south from the octagon lack marble and are more frugal in design. These spaces clearly demarcate areas intended primarily for staff use, as the public oriented spaces are highly crafted. The difference between levels of ornamentation speaks volumes of Brashearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intention for the public to be of importance, while the purely functional design of the research facilities speaks of the importance of research over design. Conclusively, the materials not only guide the visitors to designated areas of the Allegheny Observatory, but also share a message about the two important purposes of the structure; research and public use.

Figure 41. Keeler Telescopt

THAW TOWER

Figure 42. Thaw Telescope.

Figure 43. Vertical Steel Trusses of Thaw Dome.

At the west end of the observatory is the biggest dome, which houses a 32-inch refractor telescope (Figure 42), named to honor William Thaw Sr., who was a railroad businessman and supported Brashear in the making of telescope lenses for the Observatory. From the main hallway on the first floor, seven steps ascend to a small vestibule, which connects the hallway to the Thaw dome tower. The purpose of this vestibule is to separate the air of the two spacesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the hallway and the dome. Though the observatory is heated for public use, the domes are unheated. For proper observation with the telescope, the temperature in the dome must be kept the same as the temperature of the outdoors. Included in the vestibule are two doors and one window; one door opens to the hallway, while the other provides access to the dome. Other entrances to the dome tower include: an entrance on the second floor on the east of the Thaw dome tower and two entrances on the basement floor, both located at the east of the thaw dome tower. To the south of the dome, the secondary entrance porch projects from the main dome tower, connecting the second floor to the mezzanine balcony of the Thaw tower. Though the structure remains it is no longer functioning for use.

MAIN SPACES

Figure 44. Upper Space of Thaw Tower, looking at the Control Room.

The dome towerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interior is 62-feet in diameter and contains a movable floor that vertically divides the space into two parts. The lower part begins at the ground of the basement and extends upwards to the wooden floor (Figure 43). Above, the wooden floor extends to the roof of the dome. This space houses the telescope and the control room on the highest of the three mezzanines (Figure 44). The wooden floor is supported by six steel trusses that run east-west over two larger south-north trusses, which support the span of the floor. The central, round, wooden floor moves vertically between the second and the third mezzanines. Three floors of narrow circular walkways project

inward from the circular walls of the dome tower. When the movable floor meets either of the two upper mezzanines, they form a complete floor.

OPENINGS

There are three wooden casement windows and four vents on the brick walls on the first floor of the Thaw tower. There are five wooden casement windows on the circular brick walls on the basement level. One of the three windows at the west end does not exist anymore. There are two wooden casement windows facing west and two wooden double hung windows facing east in the basement of the south porch.

STRUCTURAL SUPPORT

Similar to the construction of the rest of the building, one outer layer of buff brick and two inner layers, or withes, of red brick form a drum on which the dome rests. Inside this drum, eight vertical steel trusses are set into the brick walls, which correspond to the exterior brick pilasters that equidistantly surrounding the dome (Figure 43). White corrugated fiberglass panels have been applied to the walls on the three mezzanine levels directly below the shutter. These vertical steel trusses support both the rotating metal dome and the three mezzanines. In the middle of the basement, a large cast iron pier rests on a cubic brick base, which supports the telescope (the floor moves vertically around this base).

THE THAW DOME

The structure of the dome consists of steel trusses acting as curved rafters. To keep the rafters from moving outward, horizontal steel meridians are employed. In addition to the trussed strips, meridians made by untrussed steel strips evenly divide the curved surface. Covering the steel framework is wood tongue andgrooving cladding that covers the whole surface of the dome, beneath its tin outer skin, similar to Keeler and Fitz-Clark. Some of the wood is cracked, and others are missing paint. On the interior of the dome, all of the wood is painted cream. A curved vertical sliding shutter is cut from the top of the roof to the base of the dome. Through the shutter the telescope can observe the light from sky.

MECHANISM OF THE THAW DOME - SLIDING SHUTTER

Steel cables are fastened to the shutter, with the other end fastened to an orange box on the track (Figure 45). The orange box is connected to a motor by cables; when the motor runs, the two halves of the shutter open or close. The shutter used to be controlled manually instead of by a motor. Today, the shutter can still be controlled manually, if needed.

Figure 45. Shutter of the Dome

Figure 46. Movable Wooden Floor with Pulleys.

ROTATING MECHANISM

A pulley system powered by an electric motor on the basement level allows the dome to rotate along a circular railroad-type track (Figure 46). Along with the rotating dome, the sliding shutter rotates around the center of the dome to different positions. This allows the telescope to observe the sky from any direction.

MOVABLE WOODEN FLOOR

Pulleys are located inside the vertical steel trusses and contain cables running from the ground to the third floor. Axels and wheels of the pulleys are either fixed on the third floor or the ground floor, with their cables pulling the wooden floor from both ends (up and down) (Figure 49). The motor that controls the pulley system is fixed on the ground. When the motor is on, the pulley allows the wooden floor to move between the second floor and third floor. Thus, a person can adjust his or her eye level by moving the floor up and down to fit the position of the telescope.

THE TELESCOPE

A cast iron pier in the middle of the dome gets thinner as it gets higher, supporting the telescope at its top. “The 30-inch Thaw refractor housed in the main dome of the observatory is the largest photographic refractor in the country and was especially designed for photographic astrometry. The telescope tube is 47 feet long and weighs 8,000 pounds. The Thaw telescope is used primarily to take 8 x 10-inch stellar photographs, which are used, in positional astronomy. In 1985 the original 30-inch glass lens in the Thaw telescope, made by John Brashear, was replaced with a new lens, designed to collect more light in the red end of the spectrum to cope with the increasing problem of light pollution in the Pittsburgh area. The original 30-inch lens is now on display in the main corridor of the observatory building.”1 1 National Park Service. “Astronomy and Astrophysics” http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4m.htm. Accessed March 2014.

THE FORMER TRANSIT HOUSE

The original plan of the Allegheny Observatory is largely intact as it was originally built with the exception of a few changes. Although most of the changes that took place in the Allegheny Observatory were functional, a few structural changes have been made. The main structural change was the removal of the transit house. The original floor plan of the Allegheny Observatory contained a rectangular single story transit house that was located on the eastwest axis of the structure behind the Thaw Dome (see original plan in Figure 30). The transit house was oriented on a north-south axis with entrances centrally located on both the northern and southern walls. The transit house shared a connection to the Thaw Dome on the eastern wall where a stairwell led to the center of the westernmost point of the Thaw Dome at two levels. The transit house was comprised entirely of metal with the exception of the door and window frames. The passageway between the main structure of the Observatory and the Transit House was comprised entirely of steel. The structure was fully removed and no longer exists (see current plan in Figure 34). by Erin Candee, Rachel Kauffman, Jenna Briasco, Jacob Craig, Wenfei Luo, Sapata Pessiki

WINDOW INVENTORY It is important to understand the proper maintenance and treatment of historic windows. A detailed inventory provides an evaluation of types, materials and existing physical condition of all the windows in the Allegheny Observatory.

L M N O

W X

Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO

AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD BE BF

HAA 1921-‐-‐SPRING 2014

B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B

B B

X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

B B B B B B B B B B

X X

X X X Northeast Southeast South Southwest East Keeler North Keeler West Keeler North North Southeast Southwest Southwest West Thaw North X X X X X X X X X X

X X

27" 27" 18.75" 18.75" 18.75" 18.75" 18.75"

18" 18" 53.75" 53.75" 53.75" 53.75" 53.75"

45" 45" 45" 45" 54.125" 54.125" 54.125" 54.125"

111.25" 111.25" 111.25" 111.25" 101" 101" 101" 101"

31"1/4 31"1/4 31"1/4 31"1/4 31"1/4 31"1/4 31"1/4 24"3/8 24"3/8 30"1/2 30"1/2 30.25" 30.5" 30.25" 30.25" 30.375" 30.25" 30.75" 30.25" 36" 28.25" 30.375" 30.375" 30.375" 36" 30.25" 30.25" 30.25" 22" 22" 22" 22" 22"

64"3/4 64"3/4 64"3/4 46"1/2 46"1/2 64"3/4 64"3/4 33"1/4 33"1/4 64"1/4 64"1/4 64.375" 64.75" 64.375" 64.375" 64.625" 54.625" 64.875" 64.75" 64.625" 58.875" 55.25" 55.25" 55.25" 60" 24" 24" 24" 64" 64" 64" 64" 64"

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X Glass block X X This The original windows are believed to be wooden Bronze X X X X X X X X X X X

46" 25 1/2" 25 1/2" 35" 35" 39" 39" 35" 35" 51" 51"

86.5" 57" 57" 39 1/2" 39 1/2" 41 1/4" 57 1/2" 57 1/2" 57 1/2" 57 1/2" 57 1/2"

X X X X X X X

Copper

X X X X X

40.75" 40.75" 40.75" 40.75" 22.5 " 22.5 " 22.5 "

54" 54" 54" 54" 36.75" 36.75" 36.75"

60" 60" 60" 60" 25" 25" 25" 32.25" 32.25" 58" 58" 58" 58" 102" 105" 64 1/4" 64 1/4" 45 1/2" 47 1/4" 63 1/2" 63 1/2" 63 1/2" 63" 62 3/4"

WDH 11 B

51"

57 1/2"

54"

62 3/4"

WDH 12 B

51"

57 1/2"

54 1/2"

63 1/4"

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

WDH 13 B WDH 14 1 X WDH 15 1 X WDH 16 1 X WDH 17 1 X WCPC 1 1 WCPC 2 1 WCPC 3 1 WCPC 4 1 WCPC 5 1 WCPC 6 1

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

51" 51" 51" 51" 51" 39" 39" 39" 39" 39" 39"

57 1/2" 100 1/4" 100 1/4" 100 1/4" 100 1/4" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 97 1/2"

54 1/2" 54 1/2" 54 1/2" 54 1/2" 54 1/2" 54.125" 49 1/2" 49 1/2" 49 1/2" 49 1/2" 49 1/2" 38"

63 1/2" 103" 103" 103" 103" 101" 105" 105" 105" 105" 105" 46 1/2"

X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

Poor

X X X X

Fair

Good

X X X

X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

Overall Window Condition

X X X X X X X X X

poor

X X X X

X X X X X X X X

Fair

Paint

Finish -‐ Outside

X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Poor

X X X X X X X X

Fair

X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X X X

Paint

Poor

Fair

Good

Poor

Fair

Poor

Fair

Good

Poor

Fair

Good

X X

X X X X X

Finish -‐ inside

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

Frame (Jambs, Hardware Casings, Sills, Aprons)

X X X X X X X

Poor

Fair

Good

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

Glazing (Lower)

X X X X X X X X

X X

Poor

X X X X X X X

X X

Fair

Good

N/A

X X

X X X 47" 47" 47" 47" 40" 40" 40" 49" 54" 29" 29" 29" 29" 49" 49 1/2" 36 1/8" 36 1/8" 38 1/2" 42 1/4" 42 1/2" 38 1/2" 38 1/2" 54 1/4" 54"

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

Sash (Lower)

Good

97.75" 97.75" 97.75" 97.75" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 97 1/2" 58" 58" 58" 39"1/2 39"1/2 58" 58" 28"1/2 28"1/2 57"3/8 57"3/8 57.375" 57.5" 57.38" 57.38" 57.25" 57.5" 57.75" 57.5" 57.625" 53.75" 54.375" 53.75" 53.375" 54"

Glazing (upper or only)

Stain

40" 40" 40" 40" 47 1/2" 47 1/2" 47 1/2" 49 1/2" 49 1/2" 26"1/2 26"1/2 26"1/2 26"1/2 26"1/2 26"1/2 26"1/2 18"1/4 18"1/4 25" 25" 24.5" 24.75" 24.75" 24.75" 24.75" 24.25" 24.25" 24.25" 40.375" 27.1" 26.125" 26.5" 26.5" 27"

Inoperable

Width

Other

Aluminum

Steel

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

Wood

Other

Awing

Hopper

Fixed

Pivot

Casement

Dbl Hung

Sgl Hung

X X X X X X X

X X

1 1 1 1 1

X X X X X X X X X

Sash (upper or only)

Good

X X X X X X X X X X

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

West

East X X X X

Operation

Stain

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

South

North

Floor WCP 1 WCP 2 WCP 3 WCP 4 WCP 5 WCP 6 WCP 7 WCP 8 WCP 9 WC 1 WC 2 WC 3 WC 4 WC 5 WC 6 WC 7 WC 8 WC 9 WC 10 WC 11 WC 13 WC 14 WC 15 WC 16 WC 17 WC 18 WC 19 WC 20 WC 21 WC 22 WC 23 WC 24 WC 25 WC 26 WC 27 WC 28 WC 29 WC 30 WC 31 WC 32 WC 33 WC 34 SCP1 SCP2 SF1 ASH 1 ASH 2 ASH 3 ASH 4 CCHP 1 CCHP 2 CCHP 3 GBF 1 *GBF 2 *MJ 1 *MJ 2 *MJ 3 *MJ 4 OSG 1 WDH 1 WDH 2 WDH 3 WDH 4 WDH 5 WDH 6 WDH 7 WDH 8 WDH 9 WDH 10

Size (Rough Opening)

Poor

Size (Sash)

Fair

Material

Good

Window Type

Height

Location

Width

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY-‐-‐WINDOW SURVEY

Height

Remarks

Measurements in italics are estimates Hardware is all intact but could not be tested as the window is painted shut, left end of bottom rail has finish loss from water damage; there is an exterior storm window Hardware is all intact but could not be tested as the window is painted shut, interior rail is worn on the top, can be replaced for aesthetic reasons; there is an exterior storm window Hardware is all intact but could not be tested as the window is painted shut, there is a weatherstop around the edges of the interior; there is an exterior storm window Hardware is all intact but could not be tested as the window is painted shut, there is a weatherstop around the edges of the interior; there is an exterior storm window Window jambs, sills, sash stain painted over with brown paint on the interior, white on the exterior; sealed Window jambs, sills, sash stain painted over with brown paint on the interior, white on the exterior Window jambs, sills, sash stain painted over with brown paint on the interior, white on the exterior; sealed Window jambs, sills, sash stain painted over with brown paint on the interior, white on the exterior; sealed intact, operable missing metal hardware(handle), inoperable SAME AS ABOVE unreachable, blocked by a shelf unreachable, blocked by a shelf hardware is intact, but inoperable There's a metal plate connecting stile and rail at left bottom corner, missing metal hardware(handle). too high, unreachable, locked, not in use. too high, unreachable, locked, not in use hardware is intact, but inoperable hardware is intact, but inoperable yellow staining on the glass at the bottom. Bottom right there is a chip of wood missing. Opens, but there is a storm window on the other side that doesn’t cover the whole window. There is open space at the top and bottom. Painted Shut Painted Shut Painted Shut, right bottom corner of wood is separating Painted Shut, chip on right middle sash Painted Shut Painted Shut missing handle storm window and vent/fan blocking view. lower left corner is chipped lower right joint is coming apart. Doesnt close. Left rail is chipped at bottom and mid way up the left side nailed shut An AC unit has been installed where this window belongs This window has been sealed shut by paint Rough opening measured from interior, unsure of operation as could not reach window, thickness is an estimate based on other casement windows, hardware exists but cannot examine it up close Rough opening measured from interior, unsure of operation as could not reach window, thickness is an estimate based on other casement windows, hardware exists but cannot examine it up close Rough opening measured from interior, unsure of operation as could not reach window, thickness is an estimate based on other casement windows, hardware exists but cannot examine it up close Rough opening measured from interior, unsure of operation as could not reach window, thickness is an estimate based on other casement windows, hardware exists but cannot examine it up close Rough opening measured from interior, unsure of operation as could not reach window, thickness is an estimate based on other casement windows, hardware exists but cannot examine it up close Unreachable, flushing modified from the skylight, keeping it from opening, in good condition SAME AS ABOVE intact, fixed The operation is a little wobbly. When opening the window the sash wobbles. It is an aluminum replacement window. The operation is a little wobbly. When opening the window the sash wobbles. It is an aluminum replacement window. The operation is a little wobbly. When opening the window the sash wobbles. It is an aluminum replacement window. The operation is a little wobbly. When opening the window the sash wobbles. It is an aluminum replacement window. This window needs stript and painted. Direction is when shutter faces South. This window needs stript and painted. Direction is when shutter faces South. Spring is missing from hardware. This window needs stripped and painted. Direction is when shutter faces South. This window is glass block. The windows exterior is in bad condition. The foundation surounding the window is spalling at the top. This window is not glass block. This window has been filled in with buff brick, but contains an air conditioner. This window contains a black metal gate protecting the air conditioner.

These windows are not metal jalousie, they are vents for the fans. They are believed to be wooden casement which are found in the basement of the Thaw dome tower. This window contains a storm window, and also has lights visible on the exterior to illuminate the stained glass at night. Pivot screwed to window rail; storm windows Missing pulley on both sides; nailed shut Missing pulley on both sides; nailed shut INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WINDOW IS IN GREAT CONDITION. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. HARDWARE LARGELY MISSING; ONLY RIGHT PULLEY REMAINS. WOOD ON BOTTOM SASH BROKEN. RUBBER ON UPPER SASH LOOSE ON THE LEFT. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WOODWORK NEEDS SOME REPAIR BY LOWER SASH. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WINDOW CONTAINS OPAQUE GLAZING. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WINDOW CONTAINS OPAQUE GLAZING. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. FULL STORM WINDOW. RECOMMEND CLEANING. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. FULL STORM WINDOW. RECOMMEND CLEANING. BOTTOM SASH OPERABLE,TOP SASH APPEARS TO BE PAINTED SHUT AND INOPERABLE. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. JAMB ON OUTSIDE HAS MOLD; RECOMMEND CLEANING. PARTIAL STORM WINDOW. STORMS WERE NOT TAKEN OFF TO PAINT. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. LOCKED ROOM, UNABLE TO ENTER. BASED ON MEASUREMENTS OF OTHER BASEMENT WINDOWS, INTERIOR MEASUREMENTS WERE ESTIMATED. DUE TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE WINDOWS BEING INSIDE A LOCKED ROOM, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE WINDOWS ARE IN GOOD CONDITION LIKE THE SIMILAR WINDOWS IN B05, B06 L, AND B06 R. MY ASSUMPTION IS DEFENDED BY INVESTIGATION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE WINDOW FROM THE EXTERIOR. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. LOCKED ROOM, UNABLE TO ENTER. BASED ON MEASUREMENTS OF OTHER BASEMENT WINDOWS, INTERIOR MEASUREMENTS WERE ESTIMATED. DUE TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE WINDOWS BEING INSIDE A LOCKED ROOM, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE WINDOWS ARE IN GOOD CONDITION LIKE THE SIMILAR WINDOWS IN B05, B06 L, AND B06 R. MY ASSUMPTION IS DEFENDED BY INVESTIGATION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE WINDOW FROM THE EXTERIOR. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WINDOWS IN GOOD CONDITION OTHERWISE. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WINDOWS IN GOOD CONDITION OTHERWISE. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WINDOWS IN GOOD CONDITION OTHERWISE. INOPERABLE DUE TO BEING PAINTED SHUT. APPEARS OPERABLE OTHERWISE. WINDOWS IN GOOD CONDITION OTHERWISE. Window jambs, sills, sash stain painted over with brown paint on the interior, white on the exterior; sealed Pivot screwed to window rail; storm windows Pivot screwed to window rail; storm windows Pivot screwed to window rail; storm windows Pivot screwed to window rail; storm windows Pivot screwed to window rail; storm windows Glazing is plastic, cracks where painted shut, small crack in lower sash glazing

maSONry SurvEy iNtrOductiON This section is a guide to masonry problems occurring at the Allegheny Observatory, along with causes and recommendations for repair. Through historic readings and guest consultants, the students were assigned individual sections of the Allegheny Observatory to survey for masonry problems. On the following pages are six different sections of the Allegheny Observatory documenting masonry problems, reasons for these problems, and proposed solutions.

FITZ-CLARK & KEELER DOME TOWERS: ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MASONRY PROBLEMS JENNA BRIASCO

Improperly repointed

Affix

Resolve water issue, remove lose material, prime and re-glaze

appropriate mortar,

Repoint with Jahn M100 or other appropriate mortar.

aSSESSMEnT oF MaSonry ProblEMS, cauSES, and SoluTIonS

MaSonry ProblEMS IdEnTIFIcaTIon:

Notes:

KEY NOTES: 1

New storefront window to match existing.

New interior 1" insulated glass unit.

New metal stud and GWB partiion to ceiling above.

Provide level 5 finish on curved surfaces in lounge

New wood bench. See detail

New celilng panel above.

New wall panel. See detail.

New ceramic tile at entrance.

Provide sloped gypsum infill feathered from exisitng floor level up approx. 1-1/2". GC to verify finsh floor materials and thicknesses and coordinate.

10 11

New toilet room fixtures.

Exisitng electrical panel and hot water heating units to remain.

13 14

1. Spalling, need to be repaired. 2. Missing mortar joint, need to be repointed. 3. Missing chips, need to be rebuilt. 4. Hollow sounding (spalling), need to be repaired or replaced 5. Crack, need to be investigated and repaired. 6. Curved surface, investigation needed. 7. Terracotta pieces damaged, need to be replaCed. 8. erosion 9. Terracotta pieces damaged, need to be repaired

New mirrors from 12" aff to 7'-0" aff

Replace existing hollow metal door and frame to accomodate raised floor condition.

Exisitng sprinker system to remain. modify as required. Exisitng EWC to be reinstalled. New reception desk. See detail Add approx. 1-1/2" to each tread and landing and raiiling to accomodate raised floor condion. Install new owner provided dance floor assembly. Provide raised floor to match level of new dance floor ( approx. 1-1/2") Paint all walls and celings , sprinkler piping and ductwork on first floor. Exisitng stairs to remain. Clean and seal exisitng concrete treads, paint stringers, risers, raiingsand handrail.

ALL DIMENSIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS SHALL BE CHECKED AND VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE SITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SCALE OF ALL DRAWINGS PRODUCED OR VIEWED FROM AN ELECTRONIC FILE

COPYRIGHT © 2003 PFAFFMANN + ASSOCIATES ALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE ARCHITECT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO.

PFAFFMANN+ASSOCIATES Suite 800 223 Fourth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222

GWB niche and painted wood shelf

voice: 412.471.2470 fax: 412.471.2472 rob@pfaffmann.com

Provide power for owner provided IPAD and wall mount. Provide power and data at reception desk. New mop sink Consultants

Client

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

Project

ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY EXTERIOR RESTORATION

Address

5 5

2 3

Terracotta

Architects Seal

Documentation Phase

Sheet Title

SOUTH ELEVATION

South Facade Elevation, showing the assessed area 1

A2.2

Drawn by:

SOUTH ELEVATION

P+A

Scale:

Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"

Date issued:

23 JANUARY 2014 1

Revisions:

2 3 4 5

Brick

Terracotta (typical)

6 5 3

2 2 1 8

4 1

1 8

2 2 3

2 8

1 1

2 8

2 2 1,4 5 1 1, 4 1

Sandstone

Figure A. Identification on the south facade of the allegheny observatory

Sheet Number

SouTh FacadE:

A2.2

The masonry of the south facade of the Observatory includes terracotta, brick, sandstone, and stone (window sill). The two terracotta pieces located at the corners of the cornice are damaged and need to be replaced. Mortar joints are missing in a few places and need to be repointed. a couple of tiny cracks occur and those terracotta pieces need to be repaired. The buff brick walls have some missing mortar joints and need to be repointed. The wall surface is curved in a small area beside the middle window and needs to be further investigated; whether it was designed to be curved or not is not determined. The joint above the water table needs to be repointed. The sandstone foundation is the most deteriorated part of the south facade; since the bedding planes of sandstone blocks were wrongly placed facing outward in some places, a couple of sandstone blocks on the upper east corner are spalling and hollowing, and need to be replaced. The underside of the water table above each basement window is spalling because of water. Therefore the stones on the underside of the watertable need to be rebuilt. The stones of the window silling are also spalling because of water that drops on them after accumulating on the underside of water table. The underside of the bottom sandstones is eroded because of the same reason. Thus a drip edge need to be cut into the underside of the stone to let the water drop directly from the wall surface to the ground before it reaches the underside of water table. Some mortar joints of the sandstone foundation are missing and need to be repointed. Some corners of the sandstone blocks are deteriorated and need to be rebuilt. To repair, rebuild, and replace sandstone block, JaHN restoration Mortars can be used. In order to match the present color of the sandstone foundation, samples should be patched on the damaged pieces to get tested. Notes:

KEY NOTES:

9 5

EaST FacadE oF Thaw TowEr:

New storefront window to match existing.

New interior 1" insulated glass unit.

New metal stud and GWB partiion to ceiling above.

Provide level 5 finish on curved surfaces in lounge

New wood bench. See detail

New celilng panel above.

New wall panel. See detail.

The first four pieces (counting from south to north) of terracotta molding on the south corner of the facade have been damaged and need to be repaired. The 6th and 7th pieces have be damaged and need to be replaCed. There’s a crack running vertically through the walls as showed in FigureB. The cause of the crack needs to be investigated. Some of the mortar joints are damaged or missing and need to be repointed. One block is missing a corner chip and needs to be rebuilt. To repair, rebuild, and replace terracotta, a masonry company can be contracted. Original terracotta pieces would be used for building the mould. The mould would be used to rebuild the new terracotta. The terracotta pieces that are used to replace the old ones must be the same type of terracotta, with the same color, texture, and finish as the original ones. The whole assessed facade needs to be repainted since some paint is missing.

New ceramic tile at entrance.

9 10

Provide sloped gypsum infill feathered from exisitng floor level up approx. 1-1/2". GC to verify finsh floor materials and thicknesses and coordinate.

New toilet room fixtures.

Exisitng electrical panel and hot water heating units to remain.

13 14 15

New mirrors from 12" aff to 7'-0" aff

Replace existing hollow metal door and frame to accomodate raised floor condition. Exisitng sprinker system to remain. modify as required. Exisitng EWC to be reinstalled. New reception desk. See detail

Add approx. 1-1/2" to each tread and landing and raiiling to accomodate raised floor condion.

Install new owner provided dance floor assembly.

Provide raised floor to match level of new dance floor ( approx. 1-1/2")

Terracotta

Paint all walls and celings , sprinkler piping and ductwork on first floor. Exisitng stairs to remain. Clean and seal exisitng concrete treads, paint stringers, risers, raiingsand handrail. GWB niche and painted wood shelf

ALL DIMENSIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS SHALL BE CHECKED AND VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE SITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SCALE OF ALL DRAWINGS PRODUCED OR VIEWED FROM AN ELECTRONIC FILE

PFAFFMANN+ASSOCIATES Suite 800 223 Fourth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 voice: 412.471.2470 fax: 412.471.2472 rob@pfaffmann.com

Provide power for owner provided IPAD and wall mount. Provide power and data at reception desk. New mop sink

Consultants

Client

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

Project

ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY EXTERIOR RESTORATION

Address

Architects Seal

Documentation Phase

Figure B. Identification on the south half of the assessed Thaw Tower facade

Figure C. Identification on the north half of the assess

East Facade Elevation, showing the assessed area-the east facade of Thaw dome tower 1

A2.1

EAST ELEVATION Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"

Sheet Title

EAST ELEVATION

Drawn by:

P+A

Scale:

Date issued: Revisions:

23 JANUARY 2014

2 3 4

Sheet Number

A2.1

by Wenfei Luo

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

)RU LVVXHV VSHFLILF WR WKLV HOHYDWLRQ D )RU WKLV FUDFN FRQVXOW DQ H[SHUW VXFK DV D VWUXFWXUDO DUFKLWHFW WR GHWHUPLQH LI GLIIHUHQWLDO VHWWOLQJ KDV FDXVHG WKLV FUDFN E 7KLV SLODVWHU UHTXLUHV IXOO UHSODFHPHQW VDYH D IHZ EORFNV WKDW FDQ EH VDOYDJHG DQG UHXVHG F :KLOH WKHUH LV QR GUDLQ RQ WKLV HOHYDWLRQ RI WKH SRUFK WKHVH FUDFNV FRXOG KDYH EHHQ FDXVHG E\ D VLPLODU SUREOHP WR WKRVH RQ WKH ZHVW HOHYDWLRQ DV WKH\ DUH URXJKO\ LQ WKH VDPH ORFDWLRQV

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

7KH DUHDV ZLWK PLVVLQJ PDVRQU\ FDQ EH UHSDLUHG LQ WZR ZD\V 2QH ZD\ HVSHFLDOO\ ZLWK ODUJHU DUHDV RI PLVVLQJ PDVRQU\ LV WR UHSODFH WKH HQWLUH XQLW 7KH VHFRQG ZD\ ZLWK VPDOOHU DUHDV RI PLVVLQJ PDVRQU\ LV WR UHSDLU LW XVLQJ WKH PDWFKLQJ -DKQ PRUWDU DQG XVLQJ LW WR UHEXLOG WKH PLVVLQJ PDVRQU\ DUHD 7KH PLVVLQJ PDVRQU\ FRXOG EH FDXVHG E\ VSDOOLQJ RQ D ODUJHU VFDOH DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH SUREOHP EHKLQG VSDOOLQJ DV VDLG DERYH PXVW EH UHVROYHG EHIRUH UHSDLULQJ WKH PLVVLQJ DUHD

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by Erin Candee 7KH DUHD RI WKH ZDOO WKDW MRLQV ZLWK WKH OHIW VLGH RI WKH VWHSV VHH ODEHO E QHHGV WR EH HYDOXDWHG IRU GLIIHUHQWLDO VHWWOHPHQW DV LW VHHPV WKH ZDOO KDV VKLIWHG RYHU WLPH DQG ZLGHQHG WKH JDS EHWZHHQ WKH ZDOO DQG WKH VWHSV 6RXUFHV &DWKHGUDO 6WRQH 3URGXFWV Â³-DKQ 0RUWDUV Â´ $FFHVVHG $SULO WK KWWS ZZZ FDWKHGUDOVWRQH 7KH PDMRULW\ RI WKH ZDOO VHH ODEHO F QHHGV WR EH UHSRLQWHG FRP SURGXFWV MDKQ PRUWDUV

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Mortar joints should be repointed. Chunk of terra cotta missing. Should repair, if not replace. Repair two cracks in terra cotta. Entire cornice should be replaced. Chunk of terra cotta has broken off. Should repair, if not replace. Terra cotta spalling. Needs repair. Cracking in terra cotta. Needs replacement. Global spalling. Should be repaired by priming and re-coating. First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 10.Wythes of brick in pilaster have separated. Staining has occurred from the red brick and red mortar seeping through. Entire pilaster needs replaced with buff brick to match the observatory. 11.Cracking in terra cotta. Needs repaired. 12.First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 13.First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 14.Crack runs from window to a mortar joint. Should be investigated and repaired. Selective brick replacement and repoint is necessary. 15.Cracking in terra cotta. Needs repaired. 16.Terra cotta should be replaced. 17.Terra cotta should be replaced. 18.Sandstone mortar joints should be repointed. 19.Drip edge should be cut into the sandstone to prevent further water damage. 20.Crack in sandstone needs repair. 21.Spalling sandstone should be repaired. 22.Multiple mortar joints need to be repointed in this area. 23.Global spalling and damaged mortar joints in this area. Need repaired. 24.Mortar joint should be repointed.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Crack in terra cotta needs repair. Entire cornice should be replaced. Repair crack in brick. Selective brick replacement and repointing necessary. Repair crack in brick. Selective brick replacement and repointing necessary. Crack in terra cotta. needs repair, if not replacement. First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 7. First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 8. Repair crack in brick. Selective brick replacement and repointing necessary. 9. First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 10.First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 11.First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 12.Repair crack in brick. Selective brick replacement and repointing necessary. 13.First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required. 14.Terra cotta spalling. Needs repair. 15.Cracking and spalling in terra cotta. Needs replacement. 16.Terra cotta should be replaced. 17.Cracking and spalling in terra cotta. Needs replacement. 18.Sandstone mortar joints need repointing. 19.Stone coming forward. Cause should be investigated. Sandstone needs repair. 20.Drip edge should be cut into the sandstone to prevent further water damage. 21.Sandstone spalling and cracking. Should be repaired. 22.Sandstone cracking. Should be repaired. 23.Global spalling and damaged mortar joints in this area. Need repaired.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Entire cornice should be replaced. Terra cotta cracked and spalling, needs to be repaired or replaced. Terra cotta cracked and spalling, needs to be repaired or replaced. First inch of mortar should be removed and repointed where improper repairs were made before. Selective brick replacement required 5. Mortar joint needs repaired. 6. Cracking in terra cotta, should be replaced. 7. Cracking in terra cotta, should be replaced. 8. Selective brick replacement and repointing mortar joints necessary. 9. Selective brick replacement and repointing mortar joints necessary. 10.Selective brick replacement and repointing mortar joints necessary. 11.Sandstone spalling. MASONRY PROBLEMS:

The masonry of the Allegheny Observatory suffers from problems due to water, natural weathering, and improper repairs. Spalling has affected the terra cotta, buff brick, and the sandstone. Globally the terra cotta is spalling and faces oxidation from weathering. The cornice faces oxidation from weathering. The cornice faces the most problems. Weep holes were drilled to allow water drainage, but the cornice has still suffered from water damaged. Dirt has pulled through the weepholes and left staining on the cornice. The terra cotta also faces oxidation and cracking throughout the rest of the Thaw dome tower. The buff brick is spalling and cracking in multiple places due to improper repointing. The mortar that was repointed is too hard. Brick naturally expands and contracts, and the mortar should allow these Ă&#x;uctuations. The mortar has caused the spalling and cracking because the brick has no other way to move when naturally expanding, causing failure in the brick. The sandstone suffers from oxidation, cracking, and spalling, The orange coloring is due to oxidation, and is irreversible. When repaired, the coloring should be matched to the orangish hue to keep the foundation uniform. The spalling and mortar joint repairs should be resolved with a product called Jahn M-70 Limestone, Sandstone, and Brownstone Repair Mortar.

by Rachel Kauffman

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

large cracks caused by water in brick. solution: resolve where the water is coming from, then replace brick as needed. large cracks caused by water in terra cotta. solution: resolve where the water is coming from, then replace brick as needed. large cracks caused by poor re-pointing in brick solution: repoint with appropriate mortar joint, then replace brick as needed. small cracks caused by poor repointing in brick solution: repoint with appropriate mortar joint, then replace brick as needed. cracks caused by rusting steel lintel in terra cotta solution: replace the the steel beam, then replace all terra cotta. discoloring caused by water in terra cotta solution: after fixing water problem, you can wash area or if necessary paint. discoloring caused by steel rusting in terra cotta solution: after repainting area, washing, or painting if necessary.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

poorly done mortar joints solution: repointing with appropriate mortar spalling caused by sandstone being placed wrong, and weathering. solution: Jahn M100 terra cotta/brick repair missing stone for inspection solution: will be put back. grass overgrowing solution: weeding. missing pieces of stone solution: none of the missing pieces of sandstone are large enough to replace, so then you would use Jahn m100. missing pieces of terra cotta solution: when area is small enough you can repair missing part with a like material, or replace the whole terra cotta piece. metal drilled into brick solution: metal needs to be taken out and the area replaced/repaired. brick wall is bowing out due poor repointing. solution. completely rebuilding wall.

North Facade By sapata Pessiki

CHAPTER 2.0 HSR2 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE/CONTEXTS This chapter places the Observatory in context, and addresses why the Observatory is significant.

The Original Allegheny Observatory

Prior to the Allegheny Observatory we know today, a different Allegheny Observatory existed. The former Allegheny Observatory, commonly known as the Original Allegheny Observatory, was located on a hill in Allegheny City, now the location of Triangle Tech on the north side of Pittsburgh. The Original Allegheny Observatory was home to many great astronomers and astrophysicists, but in the late 1800s, due to increasing air pollution, the University of Pittsburgh began fund raising for a new observatory. The primary objective was to build this observatory in a location far from the polluted city air. Eventually, the Observatory was moved from its original location to the present-day location in Riverview Park. The original observatory, however, was not torn down until 1956. 1 The original Observatory is rich in history. Many discoveries and inventions took place at the hands of Samuel Pierpont Langley, James Edward Keeler, and John Alfred Brashear, all directors of the original Observatory at one point. These three directors gave fame to the Original Allegheny Observatory and were an integral component of the creation of the new Allegheny Observatory. Langley, Keeler and Brashear were not, however, the founders of the Original Allegheny Observatory. In 1858, during Donati’s Comet, the Pittsburgh Telescope Association was founded. Donati’s Comet was a notable comet discovered by Giovani Battista Donati, an Italian astronomy professor at the time of the discovery. The comet was originally discovered on June 2, 1852 in Florence, Italy. Although the discovery occurred in June, 1852, the comet would not viewable to the naked eye until September, 1852 through March, 1853. The comet is most widely known for the curved tail that follows it. Donati’s Comet inspired many artists and writers who created paintings and poems about the comet. 2 In addition, the comet influenced three Pittsburgh men to create the Pittsburgh Telescope Association, which eventually led to the creation of the Original Allegheny Observatory. The driving forces behind the Pittsburgh Telescope Association were Lewis Figure 1. Donati's Comet Bradley, Josiah King, and Harvey Childs, who were inspired by Donati’s Comet. 3 On (1858) February 15, 1859, they met at the house of Lewis Bradley to consider the purchase of a telescope, and thus the Pittsburgh Telescope Association was born. The association began fundraising to purchase a thirteen inch refractor telescope from Henry Fitz of New York. The telescope was bought from Fitz and delivered to Pittsburgh on November 14, 1861; the telescope saw first light on November 27, 1861. 4 Prior to the arrival of the telescope, the group began planning an observatory to house their newly acquired astronomical equipment. Originally, the telescope was to be positioned on the rooftop of a designated house. This idea was dismissed and a site for the Allegheny Observatory was selected. Bradley, King and Childs decided to build the observatory on hill located on the north side of Pittsburgh, known as Allegheny City. The land was donated by two gentlemen Ferguson and McClintock, both believed to be members of the association. An additional portion of land was purchased from a Mr. Ashworth. This completed the ten acre plot where the Observatory would be built. The next phase of the operation, designing, would commence. The association hired an architect, although, the exact date of the hiring is unclear. The date of the original drawings is equally unclear, but it is believed to be around the eighth of May, 1860. The association hired John Barr and Henry Moser to design the observatory. They were the owners and operators of Barr and Moser Architects of Pittsburgh. The contractors were selected next. The stonework was completed by J.S. Knox and the woodwork was done by Smith and Bungy. 5 It is believed that the observatory was finished between November 1860 and January 1861. 1

"Replicas," Carnegie Science Center: Miniature Railroad & Village, accessed February 18, 2014, http://www.carnegiesciencecenter.org/exhibits/miniature-railroad-replicas/. 2 Antonella Gasperini, and Daniele Galli and Laura Nenz, The worldwide impact of Donati’s comet on art and society in the mid-19th century, 2011, accessed March 20, 2014, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.3859.pdf. 3 John Lyon, "The Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park-a History," Sustainable City New, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.newcolonist.com/observatory.html. 4 Arthur Glaser, "History of Allegheny Observatory," University of Pittsburgh, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/history.html. 5 John Brashear, “Appendix: An Address Delivered at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the New Observatory 1900,” In Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory, 1912.

Figure 2. Original Allegheny Observatory (Historic Pittsburgh 1886)

Upon opening, the observatory was under the direction of Lewis Bradley. It should be noted that he was not paid for his directorship. Bradley acted as the director until November 17, 1863. Philotous Dean, Principle of Central High School, assumed the position of director following Bradley. 6 No major discoveries are noted during the time of either directorship. Ultimately, during a meeting held in May 1867, the Allegheny Astronomical Association began discussing transferring the observatory over to the Western University of Pennsylvania (later the University of Pittsburgh). This was due, in large part, to the gross amount of debt accumulated. In addition, the university wished to expand and include an astronomy department. The observatory would be a prime location for research. On July 1, 1867, control of the observatory was transferred to the Western University of Pennsylvania, and on August 8, 1867 Samuel Pierpont Langley was named as director. 7 2017 will mark 150 years of University ownership of an observatory. Langley was the first director of the Allegheny Observatory to receive compensation. Prior to Langley, only lodging was provided. 8 Langley is credited with expanding the capacity of the observatory. For example, Langley brought new equipment to the observatory, such as a transit telescope; he also contributed to the research being done at the Observatory. Many of the research projects in which he participated became world-renowned. Langley is most widely known for “his study of lunar heat, the solar spectrum, and heavier-than-air flight.” Some of the more notable experiments that Langley performed at the observatory include a whirling table and a pilotless model airplane. 9 The whirling table created a wind tunnel in the backyard of the observatory which Langley used to perform his aviation experiments. Langley’s astronomical experiments included studying sun spots and the creation of a barometer that measured the amount of heat the sun gave off at different wavelengths. 10 Under the directorship of Langley, the observatory Figure 3. Samuel Langley (Historic Pittsburgh August 20, 1887) began to garner attention. Both Langley and the observatory gained notoriety during his tenure. Langley’s expertise expanded the financial base of the observatory as well. 6

“Allegheny Observatory Records,” Historic Pittsburgh Image Collections, accessed March 20, 2014, http://digital.library.pitt.edu/images/pittsburgh/observatory.html. 7 John Brashear, “Appendix: An Address Delivered at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the New Observatory 1900,” In Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory, 1912. 8 John Brashear, “Appendix: An Address Delivered at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the New Observatory 1900,” In Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory, 1912. 9 John Lyon, "The Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park-a History," Sustainable City New, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.newcolonist.com/observatory.html. 10 "Astronomy and Astrophysics (Allegheny Observatory)," National Park Service, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4m.htm.

Langley tapped a new source of income to help fund his experiments as well as contribute to staff salaries and building maintenance. This new source of income came through the selling of time to local railroad companies; he would use his new transit telescope in the observatory to tell time. He accomplished this task by watching particular stars and determining when they would pass the celestial meridian; this pattern or track determined the time. Langley sold the time, or more accurately the service of telling time, to the local railroad companies. His time selling made annual revenues of approximately three thousand dollars. 11 As noted, one of Langley’s major discoveries was in regard to solar radiation. Langley is credited with designing and building a bolometer in December of 1880. The bolometer was used to discover the heat of celestial objects such as the moon and sun. 12 Langley also studied the amount of solar radiation in the atmosphere. With funding from William Thaw, a Pittsburgh businessman and close friend of Langley, Langley was able to further his studies at Mount Whitney in California. His studies in California resulted in the publication of “Researches on Solar Heat and its Absorption by the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Report on the Mount Whitney Expedition” circa 1884. Because of Langley’s research in solar radiation and heat, the international unit of radiant heat was named after him (Langley) in 1947. 13 His accolades do not end there. Samuel Langley is also well-known for his study of aerodynamics. Using knowledge gathered from his whirling table experiments, Langley published a book on aerodynamics entitled Experiments in Aerodynamics in 1891. Langley built an unmanned steam-powered aircraft in 1896, which gained him monetary backing from the War Department. He used this income for future research in aerodynamics. Finally, in October 1903, Langley attempted his first manned aircraft flight. The trial took place along the Potomac River. His first attempt used a catapult to launch the aircraft over the Potomac River, but his aircraft could not withstand the launch stresses and fell short, landing in the water. Three months later, Langley attempted the feat again; unfortunately the outcome was the same. Using both his book and information regarding his failures, the famed Wright brothers made their first flight less than ten days after Langley’s second attempt. In Figure 4. Langley’s Aircraft on Potomac River (Flying Machines 1903) spite of these failed attempts, Langley’s advancements in aerodynamics are forever emblazoned in history as his name accompanies the well-known Air force Base in Virginia as well as many other related buildings and spaces such as Langley Field near Newport News, VA, and Langley Research Center for NASA in Virginia. 14 Langley’s accomplishments during his tenure at the Allegheny Observatory give both scientific and historical significance to the Original Allegheny Observatory. During his time at the observatory, Langley was accompanied by Sir James Edward Keeler. Keeler would eventually become Langley’s successor at the observatory. Ever since he was a young boy, Keeler had an interest in the celestials. The solar eclipse of 1869 took the United States by storm, including Keeler. As an adult, Keeler worked under and was influenced by Langley. In May of 1891, Keeler succeeded Langley as the director of the observatory. Under Keeler’s direction from 1891-1898, the observatory thrived and additional experiments were added to the already rich history of the observatory. Keeler is most known for his work in spectroscopic research. While at the Observatory, Keeler determined that Saturn had rings; he also determined the composition of these rings. In addition, he drew Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn in great detail. It was Keeler who saw the need for a new observatory and he initialized those plans prior to his departure. As director, Keeler began Thursday night public events. The Allegheny Observatory continues to host those events. 15

Arthur Glaser, "History of Allegheny Observatory," University of Pittsburgh, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/history.html. 12 Glen Walsh, “Astronomer, Educator, and Optician John A. Brashear,” Friends of the Zeiss, accessed March 20, 2014, http://johnbrashear.tripod.com/. 13 Glen Walsh, “Astronomer, Educator, and Optician John A. Brashear,” Friends of the Zeiss, accessed March 20, 2014, http://johnbrashear.tripod.com/. 14 Undaunted, Directed by Dan Hadley (2012; Pittsburgh, PA: Dan Handley Science Media, LLC,2012), DVD 15 John Lyon, "The Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park-a History," Sustainable City New, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.newcolonist.com/observatory.html.

Keeler was one of the first astronomers to work with spectroscopy, or the study of the components of light in an object. In using these light components, temperature, mass, luminosity, and composition of objects can be determined. 16 Keeler’s study of spectroscopy focused on determining the composition of light of celestial objects. Using his spectroscopic skills, Keeler was able to determine that the rings of Saturn were made of particles. In addition, he discovered the existence of gaps between each of these rings. The gaps now bear Keeler’s name: Keeler’s Gap. Through continued study of Saturn’s rings, Keeler was able to determine the speed of these rings. The inner-most rings moved at a speed of twenty kilometers per second, while the outer rings moved at sixteen kilometers per second. His work helped forge a new field of study known as astrophysics; the study of physics related to celestial objects. 17

Figure 5. James Keeler (Historic Pittsburgh 1896)

Keeler was able to illustrate in detail the celestial bodies of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. These illustrations led to further accomplishments in the field. The details of his drawings were so remarkable that they have never been surpassed in detail and accuracy. Keeler, in his promotion of astrophysics, with the help of astrophysicist George Ellery Hale, created the Astrophysical Journal in 1895. Prior to Keeler leaving the Allegheny Observatory for the Lick Observatory in California, he set in motion the creation of a new Allegheny Observatory. Keeler was so determined to see these plans come to fruition, that he even created an initial building design.

Figure 6. Keeler's Jupiter Drawing (1890)

“What is Spectroscopy?” The University of Arizona, accessed March 20, 2014, http://loke.as.arizona.edu/~ckulesa/camp/spectroscopy_intro.html. Glen Walsh, “Astronomer, Educator, and Optician John A. Brashear,” Friends of the Zeiss, accessed March 20, 2014, http://johnbrashear.tripod.com/.

Figure 7. Keeler's Design for Allegheny Observatory (Historic Pittsburgh 1895)

Keeler left the Allegheny Observatory for the Lick Observatory, in California, on March 8, 1898 and the observatory was again under new direction. 18 John Brashear became the acting interim director upon Keeler’s departure for the Lick Observatory in California. Brashear, like Keeler, was also introduced to the celestial objects as a young boy. Coincidently, the celestial object that Brashear encountered as a boy was the same object that spurred the creation of the Original Allegheny Observatory - Donati’s Comet. As director of the Observatory, John Brashear concentrated on funding for the new Observatory. Brashear’s significance in the Observatory was his work as a lens maker. Brashear made many of the lenses that are in the Observatory and numerous other lenses found throughout the country. 19 John Brashear’s house and factory were built near the original Observatory, and his factory is still standing today. Brashear is credited for acquiring the land for the new Observatory. He accomplished this by contacting David Park, a founder of Crucible Steel in Pittsburgh, who donated the land in Riverview Park. In addition, Brashear fundraised over three hundred thousand dollars for the construction of the new Observatory. 20 With the motivation of Brashear, the corner stone was laid in 1900. This led to the beginning 18

Figure 8. John Brashear (Historic Pittsburgh 1890-1905)

Arthur Glaser, "History of Allegheny Observatory," University of Pittsburgh, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/history.html. 19 "Astronomy and Astrophysics (Allegheny Observatory)," National Park Service, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4m.htm. 20 "Astronomy and Astrophysics (Allegheny Observatory)," National Park Service, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4m.htm.

of the new observatory and, ultimately, the end for the original observatory. Brashear is credited with acquiring two new telescopes for the new observatory, the Keeler and Thaw telescopes. The equipment, original telescopes, was moved to the new Observatory prior to the dedication of the two new telescopes on August 28, 1912. With the new Allegheny Observatory built, use of the original Observatory changed numerous times. In 1909, the original Allegheny Observatory was taken over by the Protestant Orphan Asylum. In 1956, the building was torn down. Today, the ground of the original Allegheny Observatory is home to Triangle Tech, a hands-on technical school that offers associate degrees. The promise and notoriety of the original observatory, as well as the Allegheny Telescope Association, paved the way for the observatory we have today. Had it not been for the Allegheny Telescope Association, the Original Allegheny Observatory would never have been built. Initially, it was independent of the Western University of Pennsylvania. However, due to financial constraints the observatory left the Associations hands and was presented to the Western University of Pennsylvania, who then assumed responsibilities of the observatory. This proved to be quite successful for the Observatory as The Western University of Pennsylvania brought Samuel Langley, James Keeler, and eventually John Brashear to direct the observatory. These three brilliant scientists brought something new to the astronomical world. The legacy of the directors and their numerous astronomical discoveries at the old Observatory are an integral part of astronomical science. As a testimony to their contributions, the three directors are buried in the crypt of the new Allegheny Observatory. These three men laid the foundation for the new Allegheny Observatory through their scientific research at the old observatory, and without them it is hard to believe the new Allegheny Observatory would have been built.

by Jacob Craig

Works Cited

“Allegheny Observatory Records.” Historic Pittsburgh Image Collections. accessed March 20, 2014. http://digital.library.pitt.edu/images/pittsburgh/observatory.html. "Astronomy and Astrophysics (Allegheny Observatory)." National Park Service. accessed February 17, 2014. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4m.htm.

Brashear, John. “Appendix: An Address Delivered at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the New Observatory 1900.” In Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory. 1912. Gasperini, Antonella, and Daniele Galli and Laura Nenz. The worldwide impact of Donati’s comet on art and society in the mid-19th century. 2011. accessed March 20, 2014. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.3859.pdf. Glaser, Arthur "History of Allegheny Observatory." University of Pittsburgh. accessed February 17, 2014. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/history.html. Lyon, John. " The Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park-a History." Sustainable City New. accessed February 17, 2014. http://www.newcolonist.com/observatory.html. "Replicas." Carnegie Science Center: Miniature Railroad & Village. accessed February 18, 2014. http://www.carnegiesciencecenter.org/exhibits/miniature-railroad-replicas/. Undaunted. Directed by Dan Hadley. 2012. Pittsburgh, PA: Dan Handley Science Media, LLC,2012. DVD Walsh, Glen. “Astronomer, Educator, and Optician John A. Brashear.” Friends of the Zeiss. accessed March 20, 2014. http://johnbrashear.tripod.com/. “What is Spectroscopy?” The University of Arizona. accessed March 20, 2014. http://loke.as.arizona.edu/~ckulesa/camp/spectroscopy_intro.html.

Figures: Figure 1. Donati’s Comet. Houston Stewart Chamberlain. http://www.hschamberlain.net/donati.html. Figure 2. Original Allegheny Observatory. Historic Pittsburgh. http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=hpicasc_ci;med=1;q1=UA.5.1;size=20;c=hpi casc;back=back1395704648;subview=detail;resnum=6;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryid =x-6422.01.03.ao;viewid=20130424-HPICASC-0002.TIF. Figure 3. Samuel Langley. Historic Pittsburgh. http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=hpicasc_ci;med=1;q1=UA.5.1;size=20;c=hpi casc;back=back1395704648;subview=detail;resnum=13;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryi d=x-6422.06.17.ao;viewid=20130424-HPICASC-0103.TIF. Figure 4. Langley’s Aircraft on Potomac River. Samuel Pierpont Langley. http://www.flyingmachines.org/lang.html. Figure 5. James Keeler. Historic Pittsburgh. http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=ic_all;xc=1;g=imls;sort=dc_da;q1=keeler;siz e=20;c=hpicasc;c=hpicchatham;c=hpiccma;c=hpiccmnh;c=hpichswp;c=hpicmonroeville;c=hpicnpl;c=hpic oakmont;c=hpicphlf;c=hpicpitcairn;c=hpicpointpark;c=hpicpso;c=hpicrsc;c=hpicusc;back=back139570473 9;subview=detail;resnum=2;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryid=x-keeler.j01;viewid=2010 0520-HPICASC-0027.TIF.

Figure 6. Keeler's Jupiter Drawing. Drawing of Jupiter. http://collections.ucolick.org/exhibits_on_line/E2E.1/Keeler_Jupiter.html. Figure 7. Keeler's Design for Allegheny Observatory. Historic Pittsburgh. http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=hpicasc_ci;med=1;q1=UA.5.1;size=20;c=hpi casc;back=back1395704695;subview=detail;resnum=33;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryi d=x-6422.19.ao;viewid=19AO.TIF. Figure 8. John Brashear. Historic Pittsburgh. http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?rgn1=ic_all;xc=1;g=imls;sort=dc_da;q1=brashear;c =hpicasc;c=hpicchatham;c=hpiccma;c=hpiccmnh;c=hpichswp;c=hpicmonroeville;c=hpicnpl;c=hpicoakmo nt;c=hpicphlf;c=hpicpitcairn;c=hpicpointpark;c=hpicpso;c=hpicrsc;c=hpicusc;back=back1395704779;size= 20;subview=detail;resnum=1;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=hpicasc;entryid=x-chan02.ua;viewid=CH AN02UA.TIF.

James Edward Keeler

Before the Allegheny Observatory James Edward Keeler (Figure 1) was born September 10 1857 in La Salle, Illinois, two years before the original Allegheny Observatory was built. His father was a watchmaker, who taught Keeler how to work with mechanics. His grandfather was the governor of Connecticut and dean of Yale, which helped his career especially at the beginning. His family moved a lot before finally settling at Mayport, Florida. In 1869, James Keeler saw his first solar eclipse. This was what initially made him interested in astronomy. His interest continued to grow with the support of his family, and as time went on he was able to buy a two inch achromatic telescope. With this he was able to see the Moon, and many of the planets. When his sister was in college she visited an Observatory where they showed the students Saturn. She mentioned she'd seen it before through her brother’s telescope. This impressed Charles H. Rockwell and he soon invited James Keeler to visit and helped him get into John Hopkins University. The two stayed friends through Keeler’s career.

Early Years at the Allegheny Observatory In 1881, James Keeler had just left college when he became the assistant to Professor Langley at the Allegheny Observatory. Together they paved the way for fields know today as Astrophysics, which is physics of the atmosphere, and also Astronomical spectroscopy, which deals with radiant energy, matter and how they interact, when talking about the suns rays and other forms of light energy. When Keeler was under Langley’s supervision they went on a two-week expedition to the Mount Whitney in southern California to measure solar radiation. This was a test of Keeler’s ability as a scientist. Not just in the study but being able to think outside the box. It was very successful. They took their data back to the Allegheny Observatory where they were able to look at the radiation from the sun and see the absorption lines. They were able to do this by figuring out how to measure the wavelength scale of the infrared spectrum. Another one of their major Figure of Keeler discoveries from this expedition was finding out how much solar energy actually hit (Sawyer Hogg 1963) the earth’s atmosphere. However their calculations on this were a bit off due to the equipment they had, which for its time was very advanced. They calculated 3 calories per square centimeter per minute, while it is actually 1.95 calories per square centimeter per minute. At the Observatory Keeler meet telescope maker John A. Brashear. The two men both had a talent for working with their hands. Brashear saw Keeler’s hand made tools and the two quickly after became friends, with Brashear making a variety of instruments for Keeler and his work. Keeler wanted to continue his work and school by returning to John Hopkins University. Langley, not wanting to see Keeler go, talked to William Thaw, who was his financial supporter. Langley, with Thaw’s money was able to send Keeler to Berlin if he agreed to not take the fellowship, and stay at the Allegheny Observatory another year. Keeler agreed because at the time Berlin was where all the big discoveries were happening. He returned to the Allegheny Observatory to continue working with Langley measuring the solar spectrum. In 1882 Langley, Keeler and Very who was another one Langley’s assistants had the opportunity to study and see a transit of Venus. This is where the planets cross over the sun and you are able to view it from the earth. Astronomers all over the world were studying the time of the transit, Langley and his 1.

H Sawyer Hogg, " Our of Old Books (James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn)," Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57 (1963): 269-275, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada

CHARLES HASTINGS, BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIR of JAMES EDWARD KEELER, 1857-1900. , (READ BEFORE THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1903)http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/keeler-j-e.pdf (accessed April 9, 2014), 233-241. George C. Comstock, A Text-Book of Astronomy, (2011)http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834h.htm (accessed April 10, 2014).

crew however were also hoping to see Venus’s atmosphere. These types of innovations are what separated the Allegheny Observatory from the rest of the scientific community.

Figure 2 of Saturn’s rings

In 1886, James Keller decided to take an assistant job at Lick Observatory, there he worked mainly with time. In 1888 Keeler became one of the astronomers of the University of California’s Observatory, where he started measuring the Orion nebula velocity. This is where new stars come from basically. His calculations on this were very close to modern day numbers. He did this by measuring the wavelength through the nebular spectrum. This is where he discovered the gap in Saturn’s rings. This gap today is called the Encke gap. It was named Encke in honor of Johannas Franz Encke. J.F. Encke was a German astronomer in the early 1800’s. He made many observations of Saturn. Later a second gap was discovered by Voyager and was named the Keeler Gap. (Figure 2) At this time refracting telescopes were not thought of having the power to view such things. It was Keeler who showed just how powerful a refracting telescope could be. For the next year he was sent to study and observe a solar eclipse in California. After which he resigned from the Lick Observatory to become the new director of the Allegheny Observatory.

Director of the Allegheny Observatory James Edward Keeler was the director of the Allegheny Observatory from 1891 to 1898 and a Professor at the Western University of Pennsylvania, which is now University of Pittsburgh. He got the job thanks to John Brashear, who know Keeler and wanted to see him as director. When they did offer him the job he was hoping for a much larger salary than $2,000. Since as an assistant at Lick he made $1,800, but knowing they did all they could to get him what he wanted, he accepted. It was much smaller than Lick with less clear skies. Also when he got there Langley had taken many of the lenses and smaller equipment with him to Washington D.C. Langley took with him a 3 inch Clark refractor telescope which Keeler managed to get back after a lot of effort. Aside from that the Observatory itself was in disrepair. The shutter 1.

H Sawyer Hogg, " Our of Old Books (James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn)," Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57 (1963): 269-275, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada

of the Dome had been bent so it was hard to open them, and Langley had not kept up on daily maintenance. William Thaw who had supported Langley, had passed away. Now William Thaw Jr. took over that role, but for Keeler. Â

Orion Nebula Photo by Keeler

During his time as director he made several important scientific discoveries, one being that he discovered that Saturnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rings were a not actually solid disk but made up of many small particles. He also was able to calculate the speed of the particles and the different of that speed depending on how far from Saturn the particles actually were. With extensive research on the Orion Nebula he was able to discover that Nebulas and stars are not that different as far as their physical form. Nebulas are clouds of dust and particles in space. One of his focuses was on the spectra of the third type stars, which was never published. It was a way to classify stars. Stars give off light; astronomers take that light and shine it through a prism. This gives you a rainbow, in between the rainbow colors and throughout are lines called absorption lines, these show the ions of a certain element. The stars are classified by their ionization state on this

H Sawyer Hogg, " Our of Old Books (James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn)," Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57 (1963): 269-275, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada

graph. (Figure 3) He also did many drawings and observations of Mars, and Jupiter. His first photographic spectrogram was of Jupiter (Figure 4). During his time at the Allegheny Observatory Pittsburgh continued to grow. It had a booming steel industry and all that pollution was obstructing Keebler’s view of the skies. He needed a new Observatory away from the pollution of the city. Sadly however this didn’t happen until after he had passed.

After the Allegheny Observatory

Keeler loved Pittsburgh and the Allegheny Observatory however an opportunity arose th that he could not turn down. March 8 1898 he accepted the position of director of the Lick Observatory. There he took many photos of nebulae and discovered two asteroids. He passed well before his time at age 43. He his wife and son are all buried in the crypt at the bottom of the Keeler dome.

Figure 4 drawling of Jupiter (Keeler)

by Sapata Pessiki

H Sawyer Hogg, " Our of Old Books (James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn)," Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57 (1963): 269-275, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada

Word Cited astronomy compendium, "Keeler, James Edward." Last modified Sep. 11, 2011. Accessed February 15, 2014. http://astronomycompendium.wikispaces.com/Keeler, James Edward.

Campbell, W. "James Edward Keeler." Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. (1900): 139-146. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1900PASP...12..139C (accessed February 17, 2014) Comstock, George C. . A Text-Book of Astronomy. 2011. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm (accessed April 10, 2014). Glenn A. Walsh , . "Keeler, James Edward." Last modified Sep. 10, 2010. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://johnbrashear.tripod.com/bio/KeelerJ.htm.

HASTINGS, CHARLES. BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIR of JAMES EDWARD KEELER, 1857-1900. . READ BEFORE THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1903. http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographicalmemoirs/memoir-pdfs/keeler-j-e.pdf (accessed April 9, 2014).

Keeler, J. "Spectra of stars of Secchi's third type." Bulletin of the Yerkes Observatory of the University of Chicago. (1897): 423-424. Peter Pessiki, Phone call, February 15, 2014. Sawyer Hogg, H. " Our of Old Books (James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn)." Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society

of Canada. (1963): 269-275. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (accessed April 9, 2014).

H Sawyer Hogg, " Our of Old Books (James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn)," Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57 (1963): 269-275, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada

HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE | JOHN A. BRASHEAR

John Alfred Brashear was a man of many talents and played many significant roles throughout his life (see Figure 1.) A wellknown astronomer and scientific instrument manufacturer, Brashear also had prominent roles with the Allegheny Observatory not to mention the University of Pittsburgh itself.

EARLY YEARS Brashear was born in November of 1840 in Brownsville, Pennsylvania, a small town thirty-five miles south of Pittsburgh (see Figure 2.) His father, Basil Brown Brashear, was a saddler and his mother, Julia Smith Brashear, was a schoolteacher. His father

provided a decent living for the family, as his services were often required as Brownsville was on the route of the National Pike. His

Figure 1: John A. Brashear (John A. Brashear Lodge No. 743 website)

father was often not well in terms of health so during those times, Julia provided for the family by returning to work as a teacher. As a boy, Brashear’s maternal grandfather, Nathanial Smith, instilled in him a love for astronomy that would last for the rest of his life. Smith told young Brashear many stories of comets and meteorite displays but most importantly, Smith took a nine-year old Brashear to see through the telescope of Squire Wampler, a clock and watch repairer who made his own homemade telescope, as he could not afford to purchase one.1

Figure 2: Map showing Brownsville in relation to Pittsburgh. (Google Maps)

John A. Brashear and W. Lucien Scaife, John A. Brashear: The Autobiography of a Man Who Loved the Stars, (New York: The American

Brasher received a common school education up until the age of fifteen then eventually mastered the trade of machinist and began to work as a millwright in Pittsburgh in 1861. That same year, he met his wife, Phoebe, and married her in 1862.2 Brashear worked in Pittsburgh mills for years following, spending his evenings either looking at the stars by the riverbank or building his home of the slopes of the South Side.

BRASHEAR’S FIRST TELESCOPE It was after this house was completed that the Brashears decided to convert a small coalhouse into a workshop to begin building their own telescope (see Figure 3.) The endeavor was likely inspired by Brashear’s

Figure 3: John Brashear at age 63, returning to his former Southside home and shop. (John A. Brashear)

encounter with Wampler when he was a boy. They worked together, tirelessly teaching themselves how to grind and polish the lens correctly. After two years, Brashear and his wife were about to put the finishing touches on their lens when Brashear accidentally dropped the piece of glass and it broke in two. They began anew, and within a year they

2 “The Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park –A History,” John Lyon, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.newcolonist.com/observatory.html.

had completed a five-inch lens that was ready to mount. Brashear’s brother-in-law built the mounting for the telescope and after three years of hard work, the Brashears finally had made their first working telescope.3

LANGLEY AND THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY The spring of 1876 saw the beginning of an important friendship that affected the rest of Brashear’s life. By this time, Brashear was confident enough in his studies and his work to write to Professor Samuel Langley (see Figure 4), then the Director of the Allegheny Observatory and a Professor of Astronomy at the Western University of Pennsylvania, to ask for Langley’s opinion on his telescope. Langley invited Brashear to meet with him at the Allegheny Observatory, gave Brashear advice on his telescope, and offered Brashear the chance to look through the telescope at the Observatory. This meeting with Langley and the view through the Observatory telescope inspired Brashear not only to make a larger 12inch reflecting telescope, but also was a turning point in Brashear’s life. This meeting with Langley was Brashear’s “introduction to the larger world of science and the beginning of his friendship with men who found their greatest happiness in discovering nature’s hidden truths in spite of poverty.”4 Figure 4: Samuel Pierpont Langley (Smithsonian Institute)

SECOND TELESCOPE & BRASHEAR AND CO.

In 1877, Brashear began work on his second telescope, the 12-inch reflecting telescope. After many months, the Brashears were ready to apply a coat of silver to their lens, which would make the glass reflective. At the time, there were many methods for applying a silver coat to the front surfaces of glass, but the coating that these methods produced did not satisfy Brashear. After researching different methods, Brashear adjusted a method he

3 4

Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 32-34. Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 37.

found in the journal, “English Mechanic and World of Science”, which used heat in the process. While trying this method on his 12-inch lens, the lens, for some reason, cracked and Brashear and his wife again began the process of grinding the lens. Finally, in the spring in 1878, the lens was once again ready to be silvered and Brashear by this time had researched and modified a new silvering method he had discovered in “Scientific American.”5 This method that Brashear developed became known as the Brashear Silvering Process and was the predominant method used until the 1930s.6 During the time since Brashear’s first meeting with Langley, he had been helping Langley with small jobs around the Observatory, including making a six-inch reflector. Brashear eventually put out an advertisement in “Scientific American” offering silvered specula, a metallic mirror used in reflecting telescopes, to amateurs who wished to make their own telescopes. He received scores of inquiries and set to work to make these specula all the while still holding his job as a millwright. Eventually, the Brashears decided they could make ends meet by solely making specula and Brashear went into business in July of 1881 with his son-in-law, James McDowell, combining their meager incomes to sustain their fledgling company.7 In 1881, a year after beginning the company, Brashear met William Thaw, Sr. Thaw was a Pittsburgh businessman and philanthropist who amassed his fortune in transportation and banking. Thaw offered to give Brashear money to expand his current shop into a larger and better workshop, which was completed by December of 1881.8 Soon enough, Brashear’s work drew the attention of not only amateurs but also the most important researchers of the time. Brashear’s business

Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 47-52. John A. Brashear House and Factory National Register Nomination Form 7 Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 65-67. 8 Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 72. 5 6

Figure 5: Historical Photo of the 1954 Perrysville Avenue House and Factory (John A. Brashear)

grew and soon he had a reputation for making some of the best pieces, not only specula, used in astronomical research. By 1885, Brashear had made the acquaintance of numerous scientific researchers, all whom desired his work. The amount of work, even with five assistants, was still overwhelming and Figure 6: Current image of 1954 Perrysville Ave House (Philip G Pavely)

Brashear and Thaw decided to build a

larger workshop. Due to Brashear’s work with Langley and the Allegheny Observatory, Thaw suggested a site he owned on the North Side, located just behind the Observatory. By May 1886, Brashear had moved his company and his home to the new location at 1954 Perrysville Avenue (see Figures 5, 6, and 7.)9

Figure 7: Current image of 1954 Perrysville Avenue Factory (Philip G Pavely)

Brashear’s company remained located at the Perrysville Avenue location for the rest of his life. McDowell took over the ownership after Brashear’s death in 1920; following McDowell’s death in 1926 the company was sold

Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 94-95.

to James W. Fecker who continued operations until 1945. During WWII, the company contributed to the war effort by manufacturing lenses for Norden Bombsights, which were used to guide bombs to their targets after being dropped from military aircraft. In the 1950s, the company was moved from the Perrysville Avenue site but continues operations to this day under the name L-3 Brashear.10

KEELER AND THE NEW ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY Langley, who had held the Directorship of the Observatory from 1867, was appointed the position of assistant secretary at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. in 1886. For a time, Langley balanced his positions at the Allegheny Observatory and the Smithsonian Institute, but by 1891, Langley left the Observatory permanently when he was offered the position of Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute. James Edward Keeler, who had previously worked at the Lick Observatory, was appointed Director of the Observatory in May of 1891.11 Keeler subsequently found the Allegheny Observatory poorly equipped for his research purposes and through the generosity of the Mrs. William Thaw and William Thaw Jr., the Observatory acquired better and updated equipment. Eventually, the air quality deteriorated enough from the smoke produced by factories that it became difficult to view the night sky adequately from the Observatory location. In 1894, Brashear was elected as the chairman of the Allegheny Observatory Committee for the University of Pittsburgh, a position that he held for many years afterwards. Brashear began to secure a site that had been bought by the Citizens Committee of Allegheny (now the North Side of the city of Pittsburgh), of which Brashear was a part of, in Riverview Park to serve as the new location for the Allegheny Observatory. This tract of land was reserved for a proposed new Observatory and it was stipulated that no other buildings could be constructed near it. Brashear began to raise funds for the new Observatory but his plans were put on hold due to the financial panic of 1893. Brashear and Keeler used this time to design a plan for the new Observatory. In 1898, Keeler, still dissatisfied with the equipment at the Allegheny Observatory, was offered the Directorship of the Lick Observatory. Keeler set a deadline for his acceptance of the position and

10 11

John A. Brashear House and Factory National Register Nomination Form Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 129-130, 133-134.

stipulated that unless the Allegheny Observatory could provide him better equipment for his research purposes, he would accept the offer made by the Lick Observatory.12 In 1896, Brashear had been appointed a trustee of the Western University of Pennsylvania (now the University of Pittsburgh), and during this time served alongside many wealth Pittsburgh industrialists and businessmen, such as Andrew Carnegie, George Westinghouse, and Andrew Mellon.13 Shortly after Keeler was offer the position at the Lick Observatory, Brashear, without the help of other trustees, began in earnest to raise the funds necessary to construct a new Allegheny Observatory on the Riverview Park site. Within seven weeks, Brashear had raised close to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, only three-fourths of the funds needed to construct the new Observatory. With no substantial progress, Keeler left the Allegheny Observatory on May 1st, 1898. Brashear was appointed Acting Director of the Allegheny Observatory for eighteen months, until Professor F.L.O. Wadsworth was appointed to Director. Brashear pushed ahead with his efforts to raise funds for the new Observatory and Wadsworth modified and completed the plans drawn up by Keeler and Brashear. An architectural competition was held and from those who submitted designs, the Observatory Committee chose Thorsten Billquist and the building began construction on October 20th, 1900.14 During the construction of the new Observatory, it became apparent that more funds were needed to complete the building. To overcome this issue, Brashear met with Henry Clay Frick, another wealthy Pittsburgh industrialist and philanthropist, to discuss raising the remaining necessary funds. Brashear was to determine the remaining amount needed and Frick would provide half of that amount only if Brashear was able to raise the balance. Figure 8: The New Allegheny Observatory (John A. Brashear)

Brashear ascertained that it would

take sixty-five thousand dollars to complete the Observatory. Brashear was about to travel with his wife to Muskoka, Canada for the summer and therefore had to raise thirty-two thousand dollars at “long distance” by Frick’s deadline

Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 134-136. John A. Brashear House and Factory National Register Nomination Form 14 Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 134-139. 12 13

of October 15th. Brashear managed to raise the funds by the deadline and with the funds provided by Frick, the building was completed and dedicated on August 28th of 1912 (see Figure 8.)15

LATER LIFE In 1900, Brashear was also appointed to Acting Chancellor of the Western University of Pittsburgh (now the University of Pittsburgh) and held that position until 1904. During his term as Acting Chancellor, the University began construction of the Dental School and the School of Pharmacology, the number of female students increased, and Brashear enlisted the help of wealthy citizens to provide funds for students in financial need to attend the University. During his term as Acting Chancellor, Brashear was also appointed to sit on the Board of Trustees by Carnegie of the newly formed Carnegie Technical Schools (now names Carnegie Mellon University.) Brashear also turned down offers to head the Allegheny Observatory and the Western University of Pennsylvania.16 Brashear was not only prominent for his role as one of the most highly regarded scientific instrument manufacturers of his time but also as an educator, given his significant roles at the Western University of Pittsburgh and the Carnegie Technical Schools, both of which provided the needed educated engineers for Pittsburgh’s growing industrial role. Outside of his roles at educational institutions and his company, Brashear and his wife were prominent members of their community as they were active in their church with Brashear even serving as choir director. He further helped those in his community by providing, free of charge, the opportunity for any citizen to learn about and view the stars from the telescope in his home when he first began building his own telescopes. Brashear also formed friendships with prominent men who shaped the formation of Pittsburgh during that time. These men included the Thaws, Carnegie, Frick, and Henry Phipps (co-founder of the Carnegie Steel Company and philanthropist). In 1915, Brashear was so well regarded that he was named “the most eminent citizen of Pennsylvania” by Governor M.G. Brumbaugh and in 1916, the entire city took part in Brashear’s 75th birthday celebrations.17 Brashear was not only a significant to the current Allegheny Observatory as he was instrumental in its planning and construction, but the Observatory is significant due to its connection to Brashear. The Observatory serves as a monument to a man who was important not only locally, but also nationally and internationally, for his work and contributions in the field of astronomical research and the prominent roles he held at institutions in the

Brashear and Scaife, John A. Brashear, 139-140. John A. Brashear House and Factory National Register Nomination Form 17 "Dr. J. A. Brashear Dead After Long Illness." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 8 Apr. 1920: Print. 15 16

city. The Observatory reflects the role of a man who was crucial in the development of Pittsburgh as an industrial and educational establishment. The Allegheny Observatory is one of the last connections to a self-taught man who was the epitome of the American dream. As said in Bob Bauder’s article for TribLive, Brashear was “an American icon, he is really a symbol of what, during that period of time, I think was truly possible and truly great about this country. You have a boy, who had a very minimal education, really rising through his own initiative to the pinnacle of his profession.”

by Erin Candee

Bibliography:

Brashear, John A., and Scaife, W. Lucien. John A. Brashear: The Autobiography of a Man Who Loved the Stars. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1924.

John Lyon. “The Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park- A History.” Accessed March 25th, 2014. http://www.newcolonist.com/observatory.html.

National Register of Historic Places, John A. Brashear House and Factory, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Key #009648

Bob Bauder, “Historical Status Sought for Brashear’s North Side Home, Factory,” TribLive, September 23, 2012, accessed March 25, 2014, http://triblive.com/home/2618532-74/brashear-factory-national-historic-john-telescopeshistorical-history-museum-north#axzz2wzXr1xI8.

SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE CURRENT ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY Though the Allegheny Observatory is noted for its architecture, the scientific accomplishments, of which the structure was intended for, are paramount in the significance of the observatory. The current Allegheny Observatory draws its significance largely from the research and work accomplished in the field of astrometry, the work associated with John Alfred Brashear and the subsequent directors, and the substantial collection of parallax data that has been amassed at the observatory. 1

JOHN BRASHEAR & THE BRASHEAR COMPANY

The career, work, and research of John Brashear are a contribution to the Allegheny Observatory’s scientific significance. Though the work of John Brashear predates the current Allegheny Observatory, his contribution towards the scientific accomplishments of the Allegheny Observatory continued. Brashear, a master lens crafter, was responsible for the construction of two of the three telescopes of the Allegheny Observatory- the Thaw telescope, and the Keeler telescope. The Keeler telescope was named after James Edward Keeler, the second director of the original Allegheny Observatory, as a memorial. The reflector was constructed by the Brashear Company for the New Allegheny Observatory, but was finished in 1906, six years prior to the Observatory’s completion. This telescope constructed by Brashear became a valuable instrument in the study o the sun, and later the stars. Over time, the Keeler Memorial Reflector has collected the spectra of roughly 11,000 stars, and continues to operate today. 2 In 1912, John Brashear also constructed the Thaw Memorial Refractor, located in the largest dome of the Allegheny Observatory. The Brashear Company created a telescope that was intended for photographic use, which would become one of the top three refractors worldwide. 3

ASTRONOMY & ASTROMETRY

Astronomy is the science that investigates the matter energy of the universe- composition, distribution, physical states, movements and evolution. The physical state first looks at the matter to distinguish

1 National Park Service. “Astronomy and Astrophysics Allegheny Observatory.” Last modified November 5, 2001. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/ butowsky5/astro4m.htm 2 University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy. “Keeler Memorial Reflector.” Last modified May 28, 2003 http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/keeler.html 3 University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy. “Thaw Refractor.” Last modified May 28, 2003. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/thaw.html

Figure 1. John Brashear

whether it is solid, liquid, gas, or plasma, while the composition looks at the chemical makeup of the matter, qualitatively and quantitatively. Next, the distribution refers to the position, or the frequency or arrangement of matter over an area, while the movement pertains to a condition related to the positional change of matter, such as rotations and revolutions. 4 Under this broad study of astronomy, astrometry specifically focuses on the position, dimensions, and shapes of celestial bodies, with the goal of describing their motions. 5 At the University of Pittsburgh’s Allegheny Observatory, the focus of scientific inquiry was on photographic astrometry. Through photographs, the positions of celestial objects could be determined with great precision. The telescope used for research of this kind was the Thaw refractor. Large refractors proved to be best for photographic astrometry. Once the objectives have been installed in the telescope, they can be left undisturbed for decades. This assures that the displacement of stars over time recorded on photographic plates, are accurate, and not due to an optical shift. 6 Two scientific accomplishments are to be noted in the field of astrometry at the Allegheny Observatory; the construction of the telescope by the esteemed lens crafter, John Brashear, and the collection of photographic plates, or parallax plates collected from the Thaw telescope. In 1912, John Alfred Brashear designed and built the Thaw telescope around the ideals of photographic astrometry, with a lens that was corrected to bring blue light to focus. This was of great importance because blue light is where photographic films of this time were most sensitive. In 1914, the photographic program began, and currently, over 110,000 exposures are recorded on glass plates, marking it as one of the oldest and largest collections of photographic parallax plates found worldwide.7 The Thaw is one of only a few instruments worldwide that are accurate enough to contribute to such astrometry observations. With the Thaw telescope, measured distances of over 2,500 stars have been recorded, along with their mass and orbital motions. Subsequently, the Thaw searches for planets revolving around these stars. 8

Figure 2. Thaw Refractor

Figure 3. Image of the Moon taken from the 30inch Thaw

THE PARALLAX PROGRAM

The Allegheny Observatory’s Thaw telescope was the first refractor specifically designed for the photography of star parallax. Under the work of director Frank Schlesinger, a goal of the observatory was to determine the parallaxes of the bright stars, which expanded to 4 Moravian College Astronomy. “Introduction to Astronomy.” Accessed March 22, 2014. http://www.astronomy.org/astronomy-survival/intro.html 5 Kovalevsky, Jean. Modern Astronomy. Springer, 2002. Accessed March 23, 2014. http://books.google.com/books? id=s4azHlUeIYgC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=what+is +astrometry&source=bl&ots=4YrmqVON2U&sig=RDrrRxRBR3hwfI2E8lE7HhqG Yoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TasxU520GeP42QXtrIFw&sqi=2&ved=0CHMQ6AEwCg#v =onepage&q=what%20is%20astrometry&f=false 6 National Park Service. “Astronomy and Astrophysics Allegheny Observatory.” Last modified November 5, 2001. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/ butowsky5/astro4m.htm 7 University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy. “Thaw Refractor.” Last modified May 28, 2003. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/thaw.html 8 National Park Service. “Astronomy and Astrophysics Allegheny Observatory.” Last modified November 5, 2001. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/ butowsky5/astro4m.htm

Figure 4. Parallax Data

research clusters, multiple stars, and fainter, nearby stars. 9 In 1914, a photographic program was started, and in years after, director Nicholas E. Wagman continued this program, which produced the information of over 110,000 stars. Wagman was responsible for the largest program of stellar parallaxes and motion in his time. 10

THE PARALLAX PROJECT

Over 59 years, between 1910 and 1969, The Allegheny Observatory published 10 volumes of star parallax data. Within this publication, known as the Publications of the Allegheny Observatory of the University of Pittsburgh, calculations found by the researchers of the astronomers at the observatory were now available in the hands of other astronomers. The report contains detailed information such as data tables, reports on observations, description of instruments, and new modes of calculations pertaining to star positions. In March of 2001, the findings, published Figure 5. Parallax Project searchable database in the Parallax Project’s Publications of the Allegheny Observatory of the University of Pittsburgh, were entered into the Digital Research Library of the University of Pittsburgh. This information found through the research at the Allegheny Observatory is now preserved and will continue to aid astronomers around the world. Professional astronomers are known to research the planets circling other stars, but the information is paramount for historians, photographic documentation, and technological advancements. The parallax plates of the Allegheny Observatory have aided in the research of others, and this information published on the parallax plates allows Figure 6. Parallax Project astrometry to advance worldwide. 11 browsable volumes

ASTROMETRY TODAY

Today, the Allegheny Observatory’s Thaw telescope continues its contribution to the science of astrometry. In 1985, the original lens was replaced with one that brings red light to a focus. 12 George Gatewood, former director of the Allegheny Observatory, created a Multi-channel Astrometric Photometer (MAP), which contains a grid system with 750 slits that were guided along the stars. This attachment was mounted to the Thaw telescope, and allows modulation

9 Digital Research Library, University of Pittsburgh. “The Parallax Project.” Last modified July 23, 2002. http://digital.library.pitt.edu/parallax/ 10 University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy. “History of Allegheny Observatory.” Last modified May 25, 2001. http://www.pitt.edu/ ~aobsvtry/history.html 11 Digital Research Library, University of Pittsburgh. “The Parallax Project.” Last modified July 23, 2002. http://digital.library.pitt.edu/parallax/ 12 University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy. “Thaw Refractor.” Last modified May 28, 2003. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/thaw.html

observations to be recorded. 13 Under Dr. Gatewood’s work regarding the detection of extra-solar planets and planetary systems, the MAP has made a detection of an extra-solar planetary system. It has been suggested that two Jupiter-like objects are orbiting a star known as Lalande 21185.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE

From the conception of the Observatory, the idea was always to inform the public of the wonders of the sky. The passion for research, as well as the sharing of this information, is the reason that the Allegheny Observatory is notably significant. From John Brashear’s career as a master lens maker, two telescopes of the Allegheny Observatory were constructed, one including the Thaw telescope. The Thaw telescope to this day remains a world-renowned telescope for its construction and instrumentation, as well as the parallax images it has produced. In the field of astrometry, these scientific accomplishments of the Allegheny Observatory remain unparalleled, and its significance rests upon this.

SUMMARY OF THE DIRECTOR’S AND ASTRONOMER’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The scientific accomplishments of the Allegheny Observatory are remarkable, and credit is owed to those who provided the astronomical world with such findings. Below is a list of directors that contributed to the scientific accomplishments of the Allegheny Observatory, as well as the construction of the current observatory of which these accomplishments happened. This information is adapted from captioned images throughout the Allegheny Observatory’s central hallway.

JOHN A. BRASHEAR

1898 - 1900

FRANK L. WADSWORTH

1900 - 1905

Brashear’s term was marked by the planning of the current observatory. He oversaw fundraising, design, and construction of the current observatory. His firm, Brashear, Ltd., constructed the thirty inch Thaw photographic refractor and the thirty-one inch Keeler reflector.

Wadsworth arrived at Allegheny during the construction of the current observatory. He oversaw final design and construction bids. Since the Observatory Committee elected to dispense with a general contractor, Wadsworth devoted most if his time to supervision of the individual contractors.

13 Kovalevsky, Jean. Modern Astronomy. Springer, 2002. Accessed March 23, 2014. http://books.google.com/books? id=s4azHlUeIYgC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=what+is +astrometry&source=bl&ots=4YrmqVON2U&sig=RDrrRxRBR3hwfI2E8lE7HhqG Yoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TasxU520GeP42QXtrIFw&sqi=2&ved=0CHMQ6AEwCg#v =onepage&q=what%20is%20astrometry&f=false

FRANK SCHLESINGER

1905 - 1920

HEBER D. CURTIS

1920 - 1930

FRANK JORDAN

1930 - 1941

Schlesinger oversaw the move to the current observatory and the installation of its scientific instruments. He was responsible for implementation of the parallax program which he designed to determine distances to nearby stars. He also oversaw the development of Allegheny’s binary star research.

Curtis specialized in the observation of solar eclipses, making eleven expeditions during his career. He was responsible for the construction and equipping of Allegheny’s machine shop. He oversaw the parallax program and continued to refine its data collection techniques.

Jordan’s career at Allegheny was marked by his interest in variable stars. He utilized the Thaw refractor to gather data on Cepheid variable stars. His ten years of study led to the publication of the light curves of the twenty-nine Cepheids. Jordan increased required exposures to nearly thirty for the parallax program.

KEVIN BURNS

1941

Burns was perhaps the most skilled physicist in Allegheny’s history. He specialized in the study of wavelengths of elements in the solar spectrum. He also established a double (binary) star at Allegheny and guided the observatory after the sudden death of Frank Jordan.

NICHOLAS E. WAGMAN

1941 - 1970

Wagman was especially skilled in the field of parallax study and astrometry. He discovered a number of “dark stars” (astrometric binaries) and investigated white dwarf stars. His term saw the implementation of skilled amateurs as observers on the Thaw telescope.

JOOST KIEWIET DE JONGE

1970 - 1977

Kiewiet de Jonge and Wallace Beardsley researched stellar radial velocities. Their interest in spectroscopic binaries lead them to revitalize the Keeler reflector and the Mellon spectrograph. Kiewiet de Jonge also oversaw the restoration of the lecture hall, the measuring lab, and improvements made to the Thaw telescope.

GEORGE GATEWOOD

1977 - present

Gatewood modernized the Thaw telescope by replacing the thirty-inch lens in 1988. The Thaw was equipped with the Multi-Channel Astrometric Photometer to increase accuracy in measuring stellar distances. He initiated a program of extra-solar planetary research which identified Lalande 21185 and Episilon Eridani as stars with planets.

NEOCLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE AND THE DESIGN OF THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY IN CONTEXT THORSTEN E. BILLQUIST, ARCHITECT

NEOCLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE FEATURES OF NEOCLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE (1895-1950) Classical style was invented by the Greeks, developed by the Romans, and reinvented in the Renaissance. The style spread from Italy to France, Great Britain, and North America, becoming the first true international style. 1 The Classical Revival or Neoclassical style is one of the most commonly seen across the United States and Pennsylvania. “It was inspired by the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago held in 1893. Similar to the Colonial Revival style, which was popular in the same period, the Classical Revival style was more formal and monumental in its design. Relying on stylistic details of the earlier Greek Revival style, Classical Revival style buildings often have massive columns with classical Corinthian, Doric or Ionic capitals, topped by a front facing pediment. Other variations of this style may feature a rounded front portico with columns and a balustraded flat roof, or a flat-roofed, full or partial front porch with columns. The arrangement of windows and doors is formal and symmetrical, with the front door often flanked by pilasters or side lights and capped with a flat entablature, broken pediment or rounded fanlight.” 2

MAIN NEOCLASSICAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE OBSERVATORY The Allegheny Observatory is a good example of the Neoclassical style; it has a formal symmetrical design, with the center entrance portico on the east façade flanked by two of the three domes. The entry porch is flanked by classical pilasters and ionic columns. The entry door is capped by a pediment, with the full order of entablature (including architrave, frieze, and cornice) below it (see Figure1). The entrance surrounds are decorated in a Doric manner. Windows are surrounded with classical decorated moldings. The main roof of the building is flat. The building is mainly constructed of masonry (brick, sandstone, and terra cotta).

CANONS OF CLASSICAL DESIGN In the book Classical Architecture for the Twenty-first Century written by J. Francois Gabriel published in 2004, he illustrates the canons of classical design. Gabriel received a solid academic background in classical architecture, and he felt more rewarding to teach the correct use of the classical language than “modernist design” because classical

Figure1.central portico entrance of Allegheny Observatory

J. Francois Gabriel, Classical Architecture for the Twenty-first Century, W. W. Norton & Company; First Edition, 2005 portal.state.pa.us, PHMC, “Classical Revival Style 1895-1950”, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/late_19th___early_20th_century_revival_period/2390/classical_revival_styl e/294771 1 2

architecture is based on unambiguous rules that can be clearly articulated and easily transmitted. According to Gabriel, architecture was a social art until the beginning of the twentieth century, when everyone felt involved. Nowadays, people feel unqualified to judge new buildings and prefer to leave the matter in the hands of “experts.” According to Gabriel, harmony and rules are the essence of Classical language. BILATERAL SYMMETRY Classical architecture tends to have symmetrical composition in its design; the front and back façades of a building are typically symmetrical. The facades of a classical building don’t need to faithfully reflect the interior. In the interior, variations are made by functional or site pressures. An opening is usually found at the center of the main façade; the ancient Greek temples have uneven number of bays framed by an even number of columns. The porticos along the sides have a column at the center that precludes a door. 3 The Allegheny Observatory has a symmetrical front façade, with the two domes designed to be slightly different but in similar scale. The main entrance is located at the center of the main façade, with two couples (pilaster with column) on both sides framing the entrance.

Figure2. Human body proportion, Leonardo Da Vinci

ANTHROPOMORPHISM “The front of a classical building usually has more windows than the rear; like in the human body, the face has eyes and other senses.” 4 There are two panes of windows on both sides of the walls flanking the central entrance; tall thin windows are evenly located around the two smaller domes. Windows at the rear of the building (on the walls of Thaw dome) are much smaller, without decorative moldings. The size of the openings and the decorations and column orders on the front façade express the significance of the front—as in the face of a human. The proportion of Classical order (Column) also follows human body proportion (see Figure2). CLEAR AND SIMPLE GEOMETRY The square, circle and triangle are perfect in their regularity, and are the most commonly used forms in classical buildings. The shape of columns is based on the circle, while the classical openings are based on the square. Classical architecture favors the vertical over the horizontal; a vertical Figure3.Public Corridor Looking from west to east window is a frame for a human being. Squares and circles, triangles and circles fit into one another harmoniously. The circle either becomes a hexagon or an octagon when the square and circle are modified. Circles and squares can be translated into the third dimension; squares become cubes; circles become cylinders or hemispheres. The shaft of a classical column is a vertical cylinder. Classical domes are half-spheres or approximations. 5

J. Francois Gabriel J. Francois Gabriel 5 J. Francois Gabriel 3 4

The order of Ionic columns on the front façade is based on the circle. Windows are based on the square. As seen on the interior of the Observatory, the plan of the rotunda is a modified circle. Circles became cylinders for the walls of the three towers, while circles became hemispheres for the domes capping those towers. DEFINED SPACE In classical architecture, the basic spatial unit is called a room—figural spaces. A room is usually well defined by firm boundaries and openings are typically few in number and moderated in size. 6 All of the primary rooms of the Observatory are enclosed and well-defined as figural spaces; the more public lecture Figure4. Public Lecture Hall, with two entrance doors room has two doors to make it more convenient for public use. The north dome and west dome are enclosed by cylinder walls, with a few doors which are always closed from the corridor. The library to the south of the building is open to the octagon in the corridor, with additional openings to the stairs beside the lecture hall. Since those public rooms including library and lecture room are usually open to the corridor and easy to approach, their boundaries and specific functions are more defined by the materials and colors of the surface; the walls of the lecture room are decorated by surrounding engaged oak wood columns and oak wood wainscot (see Figure4). The walls of the library are distinguished by surrounding bookshelves and wood fireplace. The floors are carpet atop original oak. The color of wood is the main color of the library and the lecture room, distinguishing them from the lighter marble and white color in the corridor (See Figure3). The telescope spaces in the Thaw (See Figure6) and Keeler domes are isolated from the corridor by doors to keep the temperature of each space separate. The working temperature of the telescope should be the same as outdoor temperature. By placing the working space on the sides of the building and equipping them with two doors, the working space and the living or public space are separated and Figure5.Fitz/Clark Telescope Level well-defined. JUXTAPOSITION OF DISCRETE FORMS Every component is complete in itself. Boundaries are clearly outlined, ambiguity and overlap are avoided. 7 In the Observatory, the three towers are bounded from the main central corridor, while they are complete in themselves. Although the Fitz/Clark tower is not bounded solidly from the public space, the ambiguity is avoided successfully by the floors that separate the lecture hall and the telescope level (See Figure5). In the meantime, the lecture hall is indicated to be a public space with transparent enclosure—the tall windows surrounding the walls of the lecture hall define its public uses.

6 7

J. Francois Gabriel, P20 J. Francois Gabriel,p22

Figure6. Thaw Dome Tower Telescope Level

EMPHASIS ON CENTER, CORNERS AND SIDES To achieve spatial unity, walls typically reflect one another and share axes of symmetry; all four walls address themselves to the center of the room. Floor and ceiling should also reflect each other. The center of a room should be open, the corners should be solid. 8 The center of the Observatory is emphasized with the main corridor that articulates different ends of the building. Domes are located on south, north, and west sides. LIMITED INVENTORY OF PARTS Each element of the classical vocabulary is sharply defined, with its specific role to play in a composition. The column is the most important element with its distinctive base and capital. Columns are used to express structure and to actually carry loads, and often articulate a bay system. Columns are sometimes used in pairs to frame an opening and emphasize its importance. Columns can be freestanding, engaged, in a wall, or flattened against a wall to form pilasters. Columns are metaphors for human beings, endowed with elegance, grace, and dignity. 9

Figure7. Ionic Column and Pilaster

As seen on the front faรงade of the observatory, the Ionic Columns and Pilasters are placed in pairs to frame the main entrance and emphasize its importance (See Figure7). INHERENT FORMAL HIERARCHIES Hierarchy means the ordering of parts according to their importance. Important rooms belong to the center and to the front of a building. Secondary functions are housed in wings. Like in human bodies, the important organs are found in the center and towards the top. Important rooms are raised above the ground plane. 10 The corridor is the most important space for articulating different spaces of the building, thus it lies in the center of the Observatory. The base of the Observatory is elevated. The main floor of the building is accessed by ascending staircases in front of the front portico. Thus public spaces are raised above the ground plane to emphasize the original idea by John Brashear that public spaces are important. The domes that house the telescopes are raised above, but the reason for doing that is to enable to the telescope to observe the sky. This also explains the reason of using the classical domes to enclose the telescopes; telescopes are the most significant instruments in the observatory. TRIPARTITE ORGANIZATION: THE RULE OF THREE A classical composition typically has three parts: a beginning, middle, and an end. A building is constructed from the ground up. A column begins with a base, continues with a shaft, and ends with a capital. The entablature consists

J. Francois Gabriel J. Francois Gabriel 10 J. Francois Gabriel 8 9

of architrave, frieze and cornice. The pedestal consists of plinth, die, and cornice. Symmetry postulates a middle and two sides. The rule of three is a powerful metaphor for the three main phases of life. 11 The design of the Observatory follows the rule of three to a decent degree; the front of the building is symmetrical, consisting of a main façade with entrance on center, and two smaller domes on both north and south ends (sides.) In the interior, the south dome is for public use, while the entrance to the north dome is not as open and visible as the south dome; the public corridor and the north dome are separated by a door. The north dome houses the crypt in its basement and telescope on the upper floors. The south dome maintains a public lecture room on the first floor, Figure8. Thaw dome and its south porch with false openings with two entrances opening to the corridor. Stairs on the side lead to the upper floors that house the telescope for public observation. Regarding the rule three, the south half of the building extending from the middle entrance is the metaphor of the first phase of life—living. The octagon is the metaphor of transition. The north dome is the metaphor of the third phase of life—death. The most public middle, the public south, and the more private north also interpret the rule of three. The east-west axis of the building also follows the rule of three—the east is the main entrance, the middle is the corridor and the octagon, and the west is the biggest dome—Thaw. REGULARITY Requirements of function, structure, and visual harmony are usually balanced. Conflict between function and the need for regularity can be solved by creating “invisible openings” or “false openings.” 12 In the Keeler and Thaw towers, it’s not necessary to have many windows on their walls, but they have some false windows that are typically not used, just to keep the visual harmony of the façade (See Figure8). Fitz/Clark has infilled windows, but regular openings.

THE LANGUAGE OF CLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE THE MODULE Orders embody the very essence of Classical architecture. The orders of a column begin with the simpler Tuscan and Doric, Figure9. Ionic order, drawing from the Oxford proceeding to the more elegant Ionic, and the exuberant Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Corinthian, and finally the ambiguous Composite. A column is composed of a base, shaft, and a capital (See Figure9). The proportion of every element is determined by module, which is always equal to half of the diameter of the shaft

11 12

J. Francois Gabriel J. Francois Gabriel

where it is widest. Classical architecture has a system to coordinate all the parts of a building; the module is a basic unit of the system. 13 ENTASIS Entasis is a refinement for the shaft of a column; the upper two thirds taper upward in an almost imperceptible curve reducing the diameter to 5/6 of its largest dimension. In the Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite, tapering occurs in the lower third as well, but with less extent downwards. Entasis is a metaphor for the human form, and the organic part in a classical column. 14Entasis also creates visual harmony, because straight sides would create an illusion of narrowing. BASE AND CAPITAL Columns are either structural or suggestive of structural support, thus it should be reliable as well as reassuring. The base and capital function to negotiate a harmonious transition between the vertical shaft and the horizontal elements above and below. 15 THE DOME A dome is a vertical pull: we tend to stop and look up as we enter a domed room. The symbolism of the cube represents the earth, while the symbolism of the sphere represents the universe, thus the two combinations of the two forms a natural motif for the design of the Observatory 16.

Figure10. 1909 postcard of Boston Public Library, Wikipedia

THE DESIGN OF THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY—IN CONTEXT THORSTEN E. BILLQUIST Keeler’s original plans were modified and made more complete by Professor Wadsworth. A design competition was held for the new building. Among the architects who submitted designs for the new observatory, Thorsten E. Billquist was chosen.17 The architect’s plans were displayed at the Pittsburgh Architectural Club Exhibition in June 1900. The plan of the new observatory was decided to be L shaped instead of T shape in order to fit the topography of the land 18. Figure11. Presbyterian Hospital of Pittsburgh, the Brookline

Connection Billquist was born in Sweden and graduated from the University of Gothenburg. He arrived in the United States in 1887 and appeared in Pittsburgh in 1893. He is said to have worked on the Boston Public Library (see J. Francois Gabriel J. Francois Gabriel 15 J. Francois Gabriel 16 J. Francois Gabriel 17 Albert M. Tannler, “‘Temple of the Skies’: Observatory Hill Renaissance of Art and Science,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Focus 30:15 (February 13, 2005), http://wordpress.phlf.org/wordpress/?p=399 18 Albert M. Tannler 13 14

Figure10) for McKim, Mead & White, the firm most closely identified with the American Renaissance. In Pittsburgh, Billquist spent a year as a draftsman with Longfellow, Alden & Harlow, then another year in the office of W. Ross Proctor, an early graduate of Columbia University’s Beaux-Arts-derived curriculum. He practiced from 1897 to 1923; from 1905 to 1909 in partnership with Edward B. Lee, who had studied at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris. Billquist is best known for elegant Colonial Revival and Neo-Classical residences in Pittsburgh’s East End. The new Allegheny Observatory was the first major Pittsburgh building by Billquist. Before Billquist was chosen for designing the new observatory, he was already experienced in the vocabulary of classical design; he was involved in working on the Boston Public Library for McKim, Mead & White, which was related to American Renaissance. The Renaissance style emphasizes the classical vocabulary of Greek and Rome architecture flourished in Europe. Billquist also worked on Beaux Arts (studies emphasized on imperial Roman architecture, Renaissance and French and Italian Baroque, flourished in Paris). Beaux Arts designs have more flamboyant variations and bizarre shapes in its design, while Neoclassical style rely on Classical rules and can be modified according to functions. Edward B. Lee designed the crypt in the basement of the new observatory. While Billquist was in partnership with Edward B. Lee, they had worked on Presbyterian Hospital of Pittsburgh (See Figure11) and Allegheny and Montefiore Hospitals.

THE NEW OBSERVATORY In late the 19th and early 20th century, Italian Renaissance Revival, Classical Revival, and Beaux Arts style were popular in America. In the Revival Period, buildings were closely modeled after the original forms that inspired them. Revival architecture tends to incorporate stylistic elements of ancient Greece and Rome, and their architectural details. The new observatory (See Figure12) was one of the Classical Revival buildings in this period. However, the Observatory is different from most of the other Classical Revival buildings—it was built to house telescopes and other research instruments. Billquist combined the Figure12. Allegheny Observatory front facade specific function of the building serving as an observatory and the form of Classical Style architecture, while keeping a balance between the two. His design interprets how the Classical form best fits the function of the Observatory and how the function makes traditional Classical architecture become more interesting. While ensuring the order of Classical style, Billquist modified the form in order to interpret its function better. Thus while following the rules, Billquist modified the form of Classical architecture to create a harmony.

The new observatory was not only built for intelligence, but a moral uplift of the many, to push forward science— astronomy, and the frontier of human knowledge. It is a building devoted to the study of the works of God, of other worlds than our own, and should be set apart solemnly. 19 The Observatory resembles a basilica (See Figure13). The Roman basilica was first a large public court building. The Christian basilicas were public religious buildings. Thus basilicas were mostly related to public use and God. The purpose of building the Observatory for the public and for the study of the works of God is relevant to the plan resembling a basilica.

Figure13. Allegheny Observatory

The new observatory was involved in the new study of the light spectrum. During that period, the old school of astrophysics and the new school of astronomy were diverging. Astronomy physics as science is international. As said, the Classical style is the first international architectural style since it was invented and spread around the Figure14. Erechtheion, 421-406 B.C. an ancient Greek temple on the north side world. Choosing the Neoclassical style of the Acropolis of Athens in Greece, for the Observatory shows that http://wings1320.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/greek-art-history-architecture-draft/ astronomy is a sacred and international science subject. Communications in scientific language, such as the light spectrum, is similar to communicating architecturally in the rules of the Classical language. The domes in the Observatory can be seen as metaphors of the universe. They represent the sacredness of science and sky. They combine the function of housing telescope and the form of universe or God. The classical elements and orders used in the facade of the building represent not only the sacredness of science but also the intelligence in human history. The front entry porch on the east façade of the Observatory resembles the Erechtheion (See Figure14)—a temple on the Acropolis in Athens, which was the most important monument of the Ionic style; the Ionic columns flanking the door were replaced by pilasters coupled with Ionic Columns. The neck of the capital of the pilaster is decorated with a labyrinth fret, which represents royal power. The door is flanked with a pediment, with entablature below it. The entablature consists of architrave, frieze with inscription and cornice. The two pane-windows on both sides beside the entry porch were surrounded by Ionic molding, with Ionic cornice and acon. The molding surrounding the doorway is in Doric order instead of Ionic.

Metcalf, Margaret, “The Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory”, Publication of Pomona College Astronomical Society, vol. 2, pp. 13-15, 10/1912.

The south dome has a round Ionic columned portico circulating the enclosure of the lecture room (See Figure16). It refers to the Tempietto (See Figure15) in Rome, 1502, designed by Bramante. The columned portico resembles that of the Tempietto, interpreting the public use of this portion of the building. The Tempietto was one of the most harmonious buildings in the Renaissance. The portico of the Tempietto is supported by Doric Tuscan Columns instead. The portico defines the south dome itself as a whole; this dome contains both public space and working space in it. It is a complete unity itself. The portico doesn’t literally make it more open, the portico is false—it is not used because there’s no door open to it from the lecture room. The north dome is also complete as a whole. However, since it houses the crypt and the telescope, it was designed to be more enclosed and private; without outdoor portico, the whole space is fully enclosed by a cylinder brick wall. Thus the building is not exactly symmetrical; the south dome looks different from the north dome on the exterior, indicating the different use of the interior space and different Firgure15. Tempietto, Bramante, Donato proximities to the public. Bramante, Tempietto, źródło: finestitalian.com

CONCLUSION Thus, by following the rules of Classical Architecture, learning from historic classical models, and modifying the forms according to the building’s function, Billquist created a harmonious whole--the Allegheny Observatory. The history of Allegheny Observatory is reflected in the building itself.

by Wenfei Luo

Figure16. Fitz/Clark Tower

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Francois Gabriel, Classical Architecture for the Twenty-first Century, W. W. Norton & Company; First Edition, 2005 portal.state.pa.us, PHMC, “Classical Revival Style 1895-1950” http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/late_19th___early_20th_century_revival_period/2390/classical_r evival_style/294771

Albert M. Tannler, “‘Temple of the Skies’: Observatory Hill Renaissance of Art and Science,” Pittsburgh TribuneReview Focus 30:15 (February 13, 2005), http://wordpress.phlf.org/wordpress/?p=399 Metcalf, Margaret, “The Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory”, Publication of Pomona College Astronomical Society, vol. 2, pp. 13-15, 10/1912. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1912PPCAS...2...13M/0000019.000.html

FIGURES Figure 2. Leonardo Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, http://blog.questia.com/2013/06/how-to-research-anthropologyhistory-books-and-articles-using-questia/ Figure 9. Ionic Order Greek Ionic Order from Eleusis (after Normand), drawing from the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, http://www.jamesstevenscurl.com/drawings-oxforddictionary.php Figure 10. 1909 postcard of Boston Public Library, Wikipedia, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Boston_Public_Library_exterior.jpg Figure 11. Presbyterian University Hospital on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh in 1970, The Brookline Connection, http://www.brooklineconnection.com/history/Facts/PresbyHospital.html Figure 13. The New Allegheny Observatory, Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory, the Progress of Science, Popular Science Monthly, Oct. 1912. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_81/October_1912/The_Progress_of_Scie nce Figure 14. Erechtheion 421-406 B.C. http://wings1320.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/greek-art-history-architecturedraft/ Figure 15. Donato Bramante, Tempietto, źródło: finestitalian.com, http://rynekisztuka.pl/2012/11/05/ad-fontes-czylio-filozoficznych-zalozeniach-sztuki-renesansu/

MARY ELIZABETH TILLINGHAST STAINED GLASS WINDOW & FRANK VITTOR BRONZE SCULPTURE _______________________________________________________________________________________

LOCATION / ENVIRONMENT Situated on Observatory Hill in Pittsburgh’s Riverview Park, the Allegheny Observatory is characterized by its three telescopes. However, this building houses more than just astronomical equipment; the Allegheny Observatory is home to two historically significant art objects. The east-facing front entrance of the building gives way to a long, public hallway, leading westward into a room, referred to as ‘the Octagon,’ or rotunda space, which houses both art objects. On the north side is Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast’s 1903 opalescent stained glass window (Figure 1), which portrays Urania, the muse of astronomy. In the center of the Octagon is Frank Vittor’s 1920 bronze sculpture (Figure 2), which depicts a life-size John Brashear. Both of these art objects are relevant to the Observatory in terms of thematic content and affiliation with the building itself, and therefore contribute to the building’s overall significance.

Figure 1. Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast’s 1903 stained glass window, Urania.

TILLINGHAST STAINED GLASS WINDOW HISTORY

Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast was born in 1845 and died in 1912 (the year the Observatory was dedicated). After studying painting in Paris, she moved back to New York to study under the direction of noted New York artist John La Farge, who, today, is best known for his innovations in stained glass design in the 19th century. During this time, she perfected his pioneering American style of stained glass, and later utilized it in her work near the turn of the 20th century. John La Farge worked in a variety of media and “…was among the earliest American painters to adopt the stylistic elements derived from progressive French landscape painting of the mid-19th century as well as from Japanese prints, which he collected.”1 Ascension (Figure 3), painted in 1887, in the Church of the Ascension in New York City is a key example of his work. Inspired by medieval stained glass windows, La Farge employed new techniques to achieve the color expression of medieval stained glass. 2 He invented opalescent glass and layered it, a practice typical of his contemporaneous American competitor, Louis

Figure 2. Frank Vittor’s 1920 bronze sculpture of John Brashear.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, "John La Farge," accessed March 20, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/595436/Louis-Comfort-Tiffany.

Kenneth Jackson, ed., "The Encyclopedia of New York City." The New York Historical Society, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995).

Comfort Tiffany (Figure 4 and Figure 5). 3 This approach differed from medieval methods of painting enamels or colored pigments on uncolored glass. Through his invention of opalescent glass and his imaginative designing, he contributed to a revival of the art of stained glass in America and gained an international reputation.”4 The idealized scenes and moralizing subjects of English PreRaphaelite painters, like John William Waterhouse (Figure 6) inspired La Farge’s work, which is Figure 3. Early inspiration of opalescent also evident in Tillinghast’s work. window designs. Ascension wall painting From the late 19th century until the by John LaFarge, image from GVSHP, online. 1910s, Tillinghast worked out of Greenwich Village and designed stained glass windows independently, which usually depicted “saints and literary figures against backdrops of Mediterranean hills, fluted pilasters and Gothic tracery,”5 like La Farge. A year before Tillinghast’s Urania was installed in the Observatory, a La Farge window was installed in the Frick Building in downtown Pittsburgh. Both portraying female figures framed by Classical order columns, the windows show the inspiration of La Farge on Tillinghast’s, and also reflects the Neo-Classical architecture of the Observatory. 6 After the Grace Episcopal Church in New York City commissioned her first prominent work in 1887, Jacob’s Dream (Figure 7), Tillinghast gained prominence in the art world. Based off of a Bartolomé Esteban Murillo painting (Figure 8), the Jacob’s Dream depicts the prophet Jacob asleep on the ground while angels descend upon him from above by way of a ladder. She subsequently received a gold medal at the World’s Columbia Expedition in 1893 and the Cotton States Exposition in 1895 and a bronze medal there as well. 7 Another notable contribution to the stained glass practice, “Miss Tillinghast was the first to realize the difference that the electric lighting of churches would make in the spectacular effect of window

Figure 4.. Compare to Tillinghast’s opalescent stained glass. Hospilitas stained glass window by John La

Figure 5. Compare to Tillinghast’s opalescent stained glass. Abundance stained glass window by Louis Comfort Tiffany, image from Democratic and Chronicle, online.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, "Louis Comfort Tiffany," accessed February 15, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/595436/Louis-Comfort-Tiffany.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, "John La Farge."

Eve M. Kahn, "18th Century Artisans, Tracked the Modern Way," New York Times Online edition, sec. Art and Design, January 05, 2012.

Bill Zlatos, “Brighter Days Ahead for Wilkinsburg,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Online, Thursday, April 17, 2008.

Davy, The Collected Works of Sir Humphry Davy, (London: Smith, Elder and Company, 1906), 1787.

designs.”8 The Allegheny Observatory has lights around the frame of the widow to illuminate the stained glass panels when there is no adequate natural lighting (Figure 9). In 1899, then present director James Edward Keeler appointed Professor Frank Wadsworth as his successor in the new Observatory that was to be Figure 6. Compare subject matter and graceful figural built.9 Wadsworth subsequently took up the management of the representation to that of Tillinghast. The Lady of Shalott oil painting by John William Waterhouse, image from the Tate building plans for the new Allegheny Observatory, “[he said] the Museum London, online. window is to adorn the new structure of the observatory. It is pronounced one of the most artistic works of Miss Mary E. Tillinghast.”10 Urania (refer to Figure 9), commissioned Miss Jane M. Figure 7. Mary and Miss Matilda H. Smith, and was finished in 1903. 11 Philanthropic Elizabeth sisters, the Misses Smith also provided most of the funds for this window, Tillinghast’s first independent with help from passionate supporters of the University. The window stained glass remains in its original location today. Figure 8. Tillinghast’s 1887 stained glass window model. Jacob’s Dream oil painting by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, image from Hermitage Art Museum,

window, Jacob’s Dream. Image from Grace Episcopal Church, online.

The praise Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast received during her working career continues today. A distant cousin of Tillinghast, Kent Watkins has been researching her life and compiling a biography. In a 2012 New York Times article he stated spoke of her importance, “An 1896 magazine profile called [Tillinghast] ‘the most versatile artist we can boast of among the women in this country,”12 and also said, “Dealers have mistakenly called her a former Tiffany staff member.”13

MATERIALS La Farge’s techniques in layering opalescent glass are evident in Tillinghast’s work in Urania though she has her own, softer style. The window is made up of three panels, held together by two steel t-bars for rigidity, which are encased in a bronze frame surrounded by a decorative wooden border. 14 It is nine feet tall by three feet Earle G. Shettleworth Jr., Society for Architectural Historians, "Brief Biographies of American Architects Who Died Between 1897 and 1947," Accessed February 16, 2014. http://www.sah.org/docs/misc-resources/brief-biographies-of-americanarchitects-who-died-between-1897-and-1947.pdf?sfvrsn=2 8

E. Glaser, University of Pittsburgh, "History of Allegheny Observatory." Last modified May 05, 2001. Accessed February 16, 2014. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/history.html

9 Arthur

"Window for Western Observatory," Pittsburgh Post, July 03, 1903.

Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, “Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast.” 2007.

Kahn, "18th Century Artisans, Tracked the Modern Way," 2012.

Ibid.

Kirk Weaver, stained glass consultation, 2014.

Figure 10. Close up of orthoganols in stained glass window, Urania by Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast in the Allegheny Observatory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

wide.15 Three opalescent glass layers transmit reflective a soft, colorful radiance. The window is primarily opalescent glass, with the exception of the subject’s feet, arms, head and hands, which are painted. 16 The individual pieces of glass are held together with lead cames, excluding the lower portion of the composition: a color light spectrum of soldered shards held together with copper foil to create an undisrupted field. 17

SUBJECT MATTER The overall theme of the window is Neo-Classical, which reflects the architectural style of the Observatory building. In addition, there are symbolic elements that represent ancient astronomy, also in the Classical tradition. The composition depicts Urania, the Greek muse of astronomy, standing in a porch supported by fluted Ionic order columns decorated with a laurel wreath (not unlike those decorating the building). Orthoganols Figure 9. Tillinghast stained glass window, Urania, depicted on the porch floor allude to a three dimensional space (Figure 10), illuminated with exterior electric lights. evoking atmospheric perspective with rising acropolis ruins on the horizon. Dressed in Greek gathered robes, Urania raises her right hand to the sky and holds a planet in her left. Other astronomical allusions include compasses on the pedestal to her right, and in the sky, the moon, an evening star, and the planets of Pleiades.18 Below the figure is the light spectrum, symbolizing the Observatory’s affiliation with the astronomy practice. The references to Classicism (in intellectual thought, mythology and aesthetics) and the architectonic composition of Tillinghast’s work reiterate the Observatory’s construction and function.

VITTOR BRONZE SCULPTURE HISTORY

Born in 1888 in Italy, Frank Vittor studied art at the Academy of Beres in Milan, and then went to Paris to study under Auguste Rodin.19 Under the direction of Rodin, Vittor explored different sculptural techniques, and developed an individual style that clearly draws inspiration from his mentor. Early in his career in the 1850s, Rodin refused entrance to the prestigious École des Beaux-Arts, which allowed him to develop a distinctively expressive style20 (Figure 11). A partial rejection of the Neo-Classical fashion of popular sculpture during this time, Rodin’s approach captured a more meditative side of emotion, yet retained the life-like quality of more refined Classical sculpture. Vittor’s work draws on Rodin’s use of a contemplative and provocative, yet stoic demeanor and combines it with his own sculpting technique. The expressionistic stylizations of 15

“Window,” 1903.

Weaver.

Ibid.

"Window," 1903.

Luciano J. Iorizzo and Ernest E. Rossi, Italian Americans: Bridges to Italy, Bonds to America, (London: Teneo Press, 2010), 137-138.

Clare Vincent, "Auguste Rodin (1840–1917).," In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004). http:// www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rodn/hd_rodn.htm. 20

Frank Vittor’s bronze sculpture of John Brashear in the Allegheny Observatory exemplify his association with Rodin. This sculpture, “Unlike Vittor’s other works in Pittsburgh, reveals a rough surface texture, recording in bronze the buildup of clay that occurs in the process of sculpting”21 (Figure 12), which is reminiscent of Rodin’s style. This is also evident in the stump-like based in Vittor’s sculpture, especially when compared to Figure 11. After establishing himself as an artist in Europe with a characteristic style, Vittor was Figure 12. Close up of Frank VIttor’s bronze discovered by American architect sculpture technique. Stanford White. In 1906, White, who designed Madison Square Garden II, brought Vittor to New Figure 11. Example of Rodin’s expressive sculpture York to work with his staff,22 but was murdered only two weeks after Vittor style. The Thinker bronze sculpture by Auguste Rodin, arrived by Harry Kendall Thaw, brother of William Thaw Jr. who donated the image from East Tennessee State University, online. funds for the Thaw telescope at the Allegheny Observatory.23 Though with little money and limited knowledge of the English language, Vittor decided to stay in America. He soon was able to open an art studio in New York, where he met his future wife, Ade Mae Humphreys.24 About ten years later, in 1917, the couple moved to her hometown, Pittsburgh, where he exhibited a few of his bronze sculptures in the Charles Wunderly Gallery in Downtown. 25 This exhibition publicized his talents as a bronze sculptor and immediately his work was honored with great acclaim. His early success allowed him to mingle with some of the city’s elite, from whom he received commissions, primarily on public property out of doors. Outstanding examples of his work found around the city of Pittsburgh include the 1955 17-foot commemorative sculpture of Baseball hall of Fame inductee Honus Wagner, currently located near PNC Park, 26 and the 1958 50-foot Christopher Columbus sculpture near Phipps Conservatory (Figure 13 and Figure 14). 27 Both of these works were sculpted in a more straightforward manner, different than the expressive quality of the John Brashear sculpture. These public works were commissioned by the city at the peak of his career, though he got his start decades earlier. Among the Pittsburgh elite that sought Vittor’s work included John Brashear, who was a prominent associate and astronomer at the Allegheny

Iorizzo, 138.

The Annex Galleries, Frank Vittor Biography. Santa Rosa, California, 2013. http://www.annexgalleries.com/artists/biography/3677/Vittor/Frank (Accessed 20 March 2014).

23 Doug Lucas, “Harry Thaw - The Notorious Playboy of Old Allegheny,” The Allegheny City Society Reporter Dispatch: Journal of Old Allegheny History and Lore (2007): 1, accessed 5 April 2014, http://www.alleghenycity.org/downloads/038%202007%2002%20Summer%20Reporter%20Dispatch.pdf 24

Iorizzo, 139.

Ibid., 139.

Gay, 24.

Ibid., 69.

Observatory. 28 Brashear was known for his advancements in telescope lens technology, specifically, the refractor lens on the Thaw telescope at the Observatory. The two became friends, and two weeks before Brashear’s death in 1920, Vittor finished his lifesize sculpture (Figure 15), though it was not dedicated until 1927. 29 One of Vittor’s first outstanding sculptures, the John Brashear bronze is located in the Octagon at the end of the Allegheny Observatory’s public hallway. This central location marks Brashear’s importance and contributions to the completion of the Observatory and achievements in the field of astronomy. 30 This sculpture is an example of Vittor’s early expressive style of sculpture.

Figure 13. Comparison of Vittor’s later work in Pittsburgh. Honus Wagner bronze sculpture, image by Wally Gobetz, online.

CONTRIBUTION TO HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE The Tillinghast stained glass window and the Vittor bronze sculpture contribute to the Allegheny Observatory’s significance because they are noteworthy representations of the work of historic master artists relative to their time. Both of their works in the Allegheny Observatory provide a feature of the building’s past. While Tillinghast’s Urania stained glass window and Vittor’s John Brashear bronze sculpture do not contribute directly to the architecture and style of the Observatory, they both contribute to the building’s history, and help characterize its purpose. These works were created by distinguished artists of their time, who studied under more established artists in the beginning of their respective careers. Both artworks were created early in each artist’s career and stand out as exemplary representations of their artistic oeuvres. As the first major work independent of her instructor, John La Farge, Urania, characterizes Tillinghast’s sinuous utilization of La Farge’s opalescent stained glass, and illustrates her innovative use of electric lights to enhance the visibility of stained glass during dark hours. Urania’s subject matter echoes the function of the building as an Observatory, with its astronomical allusions, and the composition reiterates the Neo-Classical style of the building. Vittor’s sculpture depicts a well-known figure of the Observatory and the city of Pittsburgh, astronomer John Brashear. His techniques expand upon that of renowned sculptor, Auguste Rodin, which is most evident in the Brashear sculpture. Because most of Vittor’s sculptures are located outdoors, where weathering, even with great conservation efforts, is inevitable, those that are indoors will remain closest to their original integrity. Preserving these artworks will preserve a facet of key to the fabric of Pittsburgh’s history.

Figure 14. Comparison of Vittor’s later work in Pittsburgh. Christopher Columbus bronze sculpture, image by Kate St. John, online.

by Jenna Briasco

Ibid., 140.

Vernon Gay, and Marilyn Evert, Discovering Pittsburgh's Sculpture, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983), 28.

Ibid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY The Annex Galleries, Frank Vittor Biography. Santa Rosa, California: 2013. http://www.annexgalleries.com/artists/biography/3677/Vittor/Frank (Accessed 20 March 2014). Davy, Sir Humphry. The Collected Works of Sir Humphry Davy...: Discourses Delivered Before the Royal Society. London: Smith, Elder and Company, 1906. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "John La Farge," accessed March 20, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/326278/John-La-Farge. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Louis Comfort Tiffany," accessed February 15, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/595436/Louis-Comfort-Tiffany. Gay, Vernon, and Marilyn Evert. Discovering Pittsburgh's Sculpture. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983. Glaser, Arthur E. University of Pittsburgh, "History of Allegheny Observatory." Last modified May 05, 2001. Accessed February 16, 2014. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/history.html Iorizzo, Luciano J., and Ernest E. Rossi. Italian Americans: Bridges to Italy, Bonds to America. London: Teneo Press, 2010. Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. s.v. "The Encyclopedia of New York City." The New York Historical Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Kahn, Eve M. "18th Century Artisans, Tracked the Modern Way." New York Times, Online edition, sec. Art and Design, January 05, 2012. Lucas, Doug. “Harry Thaw - The Notorious Playboy of Old Allegheny,” The Allegheny City Society Reporter Dispatch: Journal of Old Allegheny History and Lore. 2007: 1. http://www.alleghenycity.org/ downloads/ 038%202007%2002%20Summer%20Reporter%20Dispatch.pdf (Accessed 5 April 2014). Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, "Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast (1845-1912), New York." Last modified 2007. Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.phlf.org/2008/03/21/mary-elizabethtillinghast-1845-1912-new-york/. Shettleworth Jr., Earle G. Society for Architectural Historians, "Brief Biographies of American Architects Who Died Between 1897 and 1947 ." Accessed February 16, 2014. http://www.sah.org/docs/miscresources/brief-biographies-of-american-architects-who-died-between-1897-and-1947.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Vincent, Clare. "Auguste Rodin (1840–1917)." In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rodn/hd_rodn.htm. Weaver, Kirk. Pittsburgh Stained Glass, Stds. Consultation visit, February 13, 2014. "Window for Western Observatory." Pittsburgh Post, July 03, 1903. Zlatos, Bill. “Brighter Days Ahead for Wilkinsburg,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Online. Via Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation. April 17, 2008. http://www.phlf.org/page/30/?s=pittsburgh.

FIGURES La Farge, John. Ascension, Wall painting. New York: Church of the Ascension. http://gvshp.org/blog/2011/06/13/anarchitectural-gem-in-the-village-2011awardee/ (Accessed 20 March 2014). La Farge, John. Hospitalitas, Stained glass window. New York: Brooklyn Museum. 1906-1907. http:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WLA_brooklynmuseum_John_La_Farge_Hospitalitas_2.jpg. (Accessed 20 March 2014). Murillo, Bartolomé Esteban. Jacob’s Dream. Spain. Oil painting. 1660-65. http://www.arthermitage.org/Bartolome-EstebanMurillo/Jacob-s-Dream.html (Accessed 20 March 2014). Rodin, Auguste. The Thinker. Bronze. 1879-1889. http://faculty.etsu.edu/kortumr/HUMT2320/earlymodern/ htmdescriptionpages/thinker.htm (Accessed 23 March 2014). Tiffany, Louis Comfort. Abundance. Stained glass window. New York: Finger Lakes Wine Center at Sonnenberg Gardens & Mansion State Historic Park, 1911. http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/wine/?p=167. (Accessed 20 March 2014). Tillinghast, Mary Elizabeth. Jacob’s Dream. Stained glass window. New York: Grace Episcopal Church, 1887. http://mediacache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/da/43/10/da43106108675aac3df67191d6d3eba7.jpg (Accessed 20 March 2014). Vittor, Frank. Christopher Columbus. Bronze. Pittsburgh: Schenley Park, 1958. Photo by Kate St. John of WQED. http:// www.wqed.org/birdblog/2013/10/14/before-columbus-day/ (Accessed 25 March 2014). Vittor, Frank. Honus Wagner. Bronze. Pittsburgh: PNC Park, 1955. Photo by Wally Gobetz. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ wallyg/5943834694/ (Accessed 25 March 2014). Waterhouse, John William. The Lady of Shalott. Oil painting. London: The Tate British Art Museum, 1888. https:// www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/waterhouse-the-lady-of-shalott-n01543 (Accessed 20 March 2014).

HISTORIC MAPS

OLD WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA OBSERVATORY & CURRENT ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY _____________________________________________________________ The Allegheny Observatory was not always located atop the hill in Riverview Park. Its predecessor was located a few miles to the south near Allegheny Center (Figure 1). In 1859, the Allegheny Telescope Association founded Pittsburghâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first observatory but could not maintain the funding necessary for upkeep. In 1867 they donated the facility to the Western University of Pennsylvania (WUP), known today as the University of Pittsburgh. The site used for this observatory was one of a few buildings located on the WUP campus (Figure 2). Decades after the construction of the WUP observatory, the construction of a new observatory started in 1900 (Figure 3). Allegheny Observatory took twelve years to complete, meanwhile the original WUP observatory building was used for different purposes, like the Protestant Orphan Asylum (Figure 4). The current Allegheny Observatory is still in its original location (Figure 5), though there have been a few alterations. Today, the old observatory is Triangle Tech, a city-owned technical school (Figure 6). WRITTEN BY JENNA BRIASCO

new observatory

Old Observatory

Figure 1. Map showing both sites in Pittsburgh before either building was constructed. Map of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, with the names of property-holders : from actual surveys [map]. Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. Philadelphia: Sidney & Neff, 1851.

Figure 2. Map of the original Observatory on Western University of Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s campus (now University of Pittsburgh). Plate 5 [map]. 100. In: Real Estate plat-book of the city of Allegheny: from official records, private plans and actual surveys, vol. 1. Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins & Company, 1890.

Figure 3. Allegheny Observatory during its construction phase. Plate 21[map]. 100. In: Real Estate Platbook of the City of Allegheny: from official records, private plans and actual surveys, vol. 2. Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins & Company, 1902.

Figure 4. Map showing the original Observatoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s site, which in 1934 was the Protestant Orphan Asylum.

Figure 5. 1939 map showing the current Allegheny Observatory with the transit house attached to the west. Plate 27 A. [Map]. "1939 Revision." Philadelphia: G. M. Hopkins & Company, 1900 and 1939.

Figure 6. Present day map of both sites, the Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park and Triangle Tech.

CHAPTER 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS HSR3 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND PRESERVATION TREATMENTS This section is a guide to the character defining features of the Allegheny Observatory, along with treatments on how to properly care for and maintain them. Through historic contexts, the application of information from local professional consultations and preservation treatments, each character defining feature section explains its significance as part of the Allegheny Observatory.

TERRA COTTA Introduction Terra cotta is a significant part of the Allegheny Observatory, so much so that if it were altered or replaced it would significantly change the historic character of the building. For this reason, the terra cotta that creates the intricate detailing on all of the facades is a character defining feature. In order to better understand what a character defining feature is, and what the standards and guidelines for proper preservation are, they will be addressed below. Throughout this paper, one will gain a better understanding of what terra cotta is, how it is used, its history, its location at the Allegheny Observatory, and its current condition. Finally, this paper will explain how to properly treat, and not treat, terra cotta.

What is a Character Defining Feature? A character defining feature gives a building its visual appearance. The defining feature may include materials, space, and/or features. A character defining feature, if altered, removed, or replaced could drastically change the characteristics of the building. The National Park Service’s Preservation Brief 17 explains character defining features in detail. The Brief gives a three step process for examining a building to find character defining features. 1 There are numerous features of a building that can be identified as character defining, but they must tell a story, or hold significance. Character defining features, if changed, would drastically alter the historic message the building conveys.

What are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards? The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are comprised of four groups of treatments that promote proper actions when working on a historic building. The four treatments are preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. In each of these treatments there is a list of standards and guidelines. The most commonly used standards are the rehabilitation standards, however; the Standards of Preservation are typically used to guide work at the Observatory. The National Parks Service defines the preservation treatment “as the act or process of applying 2 measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property.” 3

The eight Standards for Preservation are listed below: 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

Lee H. Nelson, “Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character,” Preservation Briefs, September 1988, accessed February 22, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/17architectural-character.htm 2 United States. National Park Service. "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines on Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings." National Parks Service. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm (accessed February 27, 2014). 3 IBID

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

What is Terra Cotta? In Italian, terra means “baked earth.” Terra cotta is actually fired clay that may be mixed with sand or clay particles before firing. There are many different types of terra cotta including brownstone for decoration, unglazed terra cotta used for both a structural and fire proofing purposes, ceramic veneer used as surface tiles, and glazed terra cotta used to replicate ornamental stonework. 4 The terra cotta of the Observatory is porous on the underside which is typical of most terra cotta. This porosity causes problems with terra cotta because water has the ability to enter behind the front coated layer. Terra cotta was commonly coated with a glaze and fired in a kiln. When fired in the kiln, a color change, caused by the glazing, occurs. Terra cotta glaze is used to add a fade resistant color to the terra cotta. Colors of terra cotta vary greatly and are dependent on the tint added to the glaze. In addition, terra cotta glaze adds a weather protective surface that can last a long time if cared for properly. 5 Tony DeChellis and Michael Nardozzi, employees of Pittsburgh’s Cost (masonry) Company described how the terra cotta of the Allegheny Observatory was produced. The two stated the terra cotta was made using casts or molds in which the clay was laid. Once the clay was molded, it would enter a kiln and bake. While baking, the clay shrinks; therefore, the precise amount of baking time is important. Once the clay is baked, the glazing is added and baking continues. This process hardens the glaze, making the terra cotta water resistant. This procedure was repeated for individual pieces of terra cotta at the Observatory. New molds or casts were needed for each different piece of terra cotta. 6

History of Terra Cotta Terra cotta became a popular construction product in the 1890’s and remained prevalent until the 1930’s. It was a popular building element in Neoclassical buildings, more specifically in detailing the facades of these Neoclassical buildings. Terra cotta became popular because it was fireproof and believed to be waterproof. In addition, terra cotta provided an alternative to carved stone; namely because it was cheaper and easier to produce. During this time period, terra cotta was used in numerous building constructions. These buildings include the Guaranty Building of Buffalo, the Wainwright Building in St. Louis, the Rookery Building in Chicago, and many other buildings that gave terra cotta its rise to fame. 7 Terra cotta, if properly cared for, will last a long time. However, in the history of building construction, terra cotta has at times been mistreated or improperly kilned and thus problems are becoming more prevalent in historic buildings. An additional cause for concern is the limited number of terra cotta manufacturers in the United States. Currently, only three manufacturers remain: one in California, one in Ohio, and one outside of Boston, Massachusetts. 8

H. Ward Jandl, The Technology of Historic American Buildings, (Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Preservation Technology, 1983) Chapter 5. 5 Tony DeChellis and Michael Nardozzi, Cost Company masons, Class guest consultants, February 6,2014. 6 IBID 7 “Preservapedia,” National Center for Preservation Technology & Training, December 5, 2013, accessed March 20, 2014, http://preservapedia.org/index.php?title=Terra_cotta. 8 Tony DeChellis and Michael Nardozzi, Cost Company masons, Class guest consultants, February 6, 2014.

The architect of the Allegheny Observatory most likely chose terra cotta because it was more economical to produce than carved stone. Terra cotta was also more flexible. It could be fashioned to mimic marble, granite, and other expensive stone. 9 The use of terra cotta would have lowered the construction costs and increased the budget for better equipment at the Allegheny Observatory. Furthermore, terra cotta was easier to produce than carved stone because it did not require the lengthy process of carving; casts could be reused and shaped into intricate details which were difficult to match on carved stone. Likewise, the popularity of terra cotta during the time period would have influenced the decision to use terra cotta as a building element. 10

Common Problems Relating to Terra Cotta The National Park Service’s Preservation Brief 7 in reference to terra cotta provides numerous examples of the common problems terra cotta faces. Brief 7 provides two examples of common terra cotta problems: spalling and crazing. Spalling occurs when water is trapped inside terra cotta and causes the glazing to blister and pop in areas of the terra cotta surface. The water is trapped behind the glazing and due to freeze and thaw cycles the glazing pops off. Crazing is also caused by water. Crazing, however, causes cracks to form on the surface of the terra cotta. Crazing is not cause for concern unless it penetrates the glazing and enters the interior section. 11 Additional problems related to the use of terra cotta include the deterioration of the terra cotta structural components. Problems related to structural components include metal anchoring deterioration, mortar deterioration, stress-related deterioration, inappropriate repairs, and alteration damage. When water enters the steel infrastructure or anchors behind the terra cotta, the steel begins to corrode. As steel corrodes, it expands and causes structural problems related to the steel as well as the fracturing of the terra cotta. Fracturing is yet another problem terra cotta faces. Fracturing leaves large cracks throughout the terra cotta. Other examples include human induced problems. 12 Human induced problems include: instillation of unsuitable terra cotta; use of unsuitable mortar; lack of water shedding devices such as weep holes, flashings, and drips; unprotected metal anchors; or too few metal anchors. These problems occur during installation; however, there are also human induced problems that can occur after installation. Post installation problems include improper treatment of earlier problems such as: inappropriate repointing by using too hard of a mortar joint; improper coating of non-breathable water sealants; improper cleaning; and vandalism. 13

Preservation Treatments There are many ways to treat terra cotta. One of the more common, and one of the first treatments that should occur, is cleaning the terra cotta. The State Historical Society of Iowa has devised a set of treatment recommendations for cleaning terra cotta. Because terra cotta has a porous interior, it is advised that the terra cotta be checked for water tightness before the cleaning process begins. If it is determined that the terra cotta is not water tight, this must be addressed first. Terra cotta must be water tight prior to cleaning. Ensuring that the terra cotta is water tight prevents additional damage from occurring. Abrasive materials or methods using strong acidic chemicals, high-pressure washing, or metal-bristle brushes should not be used on terra cotta. These materials can remove the glazing and harm the terra cotta. Glazed terra cotta showing small amounts of dirt and soil stains can be cleaned with water and a non-ionic detergent. The surface should be gently scrubbed with a soft-bristle brush and rinsed with clear water. If the dirt is not removed, an alkali prewash and organic acid after-wash can be applied to 9 “Preservapedia,” National Center for Preservation Technology & Training, December 5, 2013, accessed March 20, 2014, http://preservapedia.org/index.php?title=Terra_cotta. 10 H. Ward Jandl, The Technology of Historic American Buildings, (Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Preservation Technology, 1983) Chapter 5. 11 De Teel Patterson Tiller, “The Preservation of Historic Glazed Architectural Terra-Cotta,” Preservation Brief 7, June 1979, accessed February 22, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/7-terra-cotta.htm 12 IBID 13 IBID

remove the stubborn dirt. Minor dirt and stains on unglazed terra cotta can be cleaned with clear water and a soft bristled brush. If heavier stains persist, steam or diluted muriatic or oxalic acids can be used; however, once the acid is used, the surface must be rinsed well with water 14 Once the terra cotta is cleaned and additional problems are identified, they can be addressed properly. Solutions to the various problems noted above can be fixed through a variety of methods including: waterproofing; repointing; glaze spalling repair; material spalling repair; major spalling repair; temporary stabilization; repair of structural damage; temporary replacement or removal of earlier repairs; and, if needed, replacement. 15 Waterproofing is a common problem addressed when dealing with terra cotta. One method of waterproofing terra cotta involves covering the terra cotta with breathable water resistant solutions. Materials must be breathable so that water is able to properly exit the terra cotta. There are, however, other methods of waterproofing. For example, the addition of caulking and flashing can be used to waterproof terra cotta. 16 Repointing of mortar joints must be done properly or further damage could be done to the structure. The mortar used in repointing must be of lesser compressive strength than the surrounding masonry; otherwise, the mortar will cause the masonry to fail. Repointing with waterproof caulking should never be done because water tends to leave through the mortar joints and caulking or waterproofing the joints would prohibit this from occurring. 17 Spalling is one of the more common problems occurring in terra cotta. Glaze spalling can be fixed through the application of paint, with the same tint as the glazing. Waterproofing with one of the recommendations above must follow. Minor material spalling should be replaced in the same manner as the glaze spalling. These areas should not be covered with stucco or cement-like materials because this will cause additional problems. If the spalling is severe and loss of material occurs, the structural integrity must be maintained while replacing the lost materials with the recommendations below. 18 Repairing large cracks or holes can be done using materials with the same expanding components of the terra cotta and stonework. Caulking is permitted here, although it is not recommended for pointing. In repairing holes or large cracks, the caulking will expand and move with the terra cotta and stonework. 19 Prior to replacing lost material, temporary stabilization might be necessary. Using metal strapping and netting is a recommended to temporarily stabilize terra cotta pieces. Furthermore, temporary replacement of materials may be used until the final replacement arrives and is installed. Temporary replacement requires more involvement including temporary repointing, and the removal and saving of pieces to be used later. The temporary installation of brick is also acceptable. All temporary repairs must be removed prior to replacing the terra cotta with acceptable permanent materials. Removing earlier repairs must be done carefully and prior to replacement. 20 Replacement of materials should only occur if no other solution is possible. Replacement involves removing the original terra cotta piece and exchanging it with terra cotta or a related material. If terra cotta is available and funding is sufficient, new terra cotta should be used to replace the original; however, if terra cotta cannot be easily located or funding is low, alternative materials are available and sufficient for replacement. Alternate replacement materials include: stone; fiberglass; precast concrete; glass fiber reinforced concrete; and other materials recommended by your stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SHPO. When using the replacement material, it is important to replace the piece as close to the original as possible. 21

15 16

IBID

IBID 17 IBID 18 IBID 19 IBID 20 IBID 21 IBID

Terra Cotta and the Allegheny Observatory Terra Cotta is present throughout the exterior of the Allegheny Observatory. The lintels around the doors and windows, as well as the framing around the windows, are all constructed of terra cotta. Terra cotta makes up the frieze and cornices of the Observatory as well as the balustrades, excluding the north portion of the east faรงade which is made of copper. The Fitz/Clark colonnade was also constructed of terra cotta, but the terra cotta has since been replaced due to structural problems. Terra cotta is present along the south porch and is original. The original front portico was largely made of terra cotta (including, the pediment, columns and pilasters, and frieze); however, due to structural problems this has been modified. Nearly all of the decoration on the exterior of the Observatory is made of terra cotta. The terra cotta at the Observatory is showing signs of problems in certain locations.

Window Ornamentation

Keeler Dome Terra Cotta

Terra Cotta Damage East Faรงade near Fitz/Clark Dome

Current Condition These places are scattered about the facades of the Observatory including the terra cotta above some of the windows, the terra cotta pilasters of the south porch, and places along the cornice. These problems are due in part to water that has penetrated the terra cotta causing the encased steel or original steel anchors to corrode. As steel corrodes, it expands, and as it expands, the terra cotta is forced to fracture or crack which leads to more water reaching the internal structure. In the Fitz/Clark tower the corrosion was so extensive that the entirety of the terra cotta and steel framing had to be replaced in 2010.

Modifications over Time A great deal of the front portico seen today is no longer made of terra cotta; however, the cornerstone, the door surround, and the terra cotta located on the sides of the portico remain original. The changing of the front portico was

Pfaffmann & Associates Portico Reconstruction Area

largely due to the corrosion of interior steel and cracking of the terra cotta. The terra cotta columns and pilasters were replaced with architectural precast concrete. The pediment, on the other hand, was replaced with glass fiber reinforced concrete. Work on the front portico was completed in two phases and was completed by May of 2011. 22 Pfaffmann and Associates is credited with working on the Observatory and designing the rehabilitation plan for the front portico and the Fitz/Clark Colonnade. The Fitz/Clark colonnade rehabilitation began in March 2010 and was completed in May 2011. 23 The use of these substitute materials had to be approved by the Pennsylvania SHPO office prior to being incorporated. The materials used are designed so that it is nearly impossible to visually see a change in the construction. This protects the historic significance of the building 24.

Terra cotta Recovered by Pfaffmann & Associates 25

Another alteration which has occurred relates to the Fitz/Clark colonnade. The colonnade was replaced in 2010 due to structural problems related to water damage. Pfaffmann and Associates led the design work on the colonnade. Like the alteration above, the Fitz/Clark colonnade used alternative materials in reconstruction. The colonnade was reconstructed with the use of architectural precast concrete 26.

Recommendations Restoration should begin with cleaning the terra cotta. The methods described above were used in this process. Once the terra cotta is cleaned, the condition of the terra cotta can be assessed using one of the methods listed below. Prior to beginning any restoration process, one should consult with the National Park Service Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems which contains the common deterioration problems related to masonry as well as Preservation Brief 7. The problems covered in the glossary involve all masonry problems including stone, brick, and terra cotta. These problems include: Fitz/Clark Colonnade blistering, chipping, coving, cracking, crazing, crumbling, delamination, detachment, efflorescence, erosion, exfoliation, flaking, friability, peeling, pitting, rising damp, salt fretting, spalling, subflorescence, sugaring, surface crust or surface induration, and finally weathering. 27

Phase Two Report, Pfaffmann and Associates, Pittsburgh, 2011. IBID 24 Phase One Report, Pfaffmann and Associates, Pittsburgh, 2006. 25 IBID 26 Quarterly Progress Reports, Pfaffmann and Associates, Pittsburgh, 2010. 27 Anne E. Grimmer, â&#x20AC;&#x153;A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems and Preservation Treatments,â&#x20AC;? Department of the Interior National Park Service Preservation Assistance Division, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C., 1984, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/Historic-Masonry-Deterioration.pdf 23

The main problems occurring at the observatory are water related: crazing, spalling, and fracturing. These should be cared for using the methods noted above. If the problem is not one of these three, then the glossary of historic masonry problems will identify the problem. Once identified, a solution for the problem can be planned and carried out. There are many ways that one can inspect terra cotta. These include: tapping, infrared scanning, sonic testing, metal detection, and laboratory analysis. 28 Tapping helps determine if the interior of the structure has deteriorated. Using a wooden mallet the terra cotta is hit. The sound produced identifies the extent of deterioration. If the sound is definite, the terra cotta is structurally sound, but if the sound is flat and hollow, the possibility of structural issues exists. Infrared scanning uses infrared technology to locate spots where temperature is different. Areas showing different temperatures identify where the structure could be unsound. Sonic testing exams the internal composition of the terra cotta and can determine where areas are unsound using the bounce back feature of sound waves. Metal detection is another source for determining structural composition. Using a metal detector can help to determine where anchors are or are supposed to be and thus determine structural issues. Finally, laboratory testing is another procedure used for testing terra cotta. Laboratory testing uses pieces previously removed to study the composition of the terra cotta. It can be used to identify the properties of the terra cotta of a particular area. Once these problems have been determined, then the proper means to address them can be applied.

by Jacob Craig

De Teel Patterson Tiller, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Preservation of Historic Glazed Architectural Terra-Cotta,â&#x20AC;? Preservation Brief 7, June 1979, accessed February 22, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/7-terra-cotta.htm

Bibliography DeChellis, Tony and Michael Nardozzi, Cost Company masons, Class guest consultants, February 6,2014. Grimmer, Anne E. “A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems and Preservation Treatments.” Department of the Interior National Park Service Preservation Assistance Division. Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington. D.C., 1984. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/preservedocs/Historic-Masonry-Deterioration.pdf. “Historic Preservation - Technical Procedures.” GSA U.S. General Services Administrations. November 13, 2012. Accessed Mark 20, 2014. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/112578 Jandl, H Ward. The Technology of Historic American Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Preservation Technology, 1983. Nelson, Lee H. “Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character.” Preservation Briefs, September 1988. accessed February 22, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm. Phase Two Report. Pfaffmann and Associates. Pittsburgh, 2011. Phase One Report. Pfaffmann and Associates. Pittsburgh, 2006. “Preservapedia,” National Center for Preservation Technology & Training, December 5, 2013, accessed March 20, 2014, http://preservapedia.org/index.php?title=Terra_cotta. Quarterly Progress Reports, Pfaffmann and Associates, Pittsburgh, 2010. Tiller, De Teel Patterson. “The Preservation of Historic Glazed Architectural Terra-Cotta.” Preservation Brief 7. June 1979. accessed February 22, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/7-terra-cotta.htm United States. National Park Service. "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines on Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.." National Parks Service. accessed February 27, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm.

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES & PRESERVATION TREATMENTS | BRICK According to Preservation Brief 17 of the National Park Service, a character-defining feature “refers to all those visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic building.” These features can include the materials used to construct the building and these materials should be properly identified “in order to preserve them to the maximum extent possible.1 The brick used to build the Allegheny Observatory can be considered a character-defining feature, as it comprises the main body of the Observatory’s exterior structure. This paper will highlight the importance of brick as a building material as well as its importance in the context of the Observatory and outline proper care and maintenance guidelines that follow the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.

HISTORY OF BRICK AS A MATERIAL Brick is a building product that can be classified as masonry, which also includes natural stone and terracotta and is one of the most common and basic forms of masonry.2 Brick has a long history with documented use dating back to 8000 to 10000 B.C. It is made in primarily two forms, unfired and fired brick, and is primarily made of clay. Unfired brick is typically made out of mud and is left to dry. Adobe bricks are an example of unfired bricks where the sun is used to “fire” bricks made from “local soils, fibrous materials (e.g. straw or dried cactus), water, and/or cactus juice manually pressed into molds to create earthen blocks,” which were then dried for several weeks or months. By 3500 B.C., the use of heated kilns had been introduced in the process of brickmaking. A kiln is used to regulate temperature and oxygen consumption, which results in a more consistent product. 3 In North America, fired brick was commonly used since the time of the earliest settlements in the 1600s. The necessary materials to make bricks were easily available and while local materials were used, the basic

1 “Preservation Brief 17,” National Park Service, accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/17-

architectural-character.htm. 2 Robert A. Young, Historic Preservation Technology (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2008), 79, 88 3 Young, Historic Preservation Technology, 89

composition of clay and sand was consistent. The different colors of brick are a result of the different minerals found in the clays that are used to make brick and how they react during the firing process. Typically, a higher firing temperature results in darker colors. The red color of brick that is commonly seen is a result of the iron in clay reacting in an oxidized atmosphere. While most bricks have a rough, natural surface, a glaze can be applied so that the resulting brick has a shiny coating and is used in brick that is used for ornamental purposes. The strength of bricks is also dependent on the temperature at which it is fired. Brick that is fired at a higher temperature and closer to the heat source is generally stronger than brick that is fired at a lower temperature and further from the heat source.4 Historically, brick was made by hand by packing molds with a clay, sand, and water mixture, called the soft mud process. The mixture was then removed from the molds and left to dry for days before being fired. The industrialization of the brick making process began in 1792 with the invention of a brick-making machine. Essentially, a brick-making machine works by pushing the clay material through a die so that a column of clay is forced out onto a moving belt where it is then cut by wires to make individual bricks. By the early 1800s, technological advances introduced a mud mixture that used less water in the soft mud process and therefore allowed brick to be made year-round as the drying process was significantly reduced. During this time, the brick making process greatly shifted from a hand made operation to water-powered, steam-powered, and a stiff mud process, an extrusion process that cut brick shapes with wires or blades. Henry Clayton invented one of the first successful brick-making machines in 1855 and by the 1870s, the brick industry shifted from primarily hand made bricks to machine made ones.5 The introduction of the machine process greatly accelerated the speed with which bricks were made and reduced the cost. While brick was historically a popular construction material, it is not an ideal load-bearing building material. The amount of bricks necessary to construct walls thick enough to bear the weight of taller buildings was not financially and aesthetically ideal. The higher a brick structure rises, the thicker the walls need to be to maintain

4 5

Ibid., 90 Young, Historic Preservation Technology, 90-91; and Clayton, Henry. Brick and Tile Machine. Patent 13,123, filed June 26, 1855.

the structural integrity of the building. For that reason, its use has been limited as concrete and steel can be more economical and provide better support and strength in smaller quantities and thickness.6

BRICK AT THE OBSERVATORY The brick at the Observatory comprises the exterior structure of the building, between the foundation and the terracotta cornice, giving the building a distinct aesthetic. The brick walls are primarily masonry bearing walls and steel beams are used horizontally to support the floors. In the Thaw tower, the brick is a non-load-bearing enclosure system for the steel beams that provide the actual structural support for the dome. The brick acts in the same capacity in the Fitz-Clark tower where steel beams are used to support the telescope. The brick is visible in the entirety of the exterior and in some parts of the interior, mainly the basement level in the classrooms, hallways, dome towers, and various other rooms as well as the interior of the south porch. The brick used on the exterior of the three towers is also significant as it is curved to fit the shape of the tower. Regardless of shape, the brick used for the exterior of the Observatory is typically 12-inch wide buff brick that was manufactured by Kittanning Brick Company (as it is stamped on the underside of the bricks) and was assembled by the Lovett Bros.7 The brick is laid using a

Figure 1: Stretcher bond on the exterior of the Observatory

stretcher bond with thin mortar joints (see Figure 1.) The exterior buff brick is the outermost wythe of three, which are joined together using metal reinforcement bars which are placed across two wythes of brick and grouted in place.8 The brick seen in the interior is original red brick which can be seen in the basement level of the Thaw tower,

Young, Historic Preservation Technology, 82 Western University of Pennsylvania, Catalogue of the Western University of Pennsylvania, year ending 1901, Pittsburgh, Pa: Western University of Pennsylvania, 1901 8 Young, Historic Preservation Technology, 94 6 7

the second level of the Keeler tower, the interior of the south porch and the area underneath it, and in some walls in the staircases and miscellaneous rooms (see Figures 2 and 3.) The others areas of visible brick in the interior show brick that have been painted over and is no longer exposed. These areas are throughout the basement level and in the basement of the Keeler tower (see Figures 4, 5.) Figure 3: Interior of the south porch showing red brick, both original and subsequent infill.

Figure 2: Interior red brick in the Thaw tower.

Figure 4: Painted brick that is seen throughout the basement level.

Figure 5: Painted brick in the basement level of the Keeler tower.

ALTERATIONS Over time, some of the brick used at the Observatory has been modified in places to repair damaged areas or to close up certain openings. These openings are most commonly seen in infilled windows or doorways, such as the original openings of the south porch, an area on the north side of the Thaw tower, and the north side of the FitzClark tower, and a window in the foundation of the north façade (see Figures 6, 7, and 8.) Since the 12-inch brick

Figure 6: Infilled openings on the south porch, with both original and subsequent brick.

Figure 7: Infilled area on the Thaw tower, with original brick.

Figure 8: Infilled window in foundation of the north façade, with original brick.

Figure 9: Original south porch without infilled openings, dating between 1910 and 1930. (Source: Allegheny Observatory Records, 1850-1967)

used originally is of an unusual size and color,

Figure 10: Original area of Thaw tower without infilled openings, dating between 1910 and 1930. (Source: Allegheny Observatory Records, 1850-1967)

used originally is of an unusual size and color, the more modern bricks used to infill these spaces do not correctly match in either aspect. The color does not match and the size is the current 8-inch wide standard size for bricks. The only space that was infilled with the original 12-inch wide buff brick is the opening mentioned above on the Thaw tower (Figure 7.) The infilled openings of the south porch and Thaw tower were infilled sometime after 1930 as these opening are still visible in pictures of the Observatory that date between 1910 and 1930 (see Figures 9 and 10.) The Thaw tower opening was originally a wooden garage door and the infilled openings of the south porch were windows and an entrance.

SIGNIFICANCE OF BRICK Brick, along with stone, was a common material building material used in Neo-Classical architecture. While many public use or federal Neo-Classical buildings were constructed using stone material, such as the Ariel Rios Federal Building in Washington, D.C. (limestone), many smaller or residential buildings constructed in the Neo-Classical style used brick.9 Brick itself is a significant building material as it is historically one of the most popular materials used in buildings. During the era when the Observatory was built, brick was a material that was commonly used in small to medium sized buildings, even as a material to pave roads. A notable building in which brick has also been a character-defining feature is the Monadnock building in Chicago, a building recognized as one of the last brick “skyscrapers.” The exterior of this building is comprised entirely of brick and the brick comprises the load-bearing walls of the building.10

CURRENT CONDITION AND RECOMMENDED CARE Water infiltration has always been the leading cause of the deterioration of brick. Looking at the exterior of a building, the signs of moisture damage in masonry can include spalling, cracked masonry, and eroded mortar joints.11 These issues, along with a section of wall that is buckling, are the main masonry problems that are seen at

9 “Explore by Style”, U.S. General Services Administration, accessed April 1, 2014, gsa.gov/portal/ext/html/site/hb/actionParameter/exploreByArchitectureStyle/category/25422/hostUri/portal. 10 Young, Historic Preservation Technology, 82 11 “Preservation Brief 39: Holding the Line: Controlling Unwanted Moisture in Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/39-control-unwanted-moisture.htm.

the Observatory. While these issues are prevalent, the overall condition of the brick exterior is good as there are no areas where it has severely deteriorated and is not structurally sound. Spalling has occurred in localized areas over the exterior of the building (see Figure 11.) Spalling is caused by water that is trapped in the masonry itself. Figure 11: Example of spalling that can be see in localized areas on the exterior of the Observatory.

The water travels outwards through the masonry

walls until it reaches the surface and evaporates. The brick at the Observatory has a glaze on the surface that is preventing the water from evaporating and instead, the water builds up pressure behind the glaze until it causes a section of the brick to break off. The trapped water is usually a result of poor water detailing, insufficient maintenance, rising damp, or a leaking roof.12 Improper repointing can also damage the brick units and the damage can lead to further water infiltration. Spalling not only affects the aesthetic quality of the building but it also exposes a larger area of the more porous underbody of the brick, which allows more water infiltration. To fix the areas affected by spalling, it is necessary to install new units of brick that match the original, surrounding brick.13 This may be an issue in the case of the Observatory as the original brick are of a unique size and shape (in the areas where the brick is curved to match the contour of the towers) and the Kittanning Brick Company no

Figure 12: An area of spalling where an attempt to repair the brick has been made.

longer exists. Replacing the damaged units of brick is only an aesthetic fix and to prevent the problem from occurring again, the source of the water has to be identified and fixed. The source of the moisture may be from infiltration (from open joints in or between the masonry), rising damp, or vapor diffusion (when humidified interior air moves out through the walls to a cooler exterior.) Closing open joints and keeping vigilant maintenance on areas

“Preservation Brief 7,” National Park Service, accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/7-terracotta.htm. “Preservation Brief 39”, National Park Service

that may become an issue in the future can rectify infiltration, keeping water contact away from historic materials can help fight rising damp and installation of climate control systems in historic buildings can help prevent vapor diffusion. 14 There are some areas of spalling where an attempt to patch them has been made with a mortar-like substance see Figure 12.) This is not the proper way to repair spalling, plus it is aesthetically unpleasing. Another issue that is seen in a number of places throughout the exterior of the building is the formation of cracks (see Figure 13.) Cracks in the exterior can be caused by a host of reasons, including rising damp, differential settlement of the building, or extreme weather exposure. After repairing the underlying issue causing the cracks, repointing the mortar can aesthetically fix these cracks and prevent water from further entering the masonry. This solution is also applicable to areas with eroded mortar joints. To repoint the mortar, it is necessary to ensure that the repointing work matches the building both physically and aesthetically; examining the original mortar will aid in this task. The resulting new mortar should have the same permeability and hardness of the original mortar.15 Figure 13: An example of a crack, a number of which can be seen on the exterior of the building.

Water infiltration can cause the deterioration of the metal reinforcement bars that hold the wythes of brick together. Water is able to

reach the metal reinforcement bars in the same ways as mentioned above, infiltration, rising damp, or vapor diffusion. The original reinforcement bars that were used in the construction of the Observatory were most likely composed of steel, as are the rest of the structural elements of the building. The steel reinforcement bars rusted over time and deteriorated to a point that they were no longer structurally holding the wythes together, causing the walls to bow in some places. The buckling walls need to be rectified by replacing that section of the wall and installing new reinforcement bars to hold the wythe in place. However, the source of the water infiltration should be corrected first to prevent the issue from recurring.

Ibid. “Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints,” National Park Service, accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm. 15

The last issue that affects the brick of the Observatory is discoloration and cleaning. There are areas where the bricks have been discolored (see Figure 14), of which the two most prominent areas of discoloration are on either side of the south porch. These areas of staining should not be cleaned with any abrasive method of cleaning, which are methods that abrade the surface of the brick. As brick is a porous material, abrasive cleaning causes more damage to it than say other masonry types. The hard, outer layer of the brick is worn away by abrasive cleaning, exposing the softer, more porous material underneath to the effects of weathering and possibly water infiltration.16 One recommended method to remove stains from masonry, including brick, is to use a poultice that contains an absorbent material or clay powder combined with a liquid remover to draw the stain out of the brick.17

MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION

Figure 14: Area on the Thaw tower where discoloration has occurred on the brick exterior.

To maintain the integrity of the exterior walls and to identify issues early on, the walls should be inspected annually in the spring in both wet and dry weather. After wet weather, examine interior walls for moisture patterns that may have appeared. Also determine if new cracks or areas of damaged masonry have appeared. Areas with damaged units and cracks should be addressed and rectified as soon as possible to prevent further damage or water infiltration.18

by Erin Candee

“Preservation Brief 6: Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/6-dangers-abrasive-cleaning.htm. Preservation Brief 1: Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments,” National Park Service, accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1-cleaning-water-repellent.htm. 18 Preservation Brief 47: Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/47-maintaining-exteriors.htm#exterior. 17

Bibliography National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 1.” Accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/1-cleaning-water-repellent.htm. National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 2.” Accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm. National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 6.” Accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/6-dangers-abrasive-cleaning.htm. National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 7.” Accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/7-terra-cotta.htm. National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 17.” Accessed March 31, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm. National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 39.” Accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/39-control-unwanted-moisture.htm. Young, Robert. Historic Preservation Technology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2008) Western University of Pennsylvania, Catalogue of the Western University of Pennsylvania, year ending 1901, Pittsburgh, Pa: Western University of Pennsylvania, 1901 U.S. General Services Administration. “Explore by Style.” Accessed April 1, 2014, gsa.gov/portal/ext/html/site/hb/actionParameter/exploreByArchitectureStyle/category/25422/hostUri/portal.

DOCUMENTATION & CONSERVATION CARING FOR HISTORIC SANDSTONE Character defining features of a structure are the elements that convey the historic identity, giving the building its distinct and unique character and historic significance. Largely, these defining elements refer to the physical features and visual aspects of historic structures- the building type or function, materials, construction, and architectural style. 1 At the Allegheny Observatory, one such character-defining feature that should be preserved and maintained is the sandstone of the foundation and exterior steps. To properly care for the sandstone at the Allegheny Observatory, the material and its significance must be understood, and standards and guidelines for care should be followed.

SANDSTONE AT THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY

The Allegheny Observatory employs the use of a light brown ashlar sandstone for its exposed foundation (which was typical of neoclassical buildings), the watertable, and the exterior steps. The sandstone foundation consists of untooled horizontal, rectangular cut stone with small mortar joints. This foundation extends roughly six feet above the ground. Looking vertically, from the ground to the top of the foundation, the rectangular blocks switch from a wide course to a narrow course. To emphasize the horizontality, a two inch rustication runs across the top of each block of the exposed foundation. Here, a watertable, that sheds water away from the foundation, completes the sandstone foundation course. Windows mark the only openings in the foundation. Two sets of stairs at the observatory, located at the main east entrance and the former south porch entrance, also consist of a similar brown ashlar sandstone.

SANDSTONE BACKGROUND

Sandstone is a porous sedimentary rock that consists of individual grains of sand, primarily quartz sand or a mix of quartz and feldspar sands, that have been consolidated into sheets. 2 Quartz, the primary mineral, is a very hard, chemically resistant material that usually comprises sixty to seventy percent of sandstone. Feldspar, the second most common element, is generally less resistant to weathering, and usually comprises about ten to fifteen percent of sandstone. Mixtures that contain a high content of quartz (over ninety percent) are referred to as quartzose sandstone, while feldspar mixtures that contain over twenty percent feldspar are referred to as arkose or arkosic sandstone. Cementing Sandstone steps and foundation of the Allegheny Observatory. materials such as calcite, clay, iron oxides, silica, and silt are also found in sandstone. If sandstone consists of a high level of cementing materials such as clay or silt, it is referred to as argillaceous sandstone. Sandstone varies in texture and color depending on the mixture of

National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 17.” http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/17-architecturalcharacter.htm. Accessed March 29, 2014. 1

U.S. General Services Administration. “Sandstone: Characteristics, Uses, and Problems.” http://www.gsa.gov/portal/ content/112582. Accessed March 30, 2014. 2

minerals. A gray sandstone occurs when there is a high volume of feldspar, and pink to red tones occur when there is a high iron content, but the most common are a tan or yellowish color. 3 For the production of sandstone, two phases exist; quarrying and processing. Quarrying is an extraction process, where layers or large pieces of stone are removed from an unearthed geological deposit. First, one gains access to the deposit. Then, overburden, which is earth, vegetation, and rock that is unsuitable for production, and “plugs”, the poor quality stone atop the commercial valued stone, are removed. Next, minimal breaks in the stone are located or created, and the stone is removed. Heavy machinery is necessary for the removal, and once the stone is secured for transportation, the material is moved to storage. At the storage site, the stone is inspected for grading, and eventually is shipped to the processing site. If the sandstone is insufficient due to size or quality, it is stored for later use or sent to a crushing facility to be used in other applications. The second phase of production is processing. Though processing includes more variation than extraction, the production begins with initial wet cutting. Commonly, a circular blade saw is used, but a splitter or various hand tools can also be used. If the desired result is a natural appearance, such as in natural-faced products, this single step usually completes the process, like the stone of the Allegheny Observatory. The application of a finish may follow the initial cutting. Thermal treatments, and manual treatments such as polished or honed finishes are frequently found on sandstone products. Following the finish, a second cutting may be necessary. A wet cut with a circular saw is again implemented to cut the stone to a desired shape or size. As in quarrying, the product is shipped and stored, and if the quality deems insufficient, the stone is crushed or used in other applications. 4

SIGNIFICANCE OF SANDSTONE IN ARCHITECTURE & CONSTRUCTION

Since prehistoric times, sandstone has been a significant material for the construction of buildings ranging from residential homes to commercial structures as large as cathedrals, especially in Neoclassical architecture, like that of the Allegheny Observatory. Derived from ancient Greek and Roman styles of great public buildings, Neoclassical structures typically feature symmetrical shapes, tall columns, triangulated portico pediments, and domed roofs. From the 1840’s to the early 20th century, northeastern and Mid3 Minerals Education Coalition. “Sandstone.” http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/sandstone. Accessed March 28, 2014.

4 Minerals Education Coalition. “Sandstone.” http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/sandstone. Accessed March 28, 2014.

Atlantic areas largely used sandstone for construction, making it a popular material around the time of construction at the Allegheny Observatory in the early 1900’s. 5 In the United States, one such Neoclassical structure that employs the use of sandstone, is the United States Capitol Building. Construction of the U.S. Capitol began in the late 18th century in 1793, and originally used sandstone for the exterior cladding as well as the interior floors, walls, and columns. As time has taken its toll on the material, areas have needed restoration. Over U.S. Capitol: Neoclassical structure that uses sandstone. time, spalling (the breaking off of slabs and chips) and weathering have affected the sandstone. In the 1980’s, the west front was restored, and roughly sixty percent of the original sandstone was kept, while the rest was replaced by limestone. Currently, the largest expanse of original sandstone is visible in the Rotunda walls, which supports a cast-iron dome. Along with the U.S. Capitol, the White House also represents a Neoclassical sandstone structure. 6 Elsewhere around the world, sandstone has also been largely employed. In the mid 19th century, more than 850 quarries that supplied sandstone for building existed in Britain. Because of this, much of the monumental architecture in Britain has used various types of sandstone, which gives a great range of style to the sandstone structure. The Church Horbury, located in West Yorkshire uses a natural cross bedded sandstone, while the Castle Gates Library in Shrewsbury uses a white sandstone. 7 In construction today, roughly 1.5 million tons of “dimension stone”, which includes sandstone, granite, marble, limestone, and slate that has been cut and shaped to a specific size, is used annually. Of all the dimension stone used in the United States, about thirteen percent is attributed to sandstone, yielding about 195,000 tons of sandstone for construction use yearly. In addition, even more sandstone is imported yearly from other countries. Though sandstone is used for paving and roadway construction, commercial and residential construction largely uses sandstone because of it’s ease in shaping. The variations in color and style, ease of quarrying, and durability in construction has made sandstone an important material in the built environment for centuries.

PROBLEMS WITH SANDSTONE IN ARCHITECTURE & CONSTRUCTION

Though sandstone is a very durable material for construction, it can have problems. The most common problems with sandstone are due to water penetration and weathering. Sandstone is very porous, and water will penetrate it easily, causing moisture related problems over time. Moisture related problems pertaining to sandstone are most common and include spalling (the flaking off from a larger solid body), erosion, cracking, and deterioration of mortar joints. Another issue that can naturally occur is blistering, which is a swelling of the stones “skin” due to natural chemicals that forms a hard brittle surface that usually ruptures when touched. Detachment of the stone may occur from structural settlement and stress, and cracking, or fractures in the stone can also occur. Lastly, exfoliation may occur, which is the separation

“Sandstone: Characteristics, Uses, and Problems.”

Architect of the Capitol. “Sandstone.” http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/architecture/sandstone. Accessed March 30, 2014.

Lott, Graham. “The Sands of Time: Britain’s Building Sandstones.” http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/buildingsandstones/building-sandstones.htm. Accessed March 31, 2014. 7

of the stone along a bedding plane, resulting in the loss of stone and spalling. The most common reason for exfoliation, is face bedding, which is when the bedding planes are laid parallel with the surface of the wall.8 At the Allegheny Observatory, two problems have affected the sandstone foundation; spalling and deterioration due to face bedding, and deterioration of mortar joints. The stone at the Allegheny Observatory has been face bedded, and naturally bedded, and has suffered deterioration and spalling. In many 19th and 20th century sandstone structures, the grain was placed parallel to the weather side for aesthetic reasons, but would have benefitted from natural bedding where the end grain faces the weather. The mortar joints in some areas have also deteriorated due to weathering. It is estimated that this deterioration has occurred in the last 15 to 20 years, and repointing of Spalling and deteriorated mortar joints of the foundation at the Observatory. areas should be considered.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY

As with the restoration, maintenance, and care of any historic structure, guidelines must be followed, such as the ones set by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and other historic preservation committees. The focus is to care for and maintain the existing significant material to ensure the structure keeps as much of its original character and historic fabric as possible. When necessary, restorations, repairs, and replacements should be done in a manner that matches the new materials with the historic composition of the building. With these ideals in mind, the spalling of the sandstone and the mortar joints should be cared for at the Allegheny Observatory. To care for spalling and mortar joints, a product such as Jahn M70 Limestone/Sandstone/Brownstone Repair Mortar could be considered. The repair mortar is a mineral based mortar made for the repair of sandstone and contains no additives, which protects the natural stone. It mixes easily, requiring only water, and reacts to nature in the same way natural stone would, which ensures the mix would be compatible with the natural sandstone. It allows salts, water vapor, and liquid water to reach the surface, which is important for the stone to naturally react with the mortar, instead of pulling away, or causing additional damage. The product is durable, as is sandstone, and will ensure the historic fabric of the sandstone foundation is preserved to show a part of the significance of the Allegheny Observatory.9 by Rachel Kauffman

U.S. General Services Administration. “Sandstone: Characteristics, Uses, and Problems.” http://www.gsa.gov/portal/ content/112582. Accessed March 30, 2014. 8

Cathedral Stone Products. “Restoration Mortars.” http://www.cathedralstone.com/products/jahn-mortars. Accessed March 31, 2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Architect of the Capitol. “Sandstone.” http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/architecture/sandstone. Accessed March 30, 2014. Cathedral Stone Products. “Restoration Mortars.” http://www.cathedralstone.com/products/jahn-mortars. Accessed March 31, 2014. Lott, Graham. “The Sands of Time: Britain’s Building Sandstones.” http://www.buildingconservation.com/ articles/building-sandstones/building-sandstones.htm. Accessed March 31, 2014. Minerals Education Coalition. “Sandstone.” http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/sandstone. Accessed March 28, 2014. National Park Service. “Preservation Brief 17.” http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/17architectural-character.htm. Accessed March 29, 2014. U.S. General Services Administration. “Sandstone: Characteristics, Uses, and Problems.” http:// www.gsa.gov/portal/content/112582. Accessed March 30, 2014.

DOMES

ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY Significant Features & Preservation Treatments

___________________________________________________________________________________ All buildings have character comprised of many distinctive visual qualities. Certain traits are particularly unique and worth noting. These elements characterize a building, attributing it to its original time period, or allowing it stand out with its individual characteristics. According to Lee H. Nelson, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, these elements are known as character-defining features, and they include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of its site and environment. 1 Outlining these features in and around a building allows for an appropriate assessment of significance, and later helps to develop a plan for restorative and preventative preservation. The Allegheny Observatory has many character-defining features, though the three domes are arguably the most prominent.

HISTORIC CONTEXT The science of astronomy existed 1 2 well before established structures devoted to the practice, or buildings known as observatories. The need for such buildings developed 3 alongside astronomy, as did the architectural components necessary to facilitate this observation of the sky. The invention of the dome was “The logical result of encapsulating a telescope that rotates over two axes,”2 making it a necessary component, and therefore iconic in Figure 1. The Allegheny Observatory, located on the biggest hill in Riverview Park in Pittsburgh, observatory buildings. A form of Pennsylvania. Dome labeled 1: Fitz-Clark, 2: Thaw, 3: Keeler. Photo by Steven Adams of the “citizen science”, astronomy has Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. always allowed for the influence of recreational exploration on professional research. 3 This is especially true in the years following the turn of the 20th century and after World War II due to the influx in the amount of “amateur telescope makers.”4 Once a hobby of well-to-do elite American professionals, the practice of astronomy grew to be more widely practiced by the mid-1900s. The development of “amateur telescope makers” facilitated the growth and establishment of observatories across the country, 5 which include domed structures. John Brashear supported the amateur telescope market in Pittsburgh.

Lee Nelson, “Preservation Brief 17,” accessed 25 February 2014, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm

2 Abraham A. 3

Waumans, “The Typology of Astronomical Observatories,” (Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2013), pp. 3.

Ibid.

Gary Leonard Cameron, “Public Skies: Telescopes and the Popularization of Astronomy in the Twentieth Century,” (Master’s Thesis, Iowa State University, 2010) pp. 1-2.

Ibid.

Figure 2. The Thaw telescope.

Figure 3. The Fitz-Clark telescope.

Figure 4. The Keeler telescope.

“The dome represents the heavens, turning the observatory into a temple of the modern sciences.”6 The Allegheny Observatory responds directly (and literally) to this notion. Modeled after a Greco-Roman temple in the NeoClassical style of architecture, the Observatory sits atop the tallest hill in Riverview Park, beaming like a temple on an acropolis (Figure 1). It has three differently sized domes and dome towers that hold three distinctive telescopes. The largest dome tower is on the west end of the building and houses the biggest telescope, known as the Thaw telescope (Figure 2), and accordingly known as the Thaw dome tower. The southeast dome tower is known as the Fitz-Clark, and the telescope in this dome has always been designated for public viewing and is the oldest telescope (having been relocated from the original observatory (Figure 3). The dome on the north end houses the Keeler telescope (Figure 4), which is the only telescope that has been replaced with newer technology. Both the Fitz-Clark and the Keeler dome are smaller than the Thaw, 25 feet and 30 feet in diameter,7 respectively. All three of the dome towers are brick, and the dome roofs are supported with a steel lattice structure with exposed steel trusses (Figure 5). The lattice frame in each dome is covered with horizontal wooden tongue-and-groove wainscoting that is painted white (Figure 5). On the exterior, the dome roof structures are coated with copper (Keeler and Fitz-Clark) and tin (Thaw),8 and painted white as well. Each dome roof was designed to house a telescope, which is why they rotate and have operating shutter apertures (Figure 6). In addition to the exterior metal dome material, each dome’s telescope support system varies. The Thaw telescope sits on a brick foundation with cast iron piers, while the Fitz-Clark telescope is supported by steel I-beams, which are largely concealed within the building’s floor and walls, except at the basement level. The Keeler telescope, on the other hand, has a rigid steel frame with central support held by a rotating cast iron column.9 The steel used in each dome was from Andrew Carnegie’s Carnegie Steel Company, 10 now the United States Steel Company, based in Pittsburgh during the time.

Waumans, “The Typology of Astronomical Observatories,” pp. 3.

7 John Brashear, “Annual Report of the Director: for the Year Ending December 31st, 1901,” in Miscellaneous Scientific Papers of the Allegheny Observatory, New Series No. 5, ed. F. L. O. Wadsworth and Frank Schlesinger (Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Press of New Era Printing Company, 1910), 5-6.

“Finest on Earth; Work on Allegheny Observatory Begins Monday,” The Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, May 11, 1900, accessed February 25, 2014, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1128&dat=19000510&id=MnlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZGcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1530,3257112.

Ibid., 6.

10 American Astronomical

Society, Publications, Volume 2 (University of Chicago: American Astronomical Society, 1915), 107-108.

Figure 5. Thaw dome, Keeler dome and Fitz-Clark dome: steel lattice structure with exposed steel trusses and visible wooden wainscoting and rotating dome.

Figure 6. Shutter apertures of the Thaw dome, Keeler dome and Fitz-Clark dome, from left to right.

Unlike the two smaller dome towers, the Thawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s circular room has a key interior character-defining feature: its elevating floor (Figure 7). Characteristic to other large observatories like the Yerkes Observatory at the University of Chicago (Figure 8), 11 this consists of a floor that moves up and down allows for a larger range of motion when operating the telescope, and room for the bigger, 47-foot Thaw telescope. This action is original and is still fully functioning.

George Ellery Hale, The Yerkes Observatory of the University of Chicago, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1897), 45.

Figure 8. The moving floor of the Yerkes Observatory at the University of Chicago. (Photo taken from the Yerkes Observatory web page http:// astro.uchicago.edu/yerkes/) Figure 7. The elevating floor of the Thaw dome.

MODIFICATIONS

Figure 9. The corrugated plastic sheathing attached to the brick of the Thaw dome.

For the most part there have not been too many alterations aside from contemporary adjustments to equipment or general repairs. In the Thaw dome tower, corrugated plastic sheathing has been attached to the brick in the interior (Figure 9), and two doors were infilled on main ground level A few windows have been infilled in the Thaw dome roof, as well. The Keeler dome tower also has an infilled door on the south side of the dome tower wall. The Fitz-Clark dome tower has two infilled windows and one door on the dome. In all three spaces, the dome roof rotations and shutters are fully functional as originally intended, with the exception of contemporary technical alterations: the Thaw dome’s rotation and shutter have been mechanized so they can be controlled either Figure 10. The heavily automatically or manually; in embellished front 1992, the mirrors of the Keeler façade and telescope were replaced with a simpler side Russian version of Cervit, and the facades of the Observatory. Note optical system changed to an f/15 its symmetrical Richey Chretien system. 12

SIGNIFICANCE

front façade layout, the Ionic capital columns and ornate frieze, references to Classical temple architecture.

The Allegheny Observatory was built with public and university education in mind. The three domes each contribute differently to these objectives. The Fitz-Clark telescope was meant for public viewing since the Observatory’s opening, while Thaw and the Keeler were used for research. These dome structures housing the telescopes are

12 Louis W. Coban, “Keeler Memorial Reflector,” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory, (last modified 28 May 2003), http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/keeler.html

necessary to the building’s function, and are character-defining components. While a domed structure housing a telescope is typical to any observatory, the Allegheny Observatory is characterized by its three differently sized domes, which gives it a unique, irregular building plan. In order for the building to function as both a public and institutional research facility, the three domes allow for a separation of these activities. Built around the same time as the Allegheny Observatory, the Yerkes Observatory also features three domes, but it has a symmetrical plan (refer to Benchmark Appendix).13 Also built around the turn of the twentieth century, the University of Illinois Astronomical Observatory only features one dome and has needed later additions to allow both public and educational purposes (refer to Benchmark Appendix). 14 The Allegheny Observatory’s three domes are a feature unique to the building. While the Allegheny Observatory embodies the Neo-Classical style in its exterior make up (Figure 10) the three domes do not contribute to this style. However, they are an exceptional feature of an otherwise key example of the style, and because of this they characterize the building. Its location Figure 11. The peeling paint of the Thaw Dome’s atop Observatory Hill and its bright white domes contribute to its Neointerior painted wood wainscoting. Classical style of architecture, mimicking a striking temple on an acropolis, or a basilica. Each telescope, and consequently each dome, is named after a person of great importance to the Allegheny Observatory. The Fitz-Clark telescope was named after Henry Fitz, who built the original telescope tube in 1861, and Alvan Clark who made alterations a decade later.15 The Thaw Memorial refractor telescope was named for William Thaw Sr. after his son, William Thaw Jr., donated the necessary funds. 16 The Keeler Memorial Reflector was named after James Edward Keeler, the second director of the current Allegheny Observatory following Samuel Pierpont Langley. 17

CURRENT CONDITION The domes retain their original construction and function. However, there are small deterioration issues that come with time. The paint on the wainscoting of the interior of each dome is peeling off in places. This is most evident in the Thaw dome (Figure 11). The steel lattice structure is exposed in certain parts, also most evident in the Thaw dome. Some of the wainscoting boards of the Keeler dome are loose (Figure 12). The exterior of each dome has been patched, and trapped moisture is most likely the cause of the paint peeling. Figure 12: The loose boards of the Keeler dome’s wood wainscoting.

Hale, The Yerkes Observatory of the University of Chicago, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1897).

Mike Svec. "History of the University of Illinois Observatory and the 12" Refractor,” University Astronomical Society. UIAS, (last modified 03 March 2014) http://uias.astro.illinois.edu/uofiscope.html.

15 Coban, “13-Inch Fitz-Clark Refractor,” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory, (last modified 28 May 2003), http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/fitzclark.html 16 Ibid., “Thaw Memorial Reflector,” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory, (last modified 28 May 2003), http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/thaw.html 17

Ibid., Louis W. Coban, “Keeler Memorial Reflector,” http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/keeler.html

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Just because a building is old does not mean that it has significance. In order to address significance, preservationists apply the National Register Criteria. Not only are the preservation of spaces and features important, but also the original materials. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are based in the preservation of historic materials and the preservation of a building's distinguishing character through preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. It is important to preserve if possible – to not create new unless necessary – and prevent any further damage when assessing a historic property. The National Park Service has created a series of Preservation Briefs given to outline common practices of preservation. A few of these correspond to the needs of the three domes on the Allegheny Observatory. Preservation Brief 10 discusses historic painted exterior wood but since each dome has exterior access with operating shutters, this Brief can be applied to the wooden wainscoting of each dome interior. Caused by excess interior or exterior moisture in the wood, cracking and peeling occur as moisture causes the wood to swell, compromising the paint adhesive. 18 The first step to fixing this problem is to start with the moisture problem by checking for faulty exterior features such as deteriorated caulking in joints and seams.19 After the moisture problems have been solved, the paint should be scraped off or mechanically sanded to expose sound surfaces, then primed and repainted.20 Preservation Brief 39 addresses moisture issues as well, which could also be helpful for understanding paint peeling, as a preventative measure. Stains or eroding surfaces on interior and exterior surfaces, as well as peeling paint are signs of water or moisture damage. 21 Exterior rainfall has caused stains on the painted metal of each dome. The Brief suggests to maintain this exterior by priming it and repainting it on a regular schedule. It is important to not paint over existing paint, especially with water damage but to follow the necessary procedure in caring for the historic construction. It is also important to note the type of paint, as a latex paint will not adhere to an oil based primer. 22 Lastly, in caring for copper / tin roofs, it is key to know common causes. Depending upon the size and the gauge of the metal sheets, wear and metal failure can occur at the joints or at any protrusions in the sheathing as a result from the metal's alternating movement to thermal changes.23 A general rule of thumb is that the more durable the surface is initially, the easier it will be to maintain. At least twice a year, the roof should be inspected against a checklist. All changes should be recorded and reported in order to create a routine checklist. by Jenna Briasco

Kay D. Weeks and David W. Look, “Preservation Brief 10,” http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/10-paint-problems.htm

Ibid.

21 Sharon

C. Park, “Preservation Brief 39,” http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/39-control-unwanted-moisture.htm

Weeks and David W. Look, “Preservation Brief 10,” http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/10-paint-problems.htm

Robert A. Young. Historic Preservation Technology: A Primer (Hoboken, New Jersey: J. Wiley & Sons, 2008) p.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Steven. “Allegheny Observatory Restoration Reminds of Its History.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Photo taken 20 February 2014. (Accessed 10 April 2014) http://triblive.com/aande/architecture/5625167-74/ observatory-allegheny-pittsburgh#axzz2yyr4PnT9 American Astronomical Society, Publications, Volume 2. University of Chicago: American Astronomical Society, 1915. Brashear, John. “Annual Report of the Director: for the Year Ending December 31st, 1901.” In Miscellaneous Scientific Papers of the Allegheny Observatory, New Series No. 5, edited by F. L. O. Wadsworth and Frank Schlesinger, Successive Directors of the Observatory. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Press of New Era Printing Company, 1910. Originally published in Allegheny Observatory of the University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh: Murdoch-Kerr Press, 1901). Cameron, Gary Leonard. “Public Skies: Telescopes and the Popularization of Astronomy in the Twentieth Century.” Master’s Thesis, Iowa State University, 2010. Coban, Louis W. “Keeler Memorial Reflector.” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory, last modified 28 May 2003, http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/keeler.html ---. “30-Inch Thaw Refractor,” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory, (last modified 28 May 2003), http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/thaw.html ---. “13-Inch Fitz-Clark Refractor,” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory, (last modified 28 May 2003), http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/fitzclark.html Chase, Sara B. “Preservation Brief 28: Painting Historic Interiors.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. Accessed 26 March 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/28-painting-interiors.htm “Finest on Earth; Work on Allegheny Observatory Begins Monday,” The Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, May 11, 1900, accessed February 25, 2014, http://news.google.com/newspapers? nid=1128&dat=19000510&id=MnlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZGc DAAAAIBAJ&pg=1530,3257112. Hale, George Ellery. The Yerkes Observatory of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1897. Nelson, Lee, FAIA. “Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. Accessed 25 February 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm Park, Sharon C. “Preservation Brief 39: Holding the Line: Controlling Unwanted Moisture in Historic Buildings.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. Accessed 26 March 2014. www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/39-control-unwanted-moisture.htm

http://

Svec, Mike. "History of the University of Illinois Observatory and the 12" Refractor.” University Astronomical Society. UIAS. (Last modified 03 March 2014) http://uias.astro.illinois.edu/uofiscope.html. Weeks, Kay D. and David W. Look, AIA. “Preservation Brief 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. Accessed 26 March 2014. http:// www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/10-paint-problems.htm Waumans, Abraham A. “Chapter 5: The Development of the Observatory.” In “The Typology of Astronomical Observatories.” Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2013, p. 53-77. Young, Robert A. Historic Preservation Technology: A Primer. Hoboken, New Jersey: J. Wiley & Sons, 2008.

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES / PRESERVATION TREATMENTS: MARBLE INTRODUCTION Entering the Allegheny Observatory from the entrance porch at the east end, a vestibule leads to the main corridor of the Observatory. The main material used to fill this public space is marble; this marble is a significant character defining feature of the interior Observatory. White marble floors span along the whole corridor from east to west, connecting with white marble wainscoting that extends upward on both sides of the walls, while the walls are divided into bays by white marble engaged pilasters (see Figure 1). The marble floors and marbled walls provide the first impression of the interior of the Observatory.

MARBLE AS A CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties embody two important goals: 1) the preservation of historic materials and, 2) the preservation of a building’s distinguishing character. Character refers to all the visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic building. Character-defining elements include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of its site and environment. Old buildings can be seen as examples of specific building types, which are usually related to a building’s function; the Allegheny Observatory is a good example of a Neoclassical style building. The Neoclassical architectural style shows the function of the building—to serve the public and to house telescopes, contributing to public and scientific research. There are many other facets of an historic building besides its functional type, its material or construction or style that contribute to its historic qualities or significance.

Figure 2.marble staircase and wainscoting

The visual characters of a building include the exterior features and the interior Figure 1. Current photo of the features; Surface Materials and Finishes is corridor one of the Interior Visual Characteristics— the materials and finishes that comprise the surfaces of walls, floors and ceilings. The surfaces may have evidence of either handcraft or machine-made products that are important contributors to the Figure 3. marble pilasters divide walls into bays

visual character, including patterned or inlaid designs in the wood flooring, decorative painting practices such as stenciling, imitation marble wood grain, wallpapering, tinwork, tile floor, etc. 1 Marble as a material, with its finishes, is an interior visual character defining feature of the Observatory; we can find marble floors, engaged marble pilasters and marble wainscots in the central corridor, and we can find a the marble mosaic floor in the crypt.

MARBLE IN THE OBSERVATORY Figure 4. Base of a marble pilaster The main corridor of the Observatory, which spans from the east end of the observatory (the main entrance) to the west end (the Thaw dome), is floored by white marble with grey grain. The stairway beside the lecture hall, which leads to the Fitz-Clark telescope on the second floor, is also made of the same kind of marble (see Figure 2). The marble floors have a polished finish. Joining with the floors, in the corridor and the stairway, wainscots and rhythmic engaged pilasters project from the wall (see Figure 3). They are made of white marble with medium grey grain, in horned finish. Both the corridor and the stairway are main public spaces in the observatory. These two spaces see the greatest number of visitors. The hallway provide access to lecture hall, the library, the octagon, and the stairway to the Fitz-Clark telescope. Thus the marble floor, wainscots, and engaged pilasters indicates the public use of the observatory.

Besides the floors, wainscots and engaged pilasters, marble is also found in the crypt; the mosaic floor of the crypt is covered by marble (see Figure 5, 6). The mosaic marble is in very thin piece, probably was taken from the left material which were potentially created for the wainscots and pilasters. Marble is one of the most significant materials found in the current Allegheny Observatory. It not only contributes to the classical beauty of the building, but also Figure 6. Details of mosaic floor indicates the public uses of the observatory. John Brashear, as the Figure 5. Mosaic marble floor, Keeler director of the new observatory, Tower Basement, the Crypt decided that the New Allegheny Observatory would serve the public. The contractor of stonework in the Observatory was known to be the Buente, Martin & CO. 2 the marble works in the Observatory has not been altered since they were built.

Lee, Nelson, “Preservation Brief 17”, Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Building as an Aid to Preserving their Character, http://www.nps.gov/ 2 Western University of Pennsylvania, Catalogue of Western University of Pennsylvania, year ending, 1901, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Digital Research Library, 2006, http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/textidx?idno=1901a754541;view=toc;c=pittcatalogs 1

MARBLE IN THE HISTORY OF CLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE

Figure 7.Erechtheion made of marble, Athens, Greece

White marble has been the favorite medium for Greek and Roman sculptors and architects since classical times, and it has become a cultural symbol of tradition and refined taste. In Ancient Greece, marble was used in many temples, such as Parthenon in Athens, which is decorated with marble. The Erechtheion in Athens, which may have inspired Thorsten Billquist, the architect of Allegheny Observatory, is entirely made of marble (see Figure 7). The quarrying and transport of marble and limestone were costly and laborintensive. Despite this, Greek architects still preferred using marble for their buildings. Marble flooring was popular for classical buildings in both Greek and Rome. 3

The floor in the classical interior is important and received significant attention from the designer. The marble floor of the Pantheon is a great example of its kind in the world. The pattern of the marble floors in Pantheon is circles and circles-in-squares in a regular orthogonal grid. 4 “The floor is a background: it should not furnish pattern, but set off whatever is placed upon it” (Wharton and Codman, 1897, p. 104). The marble floor in a Classical building can have no pattern, like those marble floors in Greek temple, or it can be patterned, but the pattern used on the floor should be well composed as seen in Roman temples and properly scaled to complement in the whole space, which includes floors, walls and ceilings. When it comes to the design and material of floors, the Romans created marble pavements of great variety and artistry, showing their love of pure ornamental pattern. The tradition of the Roman marble work and mosaic continued in Italy. In the churches and monumental civic buildings of the Renaissance and Baroque we can see similar treatments of the floor. Most examples are based on the Roman models, which made their way to France and were adapted to the needs of the architects serving Louis XIV. At Saint Peter’s basilica (see Figure), the largest classical floor surface under one roof, the marble floor follows the model of the Pantheon by using an orthogonal grid to register the geometrical divisions and patterns of the walls and ceilings (see Figure 8). 5 Figure 8. Saint Peter Basilica Interior, ornamental patterned marble floors Trentinella, Rosemarie. "Roman Portrait Sculpture: The Stylistic Cycle". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropo2/hd_ropo2.htm (October 2003) 4 Steven W, Semes, The Architecture of the Classical Interior, in association with the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America, W. W. Norton & Company. Inc. New York, 2004. 5 Steven W, Semes, The Architecture of the Classical Interior, in association with the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America, W. W. Norton & Company. Inc. New York, 2004. 3

MARBLE WORKS OF THE OBSERVATORY IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT By the last decade of the nineteenth century, American architecture changed dramatically through the increased sophistication both of its architects and its patrons. The established architect either immigrated to America with formal training from his home country or informal training through a similar apprenticeship system. Those architects studied Beaux Arts in Paris, and started Classical Revival in America. The Beaux Arts designs were based on illustrations by Palladio, Italian Renaissance and Roman architecture. Thus the architects at that time typically followed the classical rules in their design; in order to resemble the marble floors applied in typical Roman and Greek temples, money was expended on marble work in the interior of a Neoclassical building. The Allegheny Observatory is a Neoclassical building resembling Greek basilica. Thus it can be compared with Greek Revival buildings. The Greek Revival interiors do not replicate those of the past because few examples survive. Public interiors have large and bold classical details rather than purely classical forms and treatments. 6

Figure 9.faรงade, Saving Bank of New London, CT

In Greek revival public buildings, most color comes from materials such as the whites and greys of marble or stone. Somber colors for walls, such as stone, gray, or drab (gray brown), are common. Many walls are marbleized. Floors may be masonry, marble, or wood. They usually have bold architectural details articulate walls, particularly in important spaces. Some walls are treated as one broad expanse with paint or wallpaper, whereas others are divided by a dado, fill, and cornice or are divided into bays with engaged column or pilasters. Classicalstyle interiors characterize Neoclassical Revival buildings. 7 In the corridor of the Observatory, the color comes from the whites and grey of marble floors, pilasters and wainscots. The floors are white marble with gray grain. Walls are divided into bays with engaged marble pilasters. Thus the marble work is a characteristic of Greek Revival style. Unlike the marble work in Roman buildings, the marble works in the Observatory are not ornamentally patterned, while they still contribute as components in the space; the pilasters, wainscots are in a harmony with the marble floors because they are in the same white color with similar gray grain.

Figure 10.marble work, Historic photo of Interior Saving Bank of New London, CT

Bule Harwood, Bridget May, Ph.D., and Curt Sheman, Architecture and Interior Design from the 19th Century: An Integrated History, Volumn 2, Published by Prentice Hall. Pearson Education, Inc. 2009. 7 Bule Harwood, Bridget May, Ph.D., and Curt Sheman, Architecture and Interior Design from the 19th Century: An Integrated History, Volumn 2, Published by Prentice Hall. Pearson Education, Inc. 2009.

Figure 11. façade, Federal Hall in NYC Figure 12.Interior, Federal Hall in NYC

Marble Floors can be seen in the interior of Neoclassical buildings; Saving Bank of New London in CT (see Figure 9, 10), Federal Hall in NYC (see Figure 11, 12), U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C.

FORMATION OF MARBLE Marble is masonry. It is an extremely hard, metamorphic stone composed of calcite (CaCO3). It is formed as a result of the recrystallization of limestone under the intense pressure and heat of geologic processes. The effect of this process is the creation of a stone with a very tight crystalline structure and small but definite porosity. Because of its structure, marble can take a very high polish and is a very popular decorative stone for architectural and sculptural uses. 8 Marble is most commonly limestone or dolomite rock. The white marble found in observatory is limestone.

WHITE MARBLE OF CARRARA Carrara marble is white and comes originally from the coasts of Genoa Italy in blocks. It has a crystalline grain, and is comparable in purity to the ancient Marble of Paros. 9 Carrara marble has been used since the time of Ancient Rome. It was used for some of the most remarkable buildings in Ancient Rome, such as the Pantheon and Trajan’s Column in Rome. Many Sculptures of the Renaissance, such as Michelangelo’s David, were carved from Carrara marble. As with many of the popular marbles, the true marble from Carrara is often imitated by marble from other places, which may be called ‘Carrara’, to give people an idea of its appearance. The white marble found in the Observatory is likely one kind of ‘Carrara.’ (See Figure 14, 15) Marbles are quarried in all parts of the world (see Figure 13). The finest marbles in the United States come from Vermont, which produces large quantities. Other states important as marble producers are Massachusetts, Maryland, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, California, Colorado, and Arizona.

GSA: Marble: Characteristics, Uses And Problems, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858 M. L. Booth, Marble-Workers Manual. Designed for the use of Marble workers, Builders, and Owners of Houses., Philadelphia, Henry Carey Baird, Industrial Publisher, 406 Walnut Street, 1865.

8 9

MARBLE QUARRY To quarry marble, blasting or channeling methods can be used. Dynamite and powder are used in Blasting. Later, channeling machines were applied. Steam power was likely used to quarry the marble for the Observatory; the stone blocks were quarried by steam or air channeling machines which travel back and forth over steel rail tracks and cut narrow channels through the solid marble bed. The cutting tool rapidly delivers the strokes with great force as the machine moves slowly forward. Cuttings are removed by water that flows into the channel and washes out the pulverized marble waste. 10

Figure 13. Carrara Marble Quarries

When the required channel cuts have been made around a block that is to be removed, the block would be undercut in order to release it. This is accomplished by drilling a series of horizontal holes close together in a straight line beneath the block so that when wedges are driven into these holes the block can be sufficiently raised to permit a heavy chain to be fastened around it. One after another, blocks are cut on the same level, working towards the walls of the quarry. Another opening is then made in the floor where the work will begin on the next level. 11The blocks from the quarry are raised to the surface by a huge steam derrick, loaded on flat cars, and hauled to the storage yards. Large locomotives and enormous traveling cranes handle the marble in the mill yards. Acres of marble surround the mills. There are huge blocks weighing many tonsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;just as they were taken from one of the quarries. There are sawed blocks chloruretand slabs of every size, ready to be selected for the finished product. 12

Figure 14. White Carrara Polished Marble

At a marble mill, saws are set in gangs of a dozen or more to frames that swing backward and forward. An abrasive material is fed into the slowly deepening grooves as needed, and is washed beneath the blades, as the block of marble is sawed. Various are the sized shapes and forms into which the huge blocks are sawed, before they are smoothed and polished. 13

MARBLE FLOORS The marble contractor would submit samples of the marble, typically creating shop drawings showing general layout, jointing, anchoring, 10 11 12 13

The Size of the Georgia Marble Deposit, Carnegie Library. The Size of the Georgia Marble Deposit, Carnegie Library. The Size of the Georgia Marble Deposit, Carnegie Library. The Size of the Georgia Marble Deposit, Carnegie Library.

Figure 15. Marble tile in the Observatory

stone thickness, and other pertinent information. These drawings would also show all bedding, bonding, jointing, setting spaces and anchoring details along with the net piece dimensions of each marble unit. 14 To install a marble floor, floor preparation would first occur. The sub floor surface would be cleaned, and a cement bed would be set. White Portland cement would be used for light-colored marbles like those in the Observatory. Marble would be tamped with a suitable mallet until firmly bedded to the proper level of floor. Then the marble would be removed and the back parged with wet cement or the bad sprinkled with water and cement. Joints between the marble pieces should show an even width when laid and finished. 15 For the floor in the crypt, since the marble floor is thin, the thin-set method of installing marble tile was likely used, employing the use of dry-set Portland cement mortars.

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S STANDARDS According to the secretary of the Interiorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Standards, minimal changes can be made to the distinctive materials and features of a historic building. The historic character of a property should be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features that characterize a property should be avoided. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriated, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 16 Thus the marble works as a distinctive material, and character defining feature in the Observatory and should be retained and preserved. Minimal changes should be made to them. The features and finishes of the marble works should be preserved.

CLEANING MARBLES In general, liquid marble cleaner or mild detergent solution can be used to clean either honed or polished marble; using liquid marble cleaner, firstly apply cleaner to marble surface using a stiff bristle brush, allow cleaner to remain on surface for period, but not to allow cleaning material to dry. Then sponge rinse surface thoroughly using clean, clear water to completely remove dirt and cleaner residue, change rinse water frequently. Repeat process. End with wiping the surface with a clean dry cloth. 17 Using mild detergent solution; firstly mix mild detergent with warm water to create solution. Thoroughly wet the marble surface with hot water. Apply cleaning solution with a cloth, sponge, or soft-fibered brush. Wash in a small overlapping areas. Sponge rinse surface thoroughly using clean, clear water to completely remove dirt and cleaner residue. Change water frequently. Lastly wipe the surface dry with clean, soft clothes to prevent streaking. 18

Belstone, a ProjectStone Company, Marble, Architectural Specification Guide, http://media.wix.com/ugd/cacb4f_ba5768e17d2ed78830eb779b9455a901.pdf 15 GSA 16 National Park Service, Standards for Rehabilitation, http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/ 14

17 18

GSA, Methods of Cleaning Dirt on Marble, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111882 GSA, Methods of Cleaning Dirt on Marble, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111882

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF MARBLE FLOORS The marble floor in the Observatory can be maintained through daily housekeeping. Firstly, keep the marble floor away from dirt, water, and ice-melting salts at the door by placing large mats with waterproof backings at all entrances, because salt dissolves and pits marble. Secondly, keep the floor clean of superficial dirt by using a minimum amount of plain, warm water and a cotton string mop. Frequent mopping will help prevent soil from penetrating the surface. Whenever possible, quickly blot spills especially oil and grease, to minimize their absorption into the stone. 19

PROBLEMS OF MARBLE IN THE OBSERVATORY Weathering—Marble can deteriorate due to weathering or the natural effects of wind, rain, and thermal change. Marble does not absorb large amounts of water but it does absorb some. It can suffer substantial deterioration when exposed to acids or even mildly acidic rain water, resulting in loss of polish and loss of detailing. 20 The marble work inside the corridor of the Observatory have minimal chance to be exposed to snow, rain, and salt, but we should still catch the possible dirt and salt and frequently mop the floor as illustrated above in daily routine. The vestibule can be impacted more because people track in snow, salt, and rain, thus mats should be placed at the entrance. Erosion—wind driven, airborne abrasives such as dirt, grit, and other “particles” may selectively wear away detailing. The symptoms of erosion can be general loss of polish and edge sharpness. 21 In the observatory, some of the engaged pilasters do not retain their edge sharpness and details; eroded marble can be found on the neck of the engaged pilasters below the terracotta capital. Staining—stains can occur due to exposure to variety of exterior substances, or to internal occlusions in the stone to structural elements; oil grease, dyes and inks, organic matter, metal, rusting of iron, and copper. 22 Rust stains are found in marble floor in the corridor of the Observatory (see Figure 16); “these stains are reddish-orange and are caused by the oxidation or rusting of iron. The source of iron staining is usually the structural or connecting components. Surface deposits of rust may sometimes be removed by hand rubbing with a clean cloth.” 23 In the corridor of the Observatory, Iron stains are seen around the joints between the base of the pilasters and the marble floor. Stains are also found around the joints of some marble tiles on the floor. To remove rust stain, do the following steps;

Figure 16. Rust stains on marble tiles in the corridor

Examine the marble surface carefully to determine the cause of staining before proceeding with any cleaning operation.

Maintaining Marble Floors, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Common Bond, Vol. 12, No. 2, page 10,October 1996, accessed online, http://www.sacredplaces.org/PSP-InfoClearingHouse/articles/Maintaining%20Marble%20Floors.htm 20 GSA: Marble: Characteristics, Uses And Problems, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858 21 GSA: Marble: Characteristics, Uses And Problems, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858 19

22 23

GSA: Marble: Characteristics, Uses And Problems, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858 GSA: Marble: Characteristics, Uses And Problems, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858

Prepare the surface, clean attached or nearby metal items and coat them with a quick drying, clear coating such as varnish, shellac or a plastic spray-on/brush-on coating. Remove the sources of moisture to prevent further oxidation of the metal. Rinse the area to be treated with mineral water to prevent too deep a penetration of the chemical cleaning agent. Moisturize the surface with specific solutions, and mix specific pastes according to the stubbornness of stains; for poulticing instructions; see GSA Historic Preservation Technical Procedures: Poulticing Rust Stains from Limestone and Marble. 24 Chipping—the separation of small pieces or larger fragments from a masonry unit, frequently at the corners, edges or mortar joints is known as chipping. These fractures are generally caused by deterioration and repointing, especially due to the use of too hard a pointing mortar, or by accident or by vandalism. 25 Figure 17. Chipping marble tiles found in the corridor in the Observatory

Chipping is found at some corners, edges and mortar joints of some tiles of the marble floor (see Figure 17, 18). Detachment—problematic connectors or joints can cause detachment of marble tiles. Detachment cannot occur with a monolithic piece. Visually, detached pieces may be separated from surrounding ones. The failure of anchors or metal connectors which lead to detachment may be caused and accelerated by the penetration of water into the structure behind the stone, causing rust and corrosion. Adequate pointing and caulking will prevent leakage and penetration of water into the system. 26

Figure 18. Chipping marble tiles

Outside the Clock Room, in the corridor between octagon and the Thaw dome, a couple of tiles are found to be detached from the underlying subfloor.

REPAIRING PROBLEMATIC MARBLE According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, deteriorated historic features should be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature should match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.

GSA, Poulticing Rust Stains From Limestone and Marble http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111846

25 26

GSA: Marble: Characteristics, Uses And Problems, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858 GSA: Marble: Characteristics, Uses And Problems, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858

Therefore, we should repair the problematic marble tiles instead of replacing them if possible. If the marble tiles have to be replaced, we should replace with the same type of marble tiles. We shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t use marble tiles which are in different color, with different grain, or different hardness. To repair chips in marble, patch small cracks and holes in marble with a two-component epoxy resin. See GSA Historic Preservation Technical Procedures: Epoxy Patching Small Cracks and Holes in Marble. 27 Use marble dust from stone pieces of the same type, color, so that the patching material matches the surroundings in color and texture. To repair the detached marble tiles. Loose marble tiles should be removed first. Clean metal conduit and anchors of all corrosion. Replace any unsound anchors of same approximate size and shape. Bed new anchors in epoxy grout. Clean building marble and marble fragments of loose debris and grease. Coat marble surfaces with adhesive, fill voids and cover all surfaces. Set marble. Clean residual adhesive from the edges. Clean marble only with fiber bristle brushes and water; do not use acids, detergents, or other cleaning agents that might cause damage to the marble. More details see GSA Historic Preservation Technical Procedures: Re-Securing Loose Marble Fragments. 28

IMPROPER PRACTICES To preserve the features, finishes, and construction techniques or craftsmanship of the marble works in the Observatory, avoid certain chemicals that would accelerate the deterioration of marble; Marble is composed of Calcium carbonate, thus is highly susceptible to attack by acidic agents. Marble is readily dissolved by acids, even very dilute acids. Thus acidic material should be kept away from marble. Keep marble away from oil, grease, dyes, inks, and metal as well.

by Wenfei Luo

GSA, Epoxy Patching Small Cracks and Holes in Marble, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111874

GSA, Re-Securing Loose Marble Fragments, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/112878

STAINED GLASS

ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY Significant Features & Preservation Treatments

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

CONTEXT The Allegheny Observatory has one opalescent stained glass window (Figure 1). It was created in 1903 by American stained glass artist, Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast. Her first work independent of mentor John La Farge, Tillinghastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s style and techniques are comparable to that of Louis Comfort Tiffany as well, a noted American stained glass innovator. This window is a direct reflection of the Neo-Classical architecture of the Observatory and its association with astronomy; the window depicts Urania, the muse of astronomy surrounded by Ionic order columns and an acropolis. Refer to Mary Ellizabeth Tillinghast Stained Glass Window & Frank Vittor Bronze Sculpture in the Historic Context section for full background and history.

MAINTENANCE It is important to assess the overall construction, looking for any points of damage or wear. These should be reported, and a routine checklist should be made in order preserve what is there and document what has either gone missing or has cracked or is not functioning correctly. Figure 1. Tillinghast stained glass window, Urania, illuminated with exterior electric lights. Photo taken from interior.

Figure 3. The buckling of the panes on the Tillinghast stained glass window.

The Tillinghast window is sagging off site (Figure 2), and the three panes held by two T-bars are buckling (Figure 3). Guest consultant Kirk Weaver of Pittsburgh Stained Glass Studios recommended that the entire window be taken out and reassembled in order to preserve the original integrity of the window and to prevent further damage that often comes with time. He noted one lose piece of glass that should be kept and documented, so when the Figure 2. The sagging of window is reassembled, it can be replaced the T-bars caused by correctly (Figure 4). He also recommended uneven temperature that a storm window be placed on the exterior of the window to facilitate an equilibrium of temperature. The harsh warm and cold dynamic from interior and exterior forces, respectively, causes the glass to expand and contract at a fast rate. This causes buckling of the individual panes, which moves the panes off site.

Figure 4. The missing piece of glass.

PROMOTION AND FUNDRAISING IDEAS CURRENTLY AT PITT During our benchmarking process, we compared promotion and fundraising practices from other University observatories to those employed at the University of Pittsburgh and as a class, have come up with a few suggestions for the Allegheny Observatory. Pitt currently offers free tours of the Observatory to the general public from April through the end of October on Thursday and Friday nights. An open house is held every fall that opens a larger portion of the Observatory to the public for a self guided tour, the telescopes are outfitted for use, and the Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh sets up additional telescopes on the front lawn. The Observatory also gives three tours throughout the day on Riverview Park Heritage Day, an annual event that showcases the park. As for classes that utilize the Observatory, there is one Astronomy class that holds a lecture at the Observatory once a week and three Astronomy classes that require students to make a trip to the Observatory at least once during the semester. In the past, local public schools have set up field trips to tour the Observatory during the day.

Riverview Park Heritage Day (Triblive)

As for the funding of the Observatory, it is supported by the Main Endowment, the Theiss Endowment, and the Frick Endowment, that support the general operations, salary, and the building and equipment. The Observatory has also received three Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Historic Preservation Grants. The previous Director George Gatewood previously obtained grants from the National Science Foundation and NASA, but there are no current grants from those institutions. The website has pages that showcase the lecture series at the Observatory, a brief history of the Observatory, its notable scientists and research, and has information about the three telescopes housed at the Observatory.

FUNDRAISING From the benchmarking project, here are a few fundraising initiatives that have been used at other Observatories. Crowd sourcing and Kickstarter campaigns have been used at the University of Illinois and Brown University. The University of Washington asked alumni for donations through a letter writing campaign. A few universities have obtained grants through the NSF and historic preservation organizations while others have received funding and grants through partnerships with public schools to educate young children.

PROMOTION To raise awareness from the general public or the student body, observatories have achieved this goal through different and creative ways. First, some universities, such as University of Illinois have a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Friends of the

Observatory” group that serves as a public support group to promote the Observatory and holds public events. The University of Chicago holds summer camps for young girls with an interest in science at their Observatory as well as the Yerkes Astrophysics Academy for Young Scientists to foster a relationship with the Observatory from a young age. Some, such as Brown University, have developed a section of their Observatory into a museum. Brown’s museum showcases the history of timekeeping. Many universities reach out to people by having a social media page for their Observatory on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. Brown University also creatively used the Observatory as a space for an art exhibition, which included visual tours, sculptural elements, photographs, electronic media, and video presentations.

SUGGESTION Our suggestions as a class for the Allegheny Art Exhibition held at the Ladd Observatory at Brown University. (Rhode Island Monthly) Observatory is to have a larger social media presence (such as Facebook or Twitter) that could post interesting news about the Observatory or interesting historical facts or pictures of the Observatory. Another suggestion could be to create a “Friends of the Allegheny Observatory,” similar to the group at the University of Illinois, to hold public events and promote the Observatory. We would also suggest having easier access for students to public nights and in general, more promotion about the Observatory among students to raise awareness. This would also help with fundraising with future alumni. To help raise awareness, maybe more classes could utilize the Observatory such as the Architecture department or English department. We could also have more active fundraising efforts and possibly talk to Institutional Advancement about having a specialized fundraising drive for the Observatory similar to the Heinz Chapel Building Fund.

Heinz Chapel Giving Page (Institutional Advancement)

CHAPTER 4.0 BENCHMARKS In order to learn information that is current and reflect best practices in the preservation field, each student was assigned to research a college or university-owned observatory building of similar age and scale as the Allegheny Observatory. The six of us worked individually, interviewed with the people who are responsible for the care of our case-study buildings, including facilities maintenance people on site and architects, and preservationists. We then developed reports that outlines the key preservation issues and treatments of our case study buildings. By comparing and contrasting recent preservation plans for similar historic resources, our reports provide recommendations for maintenance and fundraising at the Allegheny Observatory. Our research covered six observatories, including Yerkes Observatory at the University of Chicago, Ladd Observatory at the Brown University, Washburn Observatory at the University of Wisconsin, Theodor Jacobsen Observatory at the University of Washington, Astronomical Observatory at the University of Illinois, and Lick Observatory at UC Santa Cruz.

ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

1 0 0 2 W. G r e e n S t r e e t , U r b a n a , I L 6 1 8 0 1 • t e l e p h o n e : ( 2 1 7 ) 3 3 3 - 3 0 9 0 • e m a i l : a s t r o n o m y @ i l l i n o i s . e d u

HISTORY & CONTEXT The Astronomical Observatory is located in the middle of the Champaign-Urbana campus of the University of Illinois. The Illinois General Assembly presented an amendment to the act Incorporating the University of Chicago, which stated, “In addition to the powers conferred by said act [above], the said university have power to establish an Astronomical Observatory; to receive donations and bequests of money and property, for the founding and maintenance of the same.” This act was in force after its approval on 13 February 1863, and thus, the project started in 1895, when the Illinois State Legislature awarded the University $15,000 for the construction of a students' astronomical observatory. Charles A. Gunn (1870-1945) designed the plans for construction. With the help of general contractor Bevis & Company, the construction began in April of 1896 and concluded in August of 1896. An American architect active during turn of 20th century, Charles A. Gunn was born in Chicago and graduated from the University of Illinois in 1892. He was an assistant in the Architecture program at the University when the Astronomical Observatory was constructed. He later went on to work in New York and Pittsburgh. The overall cost to build the Astronomical Observatory was only $6,800. The rest of the funds allotted for the building went to the telescope, dome and other astronomical equipment, at a cost of $7,250. In November of 1896, the 12-inch Brashear refractor lens telescope arrived, and shortly after, the Observatory saw its first light.

Dr. Joel Stebbins standing astronomical equipment, 1903.

Original t-plan with central dome.

The Astronomical Observatory, in its early years, was associated with noted research scientists. George W. Myers, an 1888 graduate of the University of Illinois, remained on campus to teach mathematics and descriptive astronomy. Myers aided in the development of an astronomy program that went beyond meeting the needs of civil engineers, and he worked to have the university construct a larger teaching observatory. In 1896, after the Observatory was finished, Myers was named the first director (18961900). He later went on to teach in the University of Chicago’s Mathematics and Astronomy program. Other directors include: Joel Stebbins (1903-1922), his work with the Pickering visual program led to revolutions in photoelectric photometry; Robert H. Baker (1923-1951), who conducted his graduate work at the University of Pittsburgh as an assistant at the Allegheny Observatory; and George C. McVittie (1951-1972), who helped restore the astronomy department at the University.

Original telescope with 12” Brashear refractor lens.

The building itself was originally constructed in a T-plan, with a ground floor of 2,525 square feet. The original plan was symmetrical before later mid-century additions. It has three stories: a basement, a first floor and second floor, comprised of the central dome. This dome is 35 feet tall and 24.5 feet in diameter. It has a retractable shutter with a 44-inch opening. The building was built facing north, to ensure consistent light, much like the Allegheny Observatory. Currently, it houses five telescopes: the original 12-inch Brashear refractor telescope built by the Warner & Swasey firm; a 10inch sonotube Dobsonian with 2-inch focuser; a 12½-inch solid tube Dobsonian with 2-inch focuser; a 10-inch sonotube Donsonian with 1/25inch focuser; and a 12½-inch truss tube Dobsonian with 2-inch focuser. The latter four telescopes are more contemporary and are located in small annex domes. Constructed in buff roman brick (1½-inch tall x 12inch long; ½ running bond), with a brick cornice and limestone decorative elements, the Observatory was built with simplified detail characteristic of the Colonial Revival style of architecture. This Front Façade of the Astronomical Observatory today. style was popular in both vernacular and institutional architecture of the turn of the century. It consists of simplified classical decorative elements like wrought iron fixtures, simple moldings and a central plan (which it had originally). This style symbolized national pride, and disseminated west after it became popular in the east in the late 19th century. Key character defining features of this building include its large, centrally located dome that sits atop an octagonal observation tower (25 feet tall). Also, its association with the Colonial Revival aesthetics: corbel-esque wrought iron fixtures, limestone brackets, a central front door with simple transom, modified temple-like entrance.

Close up of wrought iron corbel brackets on the front façade.

ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY COMPARED TO THE ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY

Allegheny Observatory

Astronomical Observatory

As an observatory constructed around the turn of the century, the Astronomical Observatory is similar to Allegheny Observatory in many ways. It has a full rotatable dome where a new motor drive replaced the old rope and sheave method of rotating dome, it contains a Brashear refractor lens, its façade is buff brick with narrow mortar joints, it has a large public hallway, they are both Revival styles that draw from Classical decoration and there is an astronomical clock. The biggest differences between the two observatories are their original massing and decorative material. The Astronomical has only one dome, was initially a symmetrical plan and has limestone decoration, while the Allegheny has three domes with an irregular massing, and has terracotta and sandstone elements.

CURRENT USAGE The usage of the building has changed since its opening in 1896. The largest professional research conducted in the Astronomical Observatory was the development astronomical photometry; Joel Stebbins’s selenium photoelectric cell revolutionized the measurement of celestial magnitudes. The Brashear lens telescope has not been used for research since 1960s, none of the other astronomical instruments, such as the astronomical clock, are being used for professional research anymore. The building served as the base of U of I’s astronomy department until 1979, when the department moved into a bigger building to house its growing staff. Today it serves as a public and an educational facility and the Brashear telescope is only used for public viewing and introductory classes at the University in the department of Astronomy and Astrophysics. In addition to change in use over the last century, there have been additions made to the Observatory’s originally symmetrical plan. In the 1920s, the east and west transit rooms were converted into offices, due to lack of space in the

Current plan with 1956 and 1966 additions.

building. In 1956, there was an addition made to the southwest corner to house additional classrooms and office space. It replicated the original structure in scale, rhythm, detail and materials in essentially every way except color. The brick on this addition is of the same size and matches the narrow mortar joints of the original façade but is a darker color. In 1966, a large addition was made on the east side, also for more office space but also for a new darkroom and a radio telescope laboratory. There was the same attention to detail in the construction as the 1956 addition, though the brick and mortar joints are on a larger scale than the original structure and the 1956 addition. In 2004, in order to ensure handicap access, a wooden ramp was built connecting to the front entrance. The Astronomical Society Observatory Committee (ASOC) and the Friends of the University of Illinois Observatory (FUIO) presents many of the public events offered on this site. The ASOC frequently holds free observing sessions open to public where visitors may gaze through original Brashear refractor as well as other smaller telescopes. It is open depending on the weather and availability of trained club members. Otherwise, it is usually open on the first Friday of the month for about two hours; typically 9pm to 11pm May through August and 6pm to 8pm in December and January. The FUIO publicizes these events on their Facebook page and around campus.

Wooden handicap ramp on the front façade.

Facilities & Services provides basic maintenance for University-owned properties, including the Observatory. The campus is split into zones and the Observatory falls into zone 5. Each zone has its own superBack entrance. visor, planner and specified foremen. Zone 5’s craft supervisor is Ed Neeley, its planner is Elizabeth Eades and the brick and masonry foreman is Bruce Rogers. The Facilities & Services provides its own list of standards and procedures that coincide with the criteria for eligibility on the National Register. On their webpage, they have general guidelines for ‘Preserving Historic Buildings’, citing the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Astronomical Observatory has a variety of existing and future plans for preservation. On 6 November 1986, the building was historically designated on the National Register of Historic Places (NR #89002466). In 2006, the threat level was “Satisfactory,” meaning there were no immediate potential threats to the building. On 20 December 1989, the U.S. Department of the Interior designated the Observatory a National Historic Landmark stating its significance: “Constructed by the State of Illinois in 1896, the University of Illinois Observatory is significant for its association with the development of the selenium photoelectric cell, which revolutionized the science of astronomical photoelectric photometry (the measurement of celestial magnitudes). This cell was developed by Joel Stebbins (1878-1966), who served as director of the observatory from 1907 to 1922. As a result of Stebbins' work, photoelectric photometry became the standard technique in determining stellar magnitudes” (National Register of Historic Places via the National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks Program). In 1990, it achieved the Landmark Heritage Award, presented by the Preservation and Conservation Association of Champaign. As for its future, long term plan, the Observatory strives to promote public programming and provide educational opportunities and resources for the public at large, school and university educators and students, and professional and amateur astronomers, and in order to do so, to take any preventative and/or restorative measures to preserve the Observatory.

Paint peeling on interior wood due to water damage.

Paint peeling on interior brick foundation.

The interior of the dome of the Astronomical Observatory.

Though those in charge of the Observatory have taken great measures to preserve its authenticity, they are still faced with maintenance and preservation challenges, and because of this, minor alterations have been made. The primary preservation and maintenance issue is water damage, and this includes problems with the historic brick construction. The original material is Roman brick, which is rare. The additions do not have Roman brick, but they attempted to copy this long, thin brick. The most recent issue with the brick was the back steps and entrance stoop completely collapsed, as it was originally built without the support of a bearing wall. It was completely rebuilt in 2011 with a standard red brick inner withe for support. They saved what Roman brick they could on exterior construction but mimicked rest with contemporary buff brick. The exterior of the dome is painted but was peeling off, indicating signs of water damage. In 2011, efforts were made to repaint the exterior. The interior of the dome also faces water damage. Much of the woodwork and brick foundation are painted and the paint is peeling off as well. On the brick, there were many layers of differently colored paint. In 2013, while the Brashear lens telescope was removed from the site for restoration, the brick foundation was painted. The telescope restoration cost $54,000. The Facilities & Services deferred maintenance to VFA Facilities Capital Planning and Management Service for painting the exterior and interior of the building and various repairs and clean up. This is still in its planning phase, though it is scheduled to begin this year. While the University has made efforts to preserve and restore the Observatory, some of the choices made were not up to the Secretary of the Interiorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Standards. Though the handicap access ramp attempted to minimize the disruption of the local character of the building (its horizontal length makes the front entrance and faĂ§ade visible), it was constructed out of unpainted wood. According to Preservation Brief 32: Making Historic Properties Accessible by Thomas C. Jester and

Sharon C. Park of the AIA, “Unpainted pressure-treated wood should not be used to construct ramps because it usually appears temporary and is not visually compatible with most historic properties.” The Secretary of the Interior’s Standard 9 states that, “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.” Unfortunately, the additions made in 1956 and 1966 did just that and consequently, the façade does not have the same brick throughout. However, when the back entrance collapsed, the efforts made to preserve as much of the original Roman brick as possible were practical and appropriate, according to Preservation Brief 6: The Use of Substitute Building Materials on Historic Exteriors by H. Ward Jandl.

May 2013 issue of the monthly newsletter sent out by the Friends of the Astronomical Observatory.

The funding for basic maintenance goes through the University, except for deferred maintenance projects, which have been funded by the Academic Facilities Maintenance Fund Assessment, for general repairs. On the other hand, restorative and preservative projects are primarily funded through alumni donation, other donations and fundraising by the Friends of the University of Illinois Observatory. This group also helps the Observatory obtain grants, and helps with capital campaigning and crowd sourcing. In 2005, the University of Illinois received a Getty Foundation Campus Heritage Grant, with a sum of $125,000. This money was put toward the campus-wide initiative to preserve and manage historic properties. The Observatory was included in this plan.

The Allegheny Observatory would benefit tremendously from a public support group like the FUIO. Even a Facebook or other social media presence would postion the Allegheny more in the public eye. Clubs within the University of Pittsburgh like Pitt Arts or the Pitt Programming Council could help sponsor events at the Allegheny for students. Even weekly or bi-monthly University-provided transportation up to Observatory Hill for guided student observation would be an effort in raising awareness, especially for future alumni support. The Allegheny Observatory was built for the public and must remain that way. The aforementioned suggestions would help foster John Brashear’s original desire. by Jenna Briasco

SOURCES Associated Press. "U of I's 117-year-old Telescope Getting Repairs." Daily Herald. Paddock Publication, Inc., 22 May 2013. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. "Building Maintenance Work Zones." University of Illinois Facilities & Services, 2011. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. “Campus Map." University of Illinois, 12 Feb. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. “Charles A. Gunn,” New York Times, October 20, 1945, pg 9. Francissen, Shauna J., "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form-University of Illinois Astronomical Observatory" (Urbana, Illinois: Pres ervation and Conservation Association, 1986). "Historic Preservation Review Procedures." U of I Facilities Standards. University of Illinois Facilities and Services, 15 June 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. Leake, David C. "Champaign-Urbana Astronomical Society Observatory." Champaign-Urbana Astronomical Society. CUAS, n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. Myers, G. W. "Observatory of the University of Illinois." Popular Astronomy. Vol. 6., 1898. 319. "National Historic Landmarks Program (NHL)." National Historic Landmarks Program (NHL). National Park Service, 2004. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. "Photos." Facebook. Friends of the University of Illinois Observatory, n.d. Web. 01 March 2014. “Preventive Maintenance." Facilities and Services University of Illinois Urbana Champaign. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2014. Svec, Mike. "History of the University of Illinois Observatory and the 12" Refractor." University Astronomical Society. UIAS, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014. The Friends of the University of Illinois Observatory. “History of the Observatory.” Last modified 2012. http://observatory.astro.illinois.edu/landmark/history/. "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." Campus Heritage Network. Society for College and University Planning, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. "University of Illinois Facilities and Services." University of Illinois Facilities and Services. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Febru ary 2014. http://www.fs.illinois.edu/home. "University of Illinois Observatory." Illinois Department of Astron omy. University of Illinois Board of Trustees, 2009. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. http://www.astro.illinois.edu/about/observatory/ "University of Illinois Observatory." National Park Service: Astronomy and Astrophysics (University of Illinois Obser vatory). National Park Service, 5 Nov. 2001. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. VFA Inc. (Facilities Capital Planning and Management). Observatory - Requirement List Report. Rep. no. 0033. pp. 1-4, 2011. Print. "Welcome to the University of Illinois Observatory." The Friends of the University of Illinois Observatory. The Friends of the University of Illinois Observatory, 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

REFERENCES Linda Stahnke Archival Reference Operations Specialist University of Illinois Archives 217.333.0798 Stahnke@illinois.edu Ed Neeley Craft Supervisor, Zone 5 University of Illinois Facilities & Services 217.333.0340 Bruce Rogers Mason & Brick Foreman, Zone 5 University of Illinois Facilities & Services 217.333.8278 bprodger@illinois.edu University of Illinois, Astronomical Society Observatory Committee (Astronomy Club) uias@illinois.edu Friends of the University of Illinois Observatory observatory-friends@illinois.edu

FUERTES OBSERVATORY | CORNELL UNIVERSITY BACKGROUND The Fuertes Observatory is located on the North Campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, NY overlooking Beebe Lake and is the fourth observatory building to be built on Cornell’s campus. L.P. Burnham, a Professor of Architecture at Cornell, designed the building in either 1914 or 1915 under the supervision of the Department of Civil Engineering. The Cornell Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds began construction on the observatory on April 6th, 1916 and completed the building in the fall of 1917. The original projected budget for the Observatory was $15,000 and by the time it was completed, the cost totaled $20,068.841 and was funded by Cornell University itself. The extra expenses for building the observatory were due to the rising cost of labor and materials. The Neoclassical building measures 87 feet by 18 feet (totaling 1,566 square feet) and the one central dome has a 24-foot diameter. The central part of the building is cube shaped and is capped with the dome. Two wings extend off of this central cube to give the building its rectangular shape (See Figure 1). The two wings are each one story in height Figure 1. The exterior of the Fuertes Observatory. (Cornell University)

and the dome is two stories high. There is also a basement level under two-

thirds of the building. The materials used in the construction of the Observatory include “hollow tile, artificial stone trim, stucco finish, and concrete floors, metal roof on the dome with tar and gravel roof for the remainder of the building.”2 The building has many character defining elements, including its shape, roof, and openings. The roof of the building is flat other than the metal dome. The main entrance has a pediment above the doorway. The numerous

1 2

Cornell University, Official Publications of Cornell University, Vol. 10, 1918-1919 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1919), 73. Cornell University, Official Publications of Cornell University, Vol. 7, 1915-1916 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1916), 87.

windows on the building are equally spaced with four on each side of the wings and two windows at each end. The back of the main square section is curved in one part and has a circular window on the second story. The choice to construct this building in the Neoclassical style is not unusual for this time period. 1917 was towards the end of the American Renaissance, a period characterized by a renewed nationalism and the idea that America was the heir to Greek democracy, in which building in the Neoclassical style was popular. The single dome houses a 12-inch refracting telescope and the Observatory additionally has three transit telescopes available for use. Originally, the Observatory housed an old 5-inch equatorial telescope but in 1922 was replaced by the 12-inch refracting telescope. For the construction of the telescope, Irving P. Church, head of the Civil Engineering department, contracted Brashear & Co. to grind the lens that had been donated by the Yerkes Observatory in Chicago. The Warner and Swasey Company then built the telescope mounting (see Figure 2.)3 The Fuertes Observatory is comparable to the Allegheny Observatory at the University of Pittsburgh in terms of use and they were both completed within the same decade. They were both used, and still are, for educational purposes for their respective universities in addition to providing opportunities for the public to utilize. Both Observatories host public viewing nights that allow members of the public to view the stars. The Cornell Astronomical Society, a student organization, runs the public viewing nights at Fuertes while the University of Pittsburgh is responsible for the public viewing Figure 2. Interior of the dome of Fuertes Observatory with its

nights at the Allegheny Observatory. The two

telescope. (Joe Ziolkowski)

Observatories differ in size as the Fuertes

Observatory has only a single dome that houses one permanent telescope while the Allegheny Observatory is larger

Nicholson, Philip. “A Brief History of the Fuertes Observatory at Cornell.” Accessed March 6, 2014. http://coursewiki.astro.cornell.edu/Fuertes/FuertesHistory.

in size, has three domes, and houses three permanent telescopes. The Fuertes Observatory was a project administrated by Cornellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Department of Civil Engineering. The Allegheny Observatory was originally the idea of a group of civilians who called themselves the Allegheny Telescope Association. The current Allegheny Observatory building is under the jurisdiction of the University of Pittsburgh and the Director of the Observatory. The Fuertes Observatory only has one classroom and one office space as compared to the numerous classrooms, labs, offices, and library that the Allegheny Observatory has (see Figure 3.)

Figure 3. Floor plans for the Fuertes Observatory. (Cornell University)

USAGE The Fuertes Observatory was originally created for the Department of Civil Engineering for the use of its students. Fuertes, a professor of civil engineering at Cornell, believed in the practical education of engineering students including learning the art of astronomical observation to assist in determining accurate time and position and developing accurate geographical surveys. Over the years, light pollution has hindered the ability to view the stars at the Fuertes Observatory due to its close proximity to campus. Scientific research is now conducted at the Hartung-Boothroyd Observatory, which was built in 1974, that is located five miles away from campus, allowing for better light conditions. Currently the observatory is still used for educational purposes, although no longer through the Department of Civil Engineering, but for introductory laboratory classes in Astronomy. The Observatory is currently still open to the public every Friday night when the sky is clear, available through the Cornell Astronomical Society. The Facilities Management Department is responsible for maintaining the Observatoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical plant.

PLAN The current preservation and maintenance plan for the Fuertes Observatory is currently minimal. The building was only â&#x20AC;&#x153;rediscoveredâ&#x20AC;? in the past few years, according to Don Barry, a Scientific Computing Architect in the Astronomy department with a special interest in the Fuertes Observatory. It has been overlooked as it is no longer used for research and does not receive much funding. The current maintenance of the building is the responsibility of the Maintenance Management department as any other University owned building would. The Observatory falls under the jurisdiction of the Endowed Zone Facility Director, Bill Szabo. According to Szabo, the only long-term maintenance plan that is in place is a report of current maintenance issues that has been arranged in order of severity and these issues are addressed based on that criteria as well as the availability of funds. Most of these issues are general maintenance problems other than some alterations that will be addressed in the next section. The University intends to restore parts of the building that require it to make the Observatory an attractive place that people will come to see, not only for the telescope, which is in good shape, but also for the building itself. Barry stated that the department intends to install signage and exhibits that update people on the current plans and research of the Astronomy department in the exhibition space.

There is currently no formal preservation plan for the building, other than the report of maintenance issues mentioned above. The University seeks to maintain the building as they consider it a historical structure but there is no long-term plan at the time. The extent of which the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are followed is unclear, as the Historic Preservation department at Cornell is not involved with the Observatory.4 According to Barry, there are no current or future plans for any historic designation for the Observatory. It is not something they are considering, as they are wrongly afraid it would restrict what the University can do with Fuertes and could possibly draw negative attention and outside input when Astronomy department would prefer to make their own decisions regarding the Observatory.

ALTERATIONS There have been numerous changes to the Fuertes Observatory over the years. The largest one, as well as the most appearance altering, is the replacement of an updated outdoor roof deck on the left wing of the Observatory, designed by University engineers and architect. The original deck was not as structurally stable as it could have been and this was a reason for concern. The new deck is accessible from a door in the second story of the Figure 3. Historic photo of the original Fuertes Observatory before alterations were made. (Cornell University)

dome. The materials used in this alteration include the wood flooring used and a composite material painted to match the color of the rest of the building. The outdoor deck also has lighting installed. This addition has raised the height of the left

wing so it is no longer equal to the height of the right wing (compare Figure 1 to Figure 3). According to Barry, another significant alteration was to update the wiring of the building to meet the New York State building codes. During this process, modern light switches were installed to replace the historical ones. David Pawelcyzk, the

Nicholson, Philip. Interview by author. Phone interview. March 18, 2014

Facility Manager, also stated that a modern switch has replaced the original switch for the telescope. The last significant alteration that Barry mentioned was the sealing of the roof of the transit room. Originally the room had a clamshell roof that could be opened but has since been converted into a solid roof. The space has also been turned into an exhibition space. Over the past few years, drapes have been installed in the windows of the main floor to minimize damage to the equipment caused by UV rays. The immediate maintenance issues that are currently being addressed are moisture issues. Right now, they are looking to fix moisture containment. The foundation lacks proper gravel draining around the cinderblocks and therefore, moisture is seeping into the building itself. There is 70% humidity in some areas that leads to condensation, which crumbles plaster and cracks paint and then mold can be an issue. To fix this issue, they have repainted walls that have cracked paint but according to Nicholson, this is not a permanent solution but an aesthetic one. The long-term solution Nicholson and Pawelcyzk both mentioned is the installation of dehumidifiers to lessen the moisture as well as fixing the drainage issue that is causing the moisture. Another problem that needs to be addressed is an interior section of wall that is buckling. This problem can also be seen in the exterior brick walls of the Allegheny Observatory. Barry mentioned that this area of bucking wall is not a concern structurally. As far as future plans for non-maintenance issues, Pawelcyzk mentioned that the University is considering installing air conditioning in the Observatory.

FUNDING There are really no funds specific to the Observatory. General maintenance is taken care of through the Facilities department using University funds and capital, as it would be for any other building. Some money for alterations and updates are raised by a group called Friends of Astronomy comprised of people who donate ten to twenty thousand of dollars to the Astronomy department. This money is prioritized by the department for other areas, such as money for a new observatory and also for research but some of that money has been directed towards the Observatory, such as the money used to purchase the drapes mentioned in the section above. As for grants, Barry said the grants sought by the Astronomy department are scientific grants and are not focused at Fuertes because the facility does not conduct research. Barry also stated they have not sought â&#x20AC;&#x153;brick and mortarâ&#x20AC;? grants as they have no real preservation plan for the building, just to conserve physical instrumentation and to make it attractive.

by Erin Candee

CONTACTS Don Barry, Scientific Computing Architect, Astronomy: 607.255.9250 David Pawelcyzk, Facility Manager, Astronomy: 607.255.2338 Philip Nicholson, Professor, Astronomy: 607.255.8543 Bill Szabo, Endowed Zones Facilities Director: 607.327.0505

BIBLIOGRAPHY Nicholson, Phillip. A Brief History of the Fuertes Observatory at Cornell. Apr. 2007. PDF.

Cornell University, Official Publications of Cornell University, Vol. 7, 1915-1916. Ithaca. Cornell University Press, 1916. 87. Cornell University, Official Publications of Cornell University, Vol. 10, 1918-1919. Ithaca. Cornell University Press, 1919. 73. Nicholson, Philip. Interview by author. Phone interview. March 18, 2014.

Pawelcyzk, David. Interview by author. Phone interview. March 10, 2014.

Barry, Don. Interview by author. Phone interview. March 10, 2014.

Ladd Observatory | Brown University information.

When Winslow Upton came to Brown as an astronomy professor in 1884, it was understood that the University would build an observatory. Unfortunately for Upton, the University failed to construct an observatory. After voicing his opinion to President Robinson that he may need to go elsewhere, Upton received a positive response; an observatory would be constructed. Governor Herbert W. Ladd graciously funded the observatory, donating $50,000 to ensure its completion.1 With the funds secured, construction ensued. The Observatory was designed by the firm Stone, Carpenter & Willson in a similar style to that of many observatories in the geographical area. The structure would consist of an ashlar brownstone foundation, brick walls with stone ornamentation, and copper roofing. After the design was finalized, construction began in May of 1890, and ended in October of 1891.2 On October 21, 1891, the Ladd Observatory opened under the director, Professor Winslow Upton. Today, the Ladd Observatory of Brown University remains located in its original setting, College Hill, a neighborhood on the east side of Providence, Rhode Island. Located a short distance to the north of the University, the Observatory sits on one of the highest points in FIGURE 1. Ladd Observatory image from the National Register. the area formerly known as Tin-Top Hill.3

current usage.

About two years after the completion of construction, the Ladd Observatory began a regular program of time keeping and transit observations.4 Today, the Observatory’s purpose and usage has shifted greatly and focuses on the outside community. The Physics Department at Brown University is largely responsible for the Ladd Observatory, but students only use the observatory about once a semester. Instruments in campus labs provide better equipment for the students, but a trip to the Ladd Observatory serves as a historical educator on the equipment and processes that were used. Public Outreach Programs are the focus of the Ladd Observatory today, and every Tuesday, weather 1

Sweberg, Mark. “Ladd Observatory Continues to Shine.”http://seniordigestnews.com/ladd-observatorycontinues-to-shine/. (accessed March 18, 2014). 2 Robinson, Arnold N. Providence Preservation Society, "National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form." http://www.preservation.ri.gov/pdfs_zips_downloads/national_pdfs/providence/prov_doyle-avenue-210_laddobservatory.pdf. (accessed March 18, 2014). 3 Brown University Department of Physics, “Ladd Observatory” http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Physics/Ladd/history/tintop.html. (accessed March 18, 2014). 4 Brown University Department of Physics, “Ladd Observatory” http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Physics/Ladd/. (accessed March 18, 2014).

permitting, the observatory is open to the public from 7 to 9 p.m.5 Public nights allow the community to attend stargazing opportunities and lectures from occasional guest speakers. During this time, guests can also tour the Observatory as well as its museum that has been added to educate the community of the history of timekeeping. To promote these events, the Ladd Observatory makes use of social media including Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Listserv. The Ladd Observatory Facebook page currently has around 8,000 followers, and the Listserv, which one can sign up for on the Observatory site, reaches about 3,000 people.6

funding.

The Ladd Observatory takes advantage of multiple fundraising platforms. Fundraising drives through the University provide the Observatory fund with gift donations that financially support the daily functions of the Observatory. For larger preservation projects and restorations, outside grants are sought. Recently, a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant was used for the restoration of equipment, and the restoration award of nearly $50,000 was used for the restoration of the transit room. While most of the funding comes from the outside donors and grants, University money is used, as well as money strictly from the Observatory fund. 7

a residential property and ada standards.

In the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, the Ladd Observatory sat atop the hill at the cross of Hope Street and Doyle Street with one problem; a residential house. The residential property, located at the corner of Hope and Doyle, was fairly old and had been used as a rental property, owned by Brown. A dirt lot for parking, which had been shared by the Ladd Observatory and the residential property, posed a problem and a tug of war ensued over who rightfully owned the lot. The observatory, due to archival documentation rightfully felt the lot belonged to them, while the residential property office of Brown argued that the space was theirs. This odd situation caused one event to take place; the Residential Property Office of Brown sent a Building Inspector to the Ladd Observatory. This visit proved that the observatory was not up to code, and would need renovations. The Ladd Observatory did not meet code requirements on the viewing deck located on the roof. The railing of the deck was two inches too short, and therefore, the observatory was closed. The members of the observatory were displeased, and protested to Brown stating that an academic institution was being unrightfully closed. The members won, and the Ladd Observatory planned a renovation to the railing. Because the Ladd Observatory was listed on the National Register prior to the renovation in 1992, the observatory members were diligent about consulting with the Providence Preservation Society to ensure the historic fabric of the building was FIGURE 2. Ladd Observatory Floor Plan from the National maintained. Facilities Management Register. 5

Woycik, Mary Ellen , (Administrative Assistant/Facilities, Brown University.), interview by Rachel Kauffman, "Ladd Observatory," 03 03, 2014. 6 Horton, Robert , (Manager of Astronomy Labs and Ladd Observatory, Brown University), interview by Rachel Kauffman, "Ladd Observatory," 02 27, 2014. 7 Horton, Robert.

made sure the original wooden railing was replaced by a new wooden railing with the same pattern as the original. The historic fabric was kept, but the replication of the railing replacement became costly, causing a secondary renovation to be completed. When a project meets a certain extent of renovation during a code renovation, the structure must then meet ADA (American Disabilities Act) Standards. To fulfill the ADA requirements, the Ladd Observatory required a new tower for an elevator reaching the dome and handicap accessible bathrooms. Careful attention was paid to the historic structure, and Facilities Management took the proper steps to mesh the new elevator tower in with the existing observatory. Materials were matched as closely to the original as possible. To ensure continuity, granite was brought in from the quarry that originally supplied the granite of the observatory in 1891. Funding for the project came at the cost of the residential property. After inspection, the renovations for the residential property exceeded those of the Ladd Observatory, and the residential structure was destroyed. The money from the delayed maintenance of the house supported the renovation of the observatory, and a new lawn was also installed. The renovation of the observatory and removal of the residential rental property provided three major benefits. First, the Observatory was in its original setting, unobstructed by the rental property that was constructed later and blocked the view of the observatory from the corner of Hope and Doyle. Secondly, the handicap accessibility allowed more people to visit, and the new lawn drew many in. This renovation increased the popularity and awareness, as well as the accessibility. Lastly, the renovation and update of the lawn increased property value in the area. Though it was an unexpected situation, it ultimately helped the Ladd Observatory in their mission FIGURE 3. Ladd Observatory after the renovations. for public outreach, and the surrounding community.8

transit room restoration.

The industrial economy that progressed through the 1800â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s made timekeeping an invaluable commodity, and many observatories, including the Allegheny Observatory, kept time before it was a governmental function. Train accidents became a problem in the 1800â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s due to a lack of standardized time on conductorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s watches, and many observatories began selling time. Though timekeeping has advanced technologically through navigation systems and computers, the science and history behind timekeeping is noteworthy in the eyes of the director and staff members of the Ladd Observatory. Because of this, a restoration of the

Targan David , (Director and Associate Dean of the College for Science. Brown University), interview by Rachel Kauffman, "Ladd Observatory," 03 13, 2014. NOTE: The amount of the budget and costs for the renovation was not disclosed. David believes that, from talking to Facilities Management, the cost was upwards of one million dollars. The cost was covered from University funds as well as outside anonymous donors. Facilities Management was unable to disclose the cost either. Afterwards, many members of the project received advanced job offers elsewhere due to the popularity and strength of the project.

transit room was planned in order to preserve history and further educate the community today.9 Funding for the transit room was of importance in completing the project. In order to receive these funds, the members of the Observatory decided upon the restoration of the transit room, and approached the Sponsored Research Office. The Sponsored Research Office was approached so that the observatory members could ensure they received outside money properly. In 2012, the Ladd Observatory was awarded a “Rhody Award”, a $46,970 grant from the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission to complete the restoration. Matching gifts from the University and anonymous private donors brought the total funds to roughly $100,000.10 The Ladd Observatory transit room restoration was done by the firm Ed Wojcik, Ltd. located in Providence Rhode Island. Before they began the restoration, the firm received a booklet from the Rhode Island FIGURE 4. Ladd Observatory transit room before Historic Preservation and Heritage restoration. Commission (RI HPHC) that stated the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. The wood, roofing, windows, and interior finishes were in need of repair and proper standards were followed. For the wood, it was repainted with colors appropriate to the historic building and district, and the wood was repaired, patched, or pieced in as much as possible to preserve the historic materials. A compatible wood panel board was used for the repairs, which matched the original. The roof of the transit room originally consisted of metal and was replaced by a EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer (M-Class)) rubber roof. This was removed in the restoration, and a zinc-coated copper was used to match the first historic material and give it more durability. The roof was also protected and maintained by cleaning the gutters and downspouts while replacing deteriorating flashing. A compatible substitute material was crucial for FIGURE 5. Ladd Observatory transit room roof restoration. returning this roof to its original historic context.

Li, Sophia. “Ladd’s Timekeepers to Come Back to Life.” http://www.browndailyherald.com/2008/01/24/laddstimekeepers-to-come-back-to-life/. (accessed March 18, 2014). 10 Targan David , (Director and Associate Dean of the College for Science. Brown University), interview by Rachel Kauffman, "Ladd Observatory," 03 13, 2014.

The window frames were also repaired in the restoration of the transit room. The windows of the transit room are double hung windows with two on each side for the transit telescope. Both sashes of the window descend into the wall under the sill so the window could be opened completely. When open, a hatch allowed a 180-degree opening that was optimal for viewing with the transit telescope. The counterweights in the window were FIGURE 6. Ladd Observatory transit room window restoration. restored to their original functionality, and the window was taken apart and repaired. Most of the window was preserved, but some glazing and wood had to be replaced. Matching materials replaced the original materials where needed. Lastly, the interior finishes were preserved. Paint that matched the original transit room color was used, and cleaning and protection of the materials was carefully handled. The historic character of the building was largely kept intact due to the booklet from the RI HPHC and historic photographs and documents that allowed Ed Wojcik, Ltd. to restore the transit room appropriately.11

maintenance & preservation.

Today, the Ladd Observatory does not have a strict preservation plan in effect. With the renovation in the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, and the restoration of the transit room, the structure is in the condition they wish to keep it. Preservation of the Brashear lens and other instruments continues and is one area where preservation is taking place currently. The observatory has used much of its own money to conduct a major overhaul on the telescope, but this FIGURE 7. Ladd Observatory transit room after restoration. is the first time in the life span of the observatory. With this overhaul, they hope the instruments will last in the same preserved and well maintained condition they are in for another century or longer. The code and ADA renovations as well as the restoration of the transit room updated maintenance issues the structure had. One persisting problem that was noted is the flat roof that contains an accessible viewing deck. The flat roof is not practical for the weather in Rhode Island, and has become a constant source of problems due to leaks. Patching and repair of the roof is done by Facilities Management, and the structure is closely monitored. 11

Clemence Michael, (Ed Wojcik, Ltd. ), interview by Rachel Kauffman, "Ladd Observatory," 03 17, 2014. NOTE: The Secretary of the Interiorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: (revised 1990) was used for the restoration of the Ladd Observatory Transit Room. Before and after images, as well as the drawings, were furnished by Michael Clemence.

recommendations.

The history of the Ladd Observatory is a key component to Brown University and the community surrounding it. The Public Outreach Programs are the focus of the Ladd Observatory, and the community is thoroughly involved and responsive to the history and today’s functions of the observatory. Because of this, the preservation of the structure is of utmost importance to the staff member of the Ladd Observatory, and each renovation and restoration has been handled with care for the historic structure. Like the Allegheny Observatory, it is a structure that not only shows its significance through the construction, but also in its location at one of the highest points in Providence. When looking towards marketing and public awareness for the Allegheny Observatory, it would be beneficial to advertise the historic structure and its public nights on social media, as well as any subsequent events that may take place in the future. This is cost efficient and will reach more people in the community than many other outlets will. Another way to reach out and gain awareness for the Allegheny Observatory could involve the community in an art project, like the one hosted at the Ladd Observatory. More than 20 artists, musicians, and scientists - mostly with RISD connections - joined together to create an art, science, and music experience. Observatories are a great source of scientific accomplishment as well as design, and placing the arts with science and technology is a great way to inform the community in a social gathering. The function held at the Ladd Observatory was intended to transform the observatory rooms into chambers of a camera with mirrors and lenses to explore virtual image, and also combined sculptural objects, electronic media, and video presentations. To obtain the funds needed, an initial grant was funded by the Rhode Island State Council of the Arts. A deficit of $7,000 after the grant still remained, and a Kickstarter campaign12 was created to fund the rest of the project, and a grand total of $7,116 was actually funded.13 Pittsburgh is a cultural city and bringing the arts and sciences together in a creative manner of this sort would be a great way to draw attention and awareness to the history of the structure and what it has to offer today.

by Rachel Kauffman

Trans-Mission. “The Observatory Project.” https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1093351907/the-observatoryproject. (accessed March 18, 2014). 13 Solondz, Simone. “Where Observation Meets Imagination.” http://www.risd.edu/about/news/2013/whereobservation-meets-imagination/. (accessed March 18, 2014).

Theodore Jacobsen Observatory At the University of Washington

History The Theodor Jacobsen Observatory is located at the northern side of the University of Washington’s campus in Seattle. Architect Saunders, Charles W. designed it in 1895. It is the second oldest building on the campus. In 1889 Washington became a state, because of this the state and its university were given money. In 1891 Joseph Taylor was given $3,000 to create the astronomy department. This enabled him to buy a 6” refracting telescope that was made by Warner and Swasey, and the lens was made by Brashear of Pittsburgh. Having spent most of his budget on a telescope, Taylor built the first observatory himself out of wood. It was up from 1895 to 1897, when the university decided to move its campus from downtown Seattle to the suburbs, so that they would have more room to expand. The first building that was built at the new site was Denny Hall. They had over estimated the cost of Denny Hall so the leftover sandstone and money was spent on the observatory, which was built in 1895. The Observatory is built in the same Romanesque Revival, as was Denny Hall. It has one single dome that is two stories with a transit room that is a classroom that holds 55 people. The building is small and compact, and is built with roughly cut sandstone. It has a small balcony

Photo of old Observatory in Seatle built by Joseph Taylor, who started the astromay department at the University of Washington. The building was wood and was a single tower.

that comes off the second floor of the dome. The windows and doorways are arched. The Theodor Jacobsen Observatory, like the Alleghany Observatory, is owned and used by the university. Both also give free tours to the public. Jacobsen Observatory is made from rough-cut sandstone, while sandstone only covers the bottom portion of the Alleghany Observatory. Both are different styles and the Alleghany Observatory is three times as big as the Jacobson Observatory. Both buildings were rebuilt somewhere else at one point, both moving away from the city they were once located next to. Seattle ended up reaching past the Jacobson Observatory. While Allegheny Observatory is located in a park set back from the city. The observatory gets its name from Theodor S. Jacobsen, who was the only professor in the astronomy department for 37 years. He was the one who opened the observatory up to the public, and he formed Seattle Astronomical Society (SAS). T. S. Jacobson also taught navigation and practical astronomy during WW2 to help with the war efforts. He died at age 102.

Denny Hall, the oldest building at the University of Washington.

Current Usage The Theodor Jacobsen Observatory was originally built for the astronomy department of UW. Today it is still used for the same purpose. There was a period where the observatory was not being used at all. In the late 1990’s however the Seattle Astronomical Society (SAS) was able to restore it. The telescope is mainly used for teaching; UW’s other two telescopes do any research; one located in eastern Washington, and the second in New Mexico. They do this for a few reasons, one is that the telescope is about a century old, second is that is located too close to other establishments like parking lots. The light that comes from the neighborhood affects what you can see. Seattle’s pollution is also steadily getting worse and its hard to get a clear image, even when it is a clear night which is rare since they only get about 58 clear days a year. The only department to use the observatory is the Astronomy department, however SAS uses it for star parties and other events when weather permits. Also undergraduates in the astronomy department give talks on a wide verities of topics that are for children and adults. The observatory also has free tours once a month that are open to the public.

Inside dome of the Observatory

Alterations, Maintenance and Preservation Challenges There have been some alterations over the years. When it was first built it was just the tower, later they added the 55 seat classroom, which has a leak in the roof that comes back every few years. Their budget is about $300, which is donated from the SAS. One of their main issues is that their dome is wood, and is rotting in many places. Without the money to fix it however they do not know what will happen when it finally goes. Other than that the building is solid.

Overview and previous and current plans and studies The Jacobson Observatory is listed on the National Resistor. For many reasons, one being it’s the second oldest building on UW campus. The telescope was restored in the late 1990’s, along with the building that was facing demolition. This was made possible by fundraising of SAS, Alumni and the community. Today the Astronomy department has decided to recreate T.S Jacobsen’s office to add a little more history to the building. The project will cost $200 but they have already begun. Dr. Larson donated a $70 oak desk for the office that matches with the style. They already have T. S. Jacobson’s old briefcase, armillary and star-atlas notebook. All in all though they don’t have a big budget and are currently waiting to see if their request for donations arrives. Because of such a small budget it is hard for them to follow the Secretary of the interior standards. They have no plans for the future; the university does the minimal amount of repairs to keep it in use. Observatory tower

Rooftop of classroom looking at the dome

Funding A little more than 10 years ago the Theodor Jacobsen Observatory was heading toward demolition. What saved it and what continues to keep it going is a community outreach program. Alumni and other people who were passionate about the building wrote a letter campaign to raise money to restore the old Observatory. That momentum the University maintains the building, but they only do very basic upkeep. SAS is currently the only donations they receive which is $300 a year. They have no long term founding and the only reason the university keeps up what they do is because there is a classroom in it. Their only fundraising at the moment is request for donations that they have yet to receive.

What the Allegheny Observatory can do differently Photo of Theodor Jacobsen

Photo of a star party

One of the things that has helped the Observatory in the past, and what will they are hoping will help them in the future is community support. The Allegheny Observatory is almost unknown to the residents of Pittsburgh, when it should be a destination spot for families and people of all ages. In Seattle they have Seattle Astronomical society, who do events like star parties. We need friends of the observatory group in Pittsburgh, who will get the public back involved and into the Observatory. Schools should have field trip to the observatory. We also could have a star party, where any extra telescopes are brought out to the lawn for people to use. People can bring blankets and food. There can be tours and maybe a movie playing in the lecture hall. With the public involved you get people caring whether or not this building stays around.

Photo of Theodor Jacobsen

Photo of Thedor Jacobsen’s desk. Map of the Observatories location

by Sapata Pessiki

Citation Ahn, . “A glimpse at the stars.” The Daily of the University of Washington, May 08, 2006. http://dailyuw.com/archive/2006/05/08/imported/glimpse-stars “Preserving History at UW observatory.” Seattle Astronomy Space and Astronomy News from Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. . http://www.seattleastronomy.com/blog1/2013/10/preservinghistory-at-uw-observatory/ (accessed February 8, 2014). “UW observatory celebrates 10 years of outreach programs.” Seattle Astronomy Space and Astronomy News from Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. . http://www.seattleastronomy.com/blog1/2011/06/uw-observatory-celebrates-10-years-ofoutreach-programs/ (accessed February 9, 2014). “Sign of spring: UW observatory program returns.” Seattle Astronomy Space and Astronomy News from Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. . http://www.seattleastronomy.com/blog1/2011/02/sign-of-spring-uw-observatory-program-returns/ (accessed February 9, 2014). University of Washington, “University of Washington Jacobsen Observatory.” Accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.astro.washington.edu/groups/outreach/tjo/. Parkhan, . Historic Property Inventory Form, Last modified March 23, 1979. Accessed February 8, 2014. https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/documents/HPIF/0/27/28344.pdf. Dr. Larson, e-mail. February 11, 2014.

Introduction The Washburn Observatory is located on the University of Wisconsin’s Madison campus. The observatory was dedicated in 1882. The Observatory housed a 15.6” refractor telescope as well as a meridian circle which was used to observe the passing of celestials over the meridian. 1 The Washburn Observatory is rich in history. Although it is no longer the main research observatory for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, it is still in use for the public. Like the Allegheny Observatory, there are problems occurring within the observatory which need addressed. To address these problems, the University of Wisconsin-Madison hired Isthmus Architects to perform a feasibility report on the building. The report mentioned the problems that the Washburn Observatory was facing and a projected estimate for the preservation work needed. 2 The observatory has already addressed these preservation issues, but there are new problems surfacing.

History One of the major character-defining features of the Observatory is the location. As previously noted, the Observatory is located on the University of Wisconsin’s Madison campus, but this is not the character-defining feature. The character-defining feature lies in the location of the Observatory on the campus, overlooking Lake Mendota. 3 Although the location is one of many character-defining features the Observatory holds, the history of the Observatory is foremost in importance when defining the Observatory and how it came to be.

Observatory

Washburn Observatory Location on Campus (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

In September of 1877, the announcement was made by John Bascom, the University of Wisconsin-Madison president; a new Observatory on the hill overlooking Lake Mendota would be constructed for the University of Wisconsin. Prior to the announcement however, work had been done in Historic Washburn Observatory planning to get an observatory. In 1875 the lack of (Wisconsin Electric Reader Image an observatory was pointed out to the state Galleries) legislature, and in 1876 the state legislature of Wisconsin added an amendment that would grant the University of Wisconsin $3,000 annually for the completion of an observatory. Along with the state legislature, exgovernor Cadwallader C. Washburn, working with the University of Wisconsin President John Bascom, was also in the process of donating an observatory to the University. The state’s annual $3,000 contribution to the Observatory funds, and Governor Washburn Washburn’s fortune, which was made in the flour milling business, would ensure the (Wisconsin Electric Reader construction of an observatory. Washburn’s interest in the observatory was no more Image Galleries) than his support for higher education, but his contributions were the driving force behind the building of the observatory, which is why it bears his name today. 4

“Feasibility Study for Washburn Observatory” (Isthmus Architecture Inc., Madison, 2004), February 10, 2014, http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/capbudg/CampusDevelopment/Washburn.pdf IBID 3 “National Register of Historic Places, Washburn Observatory” United States Department of the Interior, (January 30, 1985) 4 Robert Bless, “Washburn Observatory,” University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Astronomy, (1978), February 10, 2014, http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~varda/Long_Wash_Obs_Text.html 2

Governor Washburn was given the task of determining the location of the Observatory which is noted above. He was also charged with hiring an architect and contractor, as well as making the requirement for the telescope size. The ex-governor hired David R. Jones, a local architect, to design the building. As the design architect, David R. Jones utilized the Italianate style, a popular construction type of the time period. The name of the contractor is not known; however, it is known that construction began in May, 1878 and the first part of the Observatory was finished that same year. Governor Washburn also made the specifications for the telescope. He determined that the telescope had to be larger than Harvard’s telescope. Therefore, a 15.6” telescope was built by the Clark brothers of Massachusetts, the same Clark Family who fixed the Fitz/Clark telescope of the Allegheny Observatory. This telescope was the third largest telescope of the time. All of the expenses of the observatory were said to be paid by Governor Washburn; the total cost was estimated at over $65,000. 5

15.6" Refractor Telescope (The University of Wisconsin Collection)

The Washburn Observatory, much like the Allegheny Observatory, was built with the facades facing the cardinal directions. The main entrance of the Observatory is along the south façade, while there is another entrance along the east façade. The plan of the observatory includes one dome centered between the original meridian circle room to the west and the clock room to the east. The clock room, much like the Allegheny Observatory, was used for keeping track of time which was then sold to the railroad companies for profit. North of the clock room is an addition which was added in 1881. This addition houses the library, the calculating rooms, and living quarters. 6 In comparison to the Allegheny Observatory, the floor plan of the Washburn Observatory resembles the floor plan of the Original Allegheny Observatory. Calculating room/Living Quarters

Dome Library

Transit Room

Clock Room

Original First Floor Plan (Feasibility Study)

IBID “Feasibility Study for Washburn Observatory” (Isthmus Architecture Inc., Madison, 2004), February 10, 2014, http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/capbudg/CampusDevelopment/Washburn.pdf

The construction materials used for the observatory included local quarried sandstone, a similarity to the Allegheny Observatory. Also used in construction was plaster for the walls and ceilings, maple wood for the floors, wood for the roof, and leaded copper roof cladding for the dome. Some of the character defining features of the Washburn Observatory include: the sandstone quoins, the wooden scroll entablatures, cylindrical sandstone wall leading to the dome, the wooden vertical shutters used for the meridian circle, the 15.6” refractor telescope, the marble fireplace, the wooden dome with lead copper cladding, and the wooden cornice and trim throughout the exterior of the observatory. 7 The building was dedicated in 1882 after the completion of an additional wing housing calculating rooms and living quarters. Prior to the Vertical Wooden Shutters (Feasibility dedication, both Washburn and first director James Watson died. In Study) remembrance of Governor Washburn, Cyrus Woodman donated $5,000 for the construction of an astronomical library, another similarity to the Allegheny Observatory’s library. The library is considered a character defining feature of the Observatory. 8 The building was used by the University of WisconsinMadison for research until 1959 when the University moved their main Observatory to Pine Bluff, fifteen miles outside of Madison, Wisconsin; however, the Washburn Observatory was not torn down. In fact, the humanities department used the building for a period of time before the School of Letters and Science adopted the building to house their honor college, which it still houses today. 9 Due to the historic significance of the building’s architecture and scientific history, the Washburn Observatory was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1985. Today, the building is open to the public on the first and third Wednesdays of the month and is open every Wednesday during the summer months, a trend that began in 1881. In 2003, the University of Wisconsin hired Isthmus Architects to partake in a feasibility report on the building. This is similar to the University of Pittsburgh’s hiring of Pfaffmann and Associates. Isthmus was contacted to address the observatory’s overlying problems and produce a report and estimate for the preservation work. 10

Isthmus Feasibility Report Isthmus began the feasibility report in 2003 and concluded their report in 2004. The report details the history of the observatory before listing some of the problems that are occurring at the observatory. Solutions and a cost estimate for its restoration and preservation treatments follow. The issues range from site problems, to exterior problems, and finally interior problems. The report details step by step the problems that the observatory is facing. 11 The majority of problems occurring at the observatory are related to the exterior. One problem related to the site is the overgrowth of plants that have caused problems with the stone in these areas. As for the sandstone of the observatory, it is spalling in some areas, much like the Allegheny Observatory. Spalling occurs when water enters the sandstone, which is porous, and causes the face of the stone to pop off. Spalling Underneath Window Sill (Feasibility Study) Much like the sandstone of the Allegheny Observatory, some of the sandstone blocks of the Washburn Observatory was laid incorrectly. The sandstone was laid so that the top section 7

faces outward. If one imagines the sandstone as a book, the image becomes clearer and the problem is more easily understood. Each page of the book is a new layer of particles which create the layers of the sandstone. When the book is laid so that the cover faces outwards the book will begin to fall open and the pages will fall outward, much like the spalling that is occurring in the sandstone. The proper way to lay the sandstone is with the top and bottom facing in respectable directions, top to top and bottom to bottom, much like placing a book on a table; the book will not collapse and the spalling will not occur as easily. The worst spalling areas of the Washburn Observatory are located underneath the window sills. 12 This is occurring because water is trapped on these window sills and absorbs into the stone. Another cause for concern with the Washburn Observatory is the formation of tarnish and biological growth below the windows, cornices, and gutters. This occurs because water does not drain properly from the building. In addition, there are two major cracks in the Observatory; the first is located along the south faรงade while the other is on the west faรงade. Water, small insects, and small animals can penetrate the stone and cause additional problems. The mortar joints of the observatory are in relatively good condition and in areas where repointing has occurred, a soft mortar was used to help preserve the original sandstone. 13 The openings of the observatory also show reason for concern, including the windows and doors. The windows were originally made of wood, and because regular maintenance was not provided to preserve the integrity of the windows, air leakage became a problem as did loose joints and ultimately the glazing failed. In addition, the windows were not routinely painted which Tarnishing (Feasibility Study) caused water infiltration problems and rotting. The original rolled glass of the windows was replaced in some areas with clear single-float glass. Changes to the windows have occurred over time, such as adding storm windows, raising the lower sash for air conditioners, and replacing the basement windows with block glass. The doors and entrances also pose problems. The doors and entrances to the observatory are also experiencing problems. The wooden doors have split in places, but are said to be in relatively good condition. 14

The roof of the observatory, as noted in the 2003 feasibility study, indicates that the main roof and dome roof were replaced in 1985, and are now in good condition. However, in talking to Jim Lattis, the head of the Astronomy Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, as well as with Laura Davis of Isthmus Architects, it was agreed that the dome roof would most likely need replaced within the next couple of years. The dome roof is being closely monitored. The feasibility report noted only one other problem regarding the roof; the gutters need to be redirected for better drainage. The feasibility report also noted that the wooden cornices of the observatory show signs of water infiltration, but there is no call for immediate attention. The interior of the observatory also poses some additional problems. 15

Wooden Cornice (Feasibility Study)

Problems occurring in the interior of the observatory are related to the wooden trim, the walls, plaster, ceilings, and floors. The main concern regarding the trim is missing sections due to the addition of doors and windows. The walls of the observatory are coated in plaster and show similar areas of concern. The plaster is cracking in areas, and in the basement water damage has occurred in the plaster walls. As for the maple flooring, 12

IBID IBID 14 IBID 15 IBID 13

there are nail holes where partition walls once stood. The rest of the flooring shows signs of normal wear caused by traffic throughout the building. Once the problems were identified, Isthmus Architects estimated that it would cost 2.5 million dollars to address the problems as well as perform the restoration to the observatory. Isthmus Architects also suggested a means of treatment for the observatory. 16

Suggested Treatment As for the exterior of the observatory and the sandstone, Isthmus recommends the stones be repointed and in some places removed and flipped to preserve the integrity of the buildings character-defining features. The total amount of mortar joins needing replaced was estimated at approximately ten percent. The mortar used in the repairs should be 1:3 lime, putty and sand ratio; this will replicate the type of mortar originally used in construction. It is recommended that the windows be removed and restored to as close to original working order as possible while keeping the integrity of the building. The doors should be updated to current egress codes and security measurements while using historic materials. The roof, as noted earlier, will need replaced in the near future. 17 There are also recommendations for the interior problems of the observatory. It is recommended that the trim be removed and repainted; the doors need to be checked for loose joints. The plaster is in need of repair where cracking has occurred; repainting will then be necessary. It is recommended that the floors be stripped and refinished. These recommendations were taken into action in 2008 when a restoration process began on the observatory. 18

2008 Restoration

Typical Window Deterioration (Feasibility Study)

When talking to Laura David and Jim Lattis, I was informed that the Washburn Observatory underwent a restoration process in 2008. 19 After further research, I found that the restoration project cost 2.5 million dollars and was predominantly funded through three main areas: a one and one half million dollar donation from the Nancy Woodson Spire Foundation; a five hundred thousand dollar donation from the Oscar Rennebohm Foundation; and five hundred thousand dollars collected through college gifts. 20 The recommendations listed in the feasibility report of 2003-2004 were the main areas of concern in the project.

Washburn Observatory Today The Washburn Observatory is now in the hands of the School of Letters and Science Honors College at the University of Wisconsin. The original 15.6” telescope still remains in the observatory and is open to the public on select Wednesdays. 21 The day to day funding, as noted by Jim Lattis, is through the University of Wisconsin’s honors program and astronomy department. Outside organizations, such as the Friends of the Washburn Observatory, also contribute to the observatory. Small donations from private firms also subsidize the observatory. One interesting note is that the Washburn Observatory has its own Twitter account allowing interested parties to stay

IBID IBID IBID 19 Dr. Jim Lattis, University of Wisconsin Astronomy Department, e-mail, February 19, 2014. & Laura Davis, Isthmus Architects, email, February 19, 2014. 20 Kiera Wiatrak, “Historic Washburn Observatory Prepares to Reopen,” University of Wisconsin-Madison News, September 3, 2009, March 3, 2014, http://www.news.wisc.edu/17033 21 “Feasibility Study for Washburn Observatory” (Isthmus Architecture Inc., Madison, 2004), February 10, 2014, http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/capbudg/CampusDevelopment/Washburn.pdf 17 18

up to date with the observatory. 22 Today, the Washburn Observatory is still in use, and some of the practices applied at the observatory would be beneficial to the Allegheny Observatory as well.

Recommendations In researching the Washburn Observatory, a few ideas became compelling and should be considered for the Allegheny Observatory. The first recommendation would be to create a social media page or pages for the Allegheny Observatory. The creation of a social media page would inform the greater Pittsburgh community as well as the University of Pittsburgh community of the local observatory located in Pittsburgh. Many people are not aware of the existence of the Allegheny Observatory; social media pages would help bring light to the observatory. Observatory Today (Isthmus Architects) Additionally, more classes at the observatory would promote the observatoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use and, therefore, its cause and function. The observatory remains empty for a large majority of the school year; one way to better acknowledge the observatory would be putting it to use more often. This could be accomplished through additional classes or additional offices located in the observatory. Additional groups bringing awareness and gaining funds for the Allegheny Observatory would also be beneficial. These groups, such as Friends of the Allegheny Observatory, would assist in bringing awareness to the observatory. These are a few of the recommendations that would aid in bringing notoriety to the Allegheny Observatory. Both the University of Pittsburgh students, as well as the Pittsburgh public community need to be made aware of the wonderful asset that exists within their reach.

by Jacob Craig

Dr. Jim Lattis, University of Wisconsin Astronomy Department, e-mail, February 19, 2014.

Bibliography “Feasibility Study for Washburn Observatory” (Isthmus Architecture Inc., Madison, 2004), February 10, 2014, http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/capbudg/CampusDevelopment/Washburn.pdf Kiera Wiatrak, “Historic Washburn Observatory Prepares to Reopen,” University of Wisconsin-Madison News, September 3, 2009, March 3, 2014, http://www.news.wisc.edu/17033 Dr. Jim Lattis, University of Wisconsin Astronomy Department, e-mail, February 19, 2014. Laura Davis, Isthmus Architects, e-mail, February 19, 2014. “National Register of Historic Places, Washburn Observatory” United States Department of the Interior, (January 30, 1985) Robert Bless, “Washburn Observatory,” University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Astronomy, (1978), February 10, 2014, http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~varda/Long_Wash_Obs_Text.html

Pictures Map: “Washburn Observatory,” University of Wisconsin-Madison, March 15, 2014, http://www.map.wisc.edu/?initObj=0510 Historic Washburn Observatory: “Observatories,” Wisconsin Electric Reader Image Galleries, March 3, 2014, http://www.library.wisc.edu/etext/wireader/Images/WER0898.html Governor Washburn: “Observatories,” Wisconsin Electric Reader Image Galleries, March 3, 2014, http://www.library.wisc.edu/etext/wireader/Images/WER1642.html 15.6” Refractor Telescope: “The University of Wisconsin Collection,” University of Wisconsin Digital Collection, March 3, 2014, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-55543553154260&recno=36&resultset=2&format=F&next=html/nffull.html&bad=error/badfetch.html&&entityt oprecno=36&entitycurrecno=36&entityreturnTo=brief Observatory Today: “Washburn Observatory- Madison, WI,” Isthmus Architects, March 3, 2014, http://www.isarch.com/projects/WashburnObserv.html All Other Photographs: “Feasibility Study for Washburn Observatory” (Isthmus Architecture Inc., Madison, 2004), February 10, 2014, http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/capbudg/CampusDevelopment/Washburn.pdf

BENCHMARKING REPORT: YERKES OBSERVATORY 1897, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Yerkes observatory is located on the west side of the village of Williams Bay, Wisconsin, on the bank of Lake Geneva, 76 miles from Chicago.

Figure 1

Figure3

Figure2

Figure4

Figure1. Yerkes Observatory and University of Chicago Figure2. Yerkes Observatory on the bank of Lake Geneva Figure3. The Site of Yerkes Observatory Figure4. The Site of Yerkes Observatory

Figure5. Basement walls under construction 1890s

Figure7. Skeleton of the great dome 1897

CONSTRUCTION Construction of the main observatory building began in 1895. The first light or the first astronomical observations were made in 1897 (see Figure 5-8).

Figure6. Rising floors frame, looking down at the great dome, 1896

THE ARCHITECT The observatory was designed by Henry Ives Cobb (see Figure 9) from plans drawn by American astronomer George Ellery Hale, who had visited the large observatories of America and Europe and had gained useful information from the designs of the Lick Observatory in California and the Astronomy Observatory in Potsdam, Germany.

HISTORY The establishment of Yerkes Observatory was the joint idea of astronomer George Ellery Hale (see Figure 10) and William Harper (see Figure 11), president of the University of Chicago. George Ellery Hale wanted a first-rate observatory where he could continue his study of the sun. William Harper, as the president of the newly founded University of Chicago, wanted to increase the reputation of the university. In 1892, George Ellery Hale learned that a Figure8. Yerkes constructed dome1895

pair of 40-inch diameter glass disks, made by Paris firm of Mantois, was available for purchase. Then he approached Harper with the idea of building the largest telescope in the world. In 1892 both men visited Charles T. Yerkes, a Chicago street-car magnate, who agreed to underwrite the cost of the project. George Ellery Hale had to talk Yerkes into parting with 349,000 dollars before the project was completed. 1

Figure9. Henry Ives Cobb

Figure10. George Ellery Hale.

Figure11. William Harper

THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Yerkes Observatory is built in a Roman cross and the façade is decorated flamboyantly with terra cotta ornamentation (see Figure 15). It is constructed of brown Roman brick. The style of the building is Romanesque. 1 Henry Ives Cobb was a student of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris prior to 1880, the year he graduated from M.I.T. where he studied architecture, design and engineering. It’s not incorrect to call the architecture of Yerkes “Beaux Arts”, but we usually refer to the design as Romanesque, neo-Romanesque or Romanesque Revival, for a type of architecture popularized by architect Henry Hobson Richardson. Richardson conducted his professional work almost entirely out of his home in Brookline, MA, the birthplace of Henry Ives Cobb. Figure 12. Front façade, triple arched recessed entrance “Richardson Romanesque” is the term generally used to describe his unique adaption of the classical Greek and Roman architectural styles, and a large percentage of major public buildings constructed in the U.S. between 1880 and 1920. Richardson designed many buildings in eastern cities in his heavy, fortress-like, medieval style including churches, libraries, residences, railway stations and commercial buildings. Richardson Romanesque design elements include rusticated stone, double and triple arched and often recessed entrances (see Figure 12), arched windows (see Figure 14), porte-cocheres, short, squat columns, cylindrical towers with conical caps at the corners of a building.2 Richardson influenced the entire “Chicago School” of architects from the latter 19th century. Cobb designed 16 of the original buildings for the new University of Chicago campus, most of which were built between 1890 and 1892.

Figure13. Cylindrical towers with arched niches and terra cotta details

Dan Koehler, “Yerkes Observatory architecture”, essay provided by Jim Gee 2 Dan Koehler, “Yerkes Observatory architecture”

He used an English Gothic Style for those buildings. Yerkes had a good deal of familiarity with Cobb and liked his work very much, so Yerkes hired Cobb to design Yerkes Observatory. Charles Yerkes was a great art lover and collector, many with religious themes, sculpture and oriental rugs. Cobb decided to use the Romanesque style to honor Yerkes’ love of art and to design a building that was as unique as its patron. Thus Cobb designed a “scientific cathedral”, which mimics the layout of a European cathedral, with an impressive rotunda, a grand marble staircase leading to the Great Refractor, terrazzo floors, marble walls, high ceilings, and cavernous hallways and transepts that connects the three domes.3

Figure14. Triple arched windows

THE OBSERVATORY There are mainly three domes in the observatory; a great dome is located on the west end, and two smaller domes are located on the north and south end. The Great dome is 6,650 square feet, the north dome is 710 square feet, and the south dome is 530 square feet. The building is 11,330 square feet. The total footprint of per floor is 19,220 square feet. There are three floors, so the total number of square feet is three times of the above number. The shape is that of a Latin cross with the three domes and the meridian room at the extremities (see Figure 16). The long axis lies east and west with the great dome to the west. The smaller domes are on the north-and-south axis.

Figure16. Yerkes Observatory

Dan Koehler, “Yerkes Observatory architecture”

Figure15. Terra cotta decorations

FLOOR PLANS The main floor contains public spaces, the basement contains laboratories, and the second floor contains living spaces and working spaces. The three dome towers house telescopes. BASEMENT The basement is also called the engineering level; electronics Figure17. First floor plan, rotunda in central corridor lab, cryogenics lab, machine shop, instrument assembly labs, adaptive optics lab, offices, darkrooms, storage, and infrastructure can be found in this level. The basement of the north tower houses shop service, while the basement of the south tower houses a research laboratory. MAIN FLOOR The main floor has the public corridor spanning through the long axis between the west and east end of the building, with offices and reception rooms on both north and south side of the corridor (see Figure 17). In the center of the main corridor is a rotunda, with a skylight round window at the top of its ceiling (see Figure 18, 19). The main level also has display area and library. UPPER LEVELS The upper level houses library stacks, computers and workshop space, Palomar Sky Survey plates and prints, plate vault, dormitory, storage. The northern dome contains a modern 24-inch reflector the southern Figure18. Rotunda in central corridor, 2014

Figure20. 41 inch reflector

Figure19. Rotunda in central corridor, 1897

dome houses a 41-inch reflector (see Figure 20). The great dome houses a 40-inch refractor. The south observatory houses a 12.5-inch remotely operable telescope and an 8-inch Schmidt camera.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN YERKES OBSERVATORY AND ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY Both of the observatories were built around 1900, and both of them had their old observatories in different sites. They have a similar plan; the great dome is located on the different end than the two smaller domes, with a long axis between the two ends, but the main Figure21. Movable floor in Yerkes Observatory entrance of Yerkes observatory is located in the middle of the long axis, while the main entrance of the Allegheny observatory is located on the east end. Also, they both have the public spaces on the main level, like reception, offices, display area, library, and corridor. They are both constructed of brick, with classical details, and have domes, but they are built in different architectural styles. They both have terra cotta decorations on their façade, but the decorations in Yerkes Façade are more flamboyant in Romanesque style. The two observatories have similar mechanism in their domes. The great dome of the Yerkes Observatory, like the Allegheny Observatory, is turned on wheels by an electric motor which actuates an endless wire rope extending around the dome. The opening through which the sky is observed is closed by shutters. They are so constructed that they can be moved by hand, Although they are usually operated by an electric motor. The movable floor is supported by cables running over four sheaves just beneath the upper balcony counterpoise which balance the weight of the floor (see Figure 21). 4

GREAT PEOPLE OF THE TWO OBSERVATORIES Hale, who was one of the two founders of Yerkes Observatory, in 1882, bought the Clark refractor, and George observed the transit of Venus. Then he became an astronomer and a fund-raiser. In 1887, Edward F. Spence, as a trustee of the University of South California, announced that Lick Observatory needed a larger telescope. The trustees of Lick observatory commissioned Alvan Clark and Sons to make a 40 inch lends, and after many attempts a French glass firm produced the two disks, crown, and flint glass necessary for it. The Clarks began working on the glass, but in 1891 the land boom in Los Angeles, on which the whole project was based, burst. Spence and several of the other prospective donor went broke. Hale recognized it as an opportunity for the University of Chicago. They planned to buy the lens. Alvan G. Clark arrived in Chicago and signed a contract to figure the lens in 1892. Warners and Swasey were to build the mounting. Clark spent two year on building the lens of the 40 inch telescope for the Yerkes Observatory. In 1890 Hale’s mentor Burnham, a member of Lick staff, showed him through the observatory and introduced him to the young pioneer American astrophysicist James E. Keeler. They were to become close friends and the leading American astrophysicists of their generation.

Butowsky, Harry A, “Astronomy and Astrophysics: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study (1989)”, National Park Service, United States, https://archive.org/details/astronomyastroph00butorich

In 1891, Keeler became an associate editor for astrophysics and filled in for Hale for the professional research journal—Astro-Physical Journal. In 1897, Keeler gave the main invited lecture at the dedication. Hale had wanted to hire James E. Keeler to the observatory’s staff in 1897 as its spectroscopist. Keeler, however, was offered the directorship of Lick Observatory, thus Kale offered the position to Edwin B. Frost. 5

CURRENT USAGE ORIGINAL USE The Yerkes observatory was built to be Figure22. Albert Einstein and his staff in Yerkes, 1919 not only a place for a telescope and observer, but also a physical laboratory with a variety of mechanical and electronic workshops. It established the modern observatory as a research institution where the astronomer, using the disciplines of chemistry and physics, supported by engineering and optics workshops, could apply his talents to the understanding of the wonders of the universe (see Figure 22). 6

CURRENT USES Yerkes Observatory is currently used to hold various scientific and educational programs. It is also open to public visitors, visiting families, individual tours. Activities like Star Party are held in the observatory seasonally. Yerkes has made cooperation with different Institutes and Schools. The observatory and their co-operative organizations carry out programs on scientific and education in the observatory; The telescopes at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico have replaced the need for access to telescopes at Yerkes, thus the research programs of the department has made heavy investment in instrumentation at Apache Point Observatory, and none in recent years at Yerkes. The department of Astronomy & Astrophysics is considering options for placement of its resources beyond the programs at APT. Access to a much larger telescope is being discussed. The laboratories are being used for the development and assembly of the High Angular resolution Wide field Camera for NASA’s7 Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy,

5 Donald E. Osterbrock, Yerkes Observatory, 1892-1950: the birth, near death, and resurrection of a scientific research institution, University of Chicago Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4tSCJ_3ukC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Yerkes+Observatory,+18921950:+the+birth,+near+death&source=bl&ots=fpubDdbBMF&sig=nM7deswEkhSuYRsA78Q2CZeKqYo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fw5WU_L 0EPSosQT6jYEQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Yerkes%20Observatory%2C%2018921950%3A%20the%20birth%2C%20near%20death&f=false 6 Butowsky, Harry A, Astronomy and Astrophysics: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study (1989) 7 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The university of Chicago Engineering Center and Central Shop are managed from Yerkes. The UCEC provides a pool of engineers and other technical support to projects in the Division of Physical Sciences and elsewhere in the University and beyond. A significant fraction of the engineers are resident at Yerkes. The Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics conducts hands-on physics experiments for minority high school students in a week-long institute in each year. The office of Special Programs recruits the students for the KICP institutes and provides other instructional opportunities for the students. The Graham School of General Studies organizes groups of adults to tour the Yerkes building and grounds about once per year. Undergraduate classes in the Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences series have field trips to Yerkes with an opportunity for evening viewing. Large volumes of storage space are used at Yerkes, mostly but not exclusively by the Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics. The observatory is open for free public tours every Saturday throughout the year, there are guided portions of the program and last about 45 minutes. For 30 minutes or one-hour weekday tour, the observatory will charge 25 dollars for 20 minute program for up to five in a group. They charge 100 dollars for groups up to 40 for one-hour tour. The observatory offers several observing evening sessions each month on clear days. It can be a site for wedding ceremony too. 8

EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH Hands-on Universe (HOU) provides software and astronomical images that enable high school students to do astronomical research. Yerkes has for several years hosted the annual weeklong workshop for 20-25 HOU lead teachers from around the country and overseas. Through Yerkes, the HOU program has also become involved with outreach connected to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Starting with HOU there has developed a cooperative arrangement between Yerkes and the Science Museum in Tokyo. Teachers and their students in the US and in Japan have reciprocal opportunities to use remotely operable telescopes at Yerkes and in Japan, which, due to the time difference, can be used for night observing during normal day time class hours in the respective countries. Twice a month, Yerkes staff conducts a live observing program over the Internet from Yerkes. The YAAYS program for groups of teachers and students features the opposite, with Tokyo doing live observing sessions twice a month. Outreach activities involving about 20 students and their teachers from three local high schools have been designed to coordinate with NASAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy) mission, for which a major instrument HAWC is being constructed at Yerkes.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS AND CURRENT PLANS AND STUDIES The Yerkes observatory is historically significant. Thus the continuous use of the observatory as a scientific facility and education will be maintained. The observatory is slowly growing into an educational outreach facility. The Yerkes observatory does not have any historic designation. 9

8 9

Final Report of Yerkes Study Group, 2007, http://astro.uchicago.edu/yerkes/ysg/YSG_Final_Report.pdf Jim Gee, Manager of the Yerkes Observatory, interview by Wenfei Luo

There is no written report of a long-term maintenance plan, preservation plan or historic structure report, but a 6year restoration of the observatory is going on; the current restoration project includes the restoration of bricks, mortar joints, and inters structure of the building. The project is conducted by The University of Chicago Facilities Department internally.

PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES The University of Chicago formed a Yerkes Study Group for the mission of future planning of Yerkes in 2007. The members of the Yerkes Study Group include architect from Enterprises, the manager of the observatory, the Chair of University of Chicago, facility from other university, department chair of the Astronomy and Astrophysics, and the chairman of a Board appointed by the Village of the Williams Bay (Kishwauketoe Nature Conservancy). The Yerkes Study Group decided that the calculated integration of the main building with the landscape is a signature attribute of Yerkes Observatory. The following set of core physical attributes needs to be maintained: the 40-inch refractor and elevating floor. The main building including its three domes and the property important to the Olmsted Landscaping plan need to be maintained. The main mission is to provide background and arguments for a transformation of the Observatory from a research center to an education center relating to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, featuring continued use of the telescopes. The University of Chicago is planning to develop the observatory into an Educational Science Center. The first option is to create an independent new organization. To create this, an option is to create a partnership of institutions, each of which would contribute resources and each of which would obtain a benefit. The larger the consortium, the more resources are potentially available. Funding requests for educational programs would be more competitive if those programs served a broader constituency. Many large astronomy research projects are university consortia, and could realistically by extended to the operation of an educational center. The other version of this option is that Yerkes is reconstituted as an independent non-profit organization with a strong science-based educational mission. A Board of Trustees is selected to maximize experience in governance, fund-raising capability, and management; by maintaining organizational independence, Yerkes would be in a position to develop and maintain productive relationships without being tied too tightly to any particular stakeholder, which might allow greater flexibility in programming. 10

ALTERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PRESERVATION CHALLENGES The major alterations happened in the last 20 years are that the two domesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the north and south dome were replaced by modern domes that can contain modern telescopes. The west dome still maintains the original telescope. The bricks and terracotta of the exterior were rebuiltâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;they were taken down and rebuilt with the original material. The safe bricks or the structural bricks were replaced. Frequent changes happened to the laboratory and the engineering level. The Exterior brick wall and terracotta decoration were rebuilt with Roman brick and terracotta. The domes were replaced by aluminum domes in order to house modern telescopes. The coldness or the extreme climate change is the major challenge for the preservation of the building; various ways are used to deal with the exterior preservation; the bricks are tuck pointed. The mortar joints are repaired when needed. 11

10 11

Final Report of Yerkes Study Group, 2007, http://astro.uchicago.edu/yerkes/ysg/YSG_Final_Report.pdf Jim Gee, interview by Wenfei Luo

FUNDING The total annual operating coast of the building maintenance is 400,000 dollars in 2007. The total annual revenues from combined education/outreach efforts are 250,000 dollars. The education, outreach, and tours (grants and revenue from programs) are providing part of the funding. 12

FUNDING PLAN Ongoing maintenance of the physical plant could be funded via an endowment, which can be established from sale of the lake-front property and other property not needed for the operation of the science center and not part of the Olmsted landscape plan. Entrance receipts and direct charges to cover the costs of programming, applications for state and federal funds, and raising funds from private sources could be some options. Involved institutional partners and also assume a portion of the operation costs. It is encouraged to plan for a transition that protects ongoing research projects of the Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics. Williams Bay and the broader Geneva Lake communities should also get involved as the plans take shape. Funds have been obtained via the NASA IDEAS (Initiative to Develop Education in Astronomy and Space Science) Program. One such project developed science guide for teachers and students using the small remotely operable telescopes at Yerkes. Approximately tem teachers from Illinois and Wisconsin were involved in helping develop and test the science guides. Building on the experience with visually impaired students, another proposal was prepared to work with deaf and hearing impaired students at the Wisconsin School for the Deaf, located about eight miles from Yerkes. A major grant from Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has supported intensive teacher workshops (two weeks in the summer plus follow-up weekends during the school year). This is a Math-Science Partnership grant, requiring partnership between a university and at least one needy Illinois School district. In this case, the grant is to the University of Chicago; Aurora University is a key partner and grants graduate credit to the teachers. The program includes about 30 Illinois teachers and is called “Astronomy Resources Connecting Schools.” A small grant from the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium allows two Wisconsin teachers to participate. These educational outreach programs involve students or teachers staying near Yerkes for at least a few days, with housing and meals at Aurora University’s George Williams College Campus. Many of the programs also use the computer labs, classrooms, or the meeting space at Aurora. The NSF-supported Yerkes Astrophysics Academy for Young Scientists, in partnership with Aurora University, is developing after-school programs to promote interest in science in students from kindergarten through eighth grade. The program includes over 40 teachers and over 200 students in local schools. The grant period is through 2009. Teachers will take a series of four one-graduate credit classes to give them the background in astronomy they need to work with their students. Twice each month the students work on activities that the teachers have developed. Twice each semester the students and teachers come to the observatory to use the telescopes or link up with the Tokyo Science Museum to carry out remote observations. 13

LAND SALE The two proposals submitted in 2004 to the University of Chicago and all three of the architectural firm’s reports recommended that some of the Yerkes property be sold to achieve the goals of funding operations of the science center and providing a return to the Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics. Due to zoning restriction by Williams Bay, the plan was torn down.

12 13

Final Report of Yerkes Study Group, 2007, http://astro.uchicago.edu/yerkes/ysg/YSG_Final_Report.pdf Final Report of Yerkes Study Group, 2007

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLEGHENY OBSERVATORY Institutions and schools or colleges are involved in some of the programs that are held in the observatory. Most educational programs conducted by Yerkes Observatory in the building are aiming at school studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; study on technology and astronomy or activities of families with children; For example, a Girls Exploring Energy Summer Camp was held in 2012 summer. It aims at 10-12 years old girls who enjoy science and experiments. The camp provides hands on science experiments that include making electronic device. Girls can also work with real scientist. The cost for each student is 300 dollars. The camp has 20 spots. They advertised on their website and also posted on their Facebook. American Association of University Women Geneva Lake Branch is the co-sponsor of the Girls Exploring Energy Summer Camp. Family Night is held monthly for students in grades 3-8. Students come with a parent. Astronomers give lectures. For seasonal Star Party, they have astrophysicist to give a public talk, observations of stars, and hands-on activities indoors. Thus we can hold programs for school students who are interested in astronomy and physics. We can let neighbor colleges, schools, institutions get involved in building the programs of the observatory.

Figure23. FABLAB poster Fabrication Laboratory is an extension of Yerkes Education Outreach programs. It provides teaching tool for students and adults of learning simple CAD programs. The laboratory would be located on the Engineering Level of the Observatory.

We can also learn from Yerkes Observatory of advertising by website, Facebook, handouts and posters (see Figure 23); the observatory hand out posters for their Fabrication Laboratory Program and created a Yerkes Fundraising Event;

by Wenfei Luo

BIBLIOGRAPHY Dan Koehler, “Yerkes Observatory architecture”, essay provided by Jim Gee Butowsky, Harry A, “Astronomy and Astrophysics: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study (1989)”, National Park Service, United States, https://archive.org/details/astronomyastroph00butorich Donald E. Osterbrock, Yerkes Observatory, 1892-1950: the birth, near death, and resurrection of a scientific research institution, University of Chicago Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4tSCJ_3ukC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Yerkes+Observatory,+18921950:+the+birth,+near+death&source=bl&ots=fpubDdbBMF&sig=nM7deswEkhSuYRsA78Q2CZeKqYo &hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fw5WU_L0EPSosQT6jYEQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Yerkes%20Obs ervatory%2C%201892-1950%3A%20the%20birth%2C%20near%20death&f=false Final Report of Yerkes Study Group, 2007, http://astro.uchicago.edu/yerkes/ysg/YSG_Final_Report.pdf Jim Gee, Interview by Wenfei Luo

FIGURES Figure 1, 2: Google maps, https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yerkes+Observatory/@42.570353,88.556271,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xec400046bc398f84 Figure 3: William Bay, Wisconsin, Illustrated plan, “the University of Chicago Yerkes Observatory Master Plan”, Moule & Polyzoides, Architects & Urbanists, http://www.mparchitects.com/site/projects/universitychicago-yerkes-observatory-master-plan Figure 4; Google maps, https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yerkes+Observatory/@42.570353,88.556271,2a,90y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s3002970!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xec400046bc398f84!6 m1!1e1 Figure 5, 6, 7, and 8: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, [apf digital item number, e.g., apf12345], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library, Figure 5: http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf6-00058.xml Figure 6: http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf6-00042.xml Figure 7: http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf6-00025.xml Figure 8: http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf6-00060.xml Figure 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21: Jim Gee Figure 12, 13, 14, and 16: Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago, Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/pages/Yerkes-Observatory-University-ofChicago/184578131419?id=184578131419&sk=photos_stream

major sources Allegheny Observatory, Wadsworth, Frank Lawton Olcott, and Schlesinger, Frank. Miscellaneous Scientific Papers of the Allegheny Observatory of the University of Pittsburgh Vol.2 Lancaster, Pa: New Era Printing Company, 1910-13. “Allegheny Observatory Records.” Historic Pittsburgh Image Collections. Accessed 20, March 2014. http://digital.library.pitt.edu/images/pittsburgh/observatory.html. Arbogast, David. How to Write a Historic Structure Report. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2010. Brashear, John. “Appendix: An Address Delivered at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the New Observatory 1900.” In Dedication of the New Allegheny Observatory. 1912. Brashear, John A., and Scaife, W. Lucien. John A. Brashear: The Autobiography of a Man Who Loved the Stars. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1924. Burns, John A., ed. Recording Historic Structures, 2nd ed. National Park Service in cooperation with The American Institute of Architects, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Butowski, Harry A. Astronomy and Astrophysics: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, 1989. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4m.htm. Ching, Francis D. K. Building Construction Illustrated, 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. Coban, Louis W. “13-Inch Fitz-Clark Refractor.” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory. 28, May 2003. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/fitzclark.html. Coban, Louis W. “30-Inch Thaw Refractor.” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory. 28, May 2003. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/thaw.html. Coban, Louis W. “Keeler Memorial Reflector.” University of Pittsburgh Department of Physics & Astronomy: Allegheny Observatory. 28, May 2003. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/keeler.html. Comstock, George C. A Text-Book of Astronomy. 2011. Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm Gay, Vernon, and Marilyn Evert. Discovering Pittsburgh’s Sculpture. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983. Glaser, Arthur E. University of Pittsburgh, “History of Allegheny Observatory.” 5, May 2001. Accessed 16, February 2014. http://www.pitt.edu/~aobsvtry/history.html Harris, Cyril M. Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1983. John Lyon. “The Allegheny Observatory in Riverview Park- A History.” Accessed 25, March 2014. http://www.newcolonist.com/observatory.html.

Iorizzo, Luciano J., and Ernest E. Rossi. Italian Americans: Bridges to Italy, Bonds to America. London: Teneo Press, 2010. Jandl, H Ward. The Technology of Historic American Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Preservation Technology, 1983. Gabriel, J. Francois. Classical Architecture for the Twenty-first Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. Myers, John H. “Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. 1981. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm. “National Historic Landmarks Program (NHL).” National Historic Landmarks Program (NHL). National Park Service, 2004. 11, February 2014. http://www.nps.gov/nhl/. Nelson, Lee, FAIA. “Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. Accessed 25, February 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm Park, Sharon C. “Preservation Brief 39: Holding the Line: Controlling Unwanted Moisture in Historic Buildings.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. Accessed 26, March 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/39-control-unwanted-moisture.htm. “Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 21, April 2014. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&mode=2&objID=1426 Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, “Mary Elizabeth Tillinghast (1845-1912), New York.” Last modified 2007. Accessed 10, February 2014. http://www.phlf.org/2008/03/21/mary-elizabethtillinghast-1845-1912-new-york/. “Preservapedia.” National Center for Preservation Technology & Training. 5, September 2013. http://preservapedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page. Sawyer Hogg, H. “ Our of Old Books (James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn).” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. (1963): 269-275. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada Accessed 9, April 2014. Schmidt, Laura. “Using Archives: A Guide to Effective Research.” Society of American Archivists. 2011. http://www2.archivists.org/book/export/html/14460. Tiller, De Teel Patterson. “The Preservation of Historic Glazed Architectural Terra-Cotta.” Preservation Brief 7. June 1979. Accessed 22, February 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/7-terra-cotta.htm. Tomlan, Michael and Pick, Bob. “PreserveNet.” National Council for Preservation Education Inc. 1994. http://www.preservenet.cornell.edu/index.php.

Undaunted. Directed by Dan Hadley. 2012. Pittsburgh, PA: Dan Handley Science Media, LLC,2012. DVD “U.S. General Services Administration.” GSA. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111858 Walsh, Glen. “Astronomer, Educator, and Optician John A. Brashear.” Friends of the Zeiss. Accessed 20, March 2014. http://johnbrashear.tripod.com/. Ware, William R. The American Vignola: A Guide to the Making of Classical Architecture. New York: Dover Publications, 1994. Weeks, Kay D and Grimmer, Anne E. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. National Park Service, 1995. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/standguide/overview/choose_treat.htm. Western University of Pennsylvania. Catalogue of the Western University of Pennsylvania, year ending, 1901. Pittsburgh: Press of Murdoch, Kerr & Co., 1902. “Windows: Rehabilitation Standard No. 6 - Part 1.” State Historical Society of Iowa. Accessed 21, April 2014. http://www.iowahistory.org/historic-preservation/technical-assistance/assets/Windows.pdf Young, Robert A. Historic Preservation Technology: A Primer. Hoboken, New Jersey: J. Wiley & Sons, 2008.