{"id":8701,"date":"2015-03-30T09:42:11","date_gmt":"2015-03-30T13:42:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/phillyhistory.wpengine.com\/?p=8701"},"modified":"2015-04-12T16:13:16","modified_gmt":"2015-04-12T20:13:16","slug":"lost-days-on-broad-street","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/2015\/03\/lost-days-on-broad-street\/","title":{"rendered":"Lost Days on Broad Street"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Art<\/a>
Art Club, Broad and Chancellor Streets, Southwest corner. (PhillyHistory.org)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Philadelphia\u2019s decades-long \u201creign of architectural terror\u201d had finally come to an end. The powerful influence of Frank Furness<\/a>, whose \u201cviolent mind\u201d generated a \u201cdegree of depravity not to be measured in words\u201d had played out. In its place, critic Ralph Adams Cram saw the rise of refinement and a \u201cdelicate sensibility\u201d of a new posse of architects: Wilson Eyre, Cope & Stewardson and Frank Miles Day<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese four,\u201d claimed Cram in The Architectural Record<\/i><\/a>, \u201cbecame one voice crying in the wilderness, a voice proclaiming artistic salvation through the doctrine of good taste.\u201d Day had signaled the start of a revolt in the late 1880s with his Art Club at Broad at Chancellor Streets. But this \u201cunmistakable work of a young man just back from Europe\u201d came across as just a bit too earnest. \u201cVariety and picturesqueness were sought at any cost,\u201d wrote Cram. While the building stood as a welcome \u201cmanifestation of delicacy and sweetness, of fine instincts and subtle sympathies,\u201d the result was disappointing. \u201cCalmness, reserve, simplicity are lost,\u201d concluded Cram. The Art Club was \u201cweak\u2026 in mass, composition and scale,\u201d not quite the architectural breath of fresh air Cram had hoped for.<\/p>\n

But it was a start, \u201ca solid foundation\u201d on which to build. With the Art Club, Day marked \u201cthe entrance of a new influence in a devastated field.\u201d And as Day “found himself” as a designer, he\u2019d come to realize that \u201csalvation is not by fine line alone.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Horticultural<\/a>
Horticultural Hall, ca. 1896 (PhillyHistory.org)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As Cram saw it, architectural salvation arrived at last in the mid-1890s in the form of “two important structures” by Day. First was the American Baptist Publication Society<\/a>, 1420-22 Chestnut Street, an \u201celaborate, ambitious, magnificent\u201d creation, featuring \u201call kinds of splendor<\/a>, an efflorescence of balustrades, dormers, pinnacles and diaper work\u201d on the tower. Then there was the “bold yet delicate<\/a>” architectural gem of a building in Horticultural Hall, 250 South Broad Street.<\/p>\n

\u201cA fine example of Italian Renaissance architecture,\u201d complimented Asa M. Steele in Harper\u2019s Weekly<\/a><\/i>. Its \u201carched entrances and windows\u201d contrast \u201cwith simple expanses of wall of golden-yellow Pompeian brick…surmounted by a roof of Spanish tiles.\u201d Its fa\u00e7ade resonates with \u201cvitality and richness\u201d with “ornate bronze gates, windows of emerald glass, and touches of brilliant gold, pink and green upon medallions, balcony grills, and deep overhanging eaves.\u201d<\/p>\n

Inside and out, the hall \u201cbreathes the atmosphere of blossoms, orchards, and woodlands,” wrote Steele. “The grand staircase of pink and white marble rises from the vestibule into a bower of green marble columns, and green and gold galleries surmounted by a bronze-gold-dome topped with opalescent glass. \u2026 \u00a0The entire main floor can be thrown open from end to end, giving the whole the appearance of an idealized sylvan vista.\u201d<\/p>\n

Day had produced a successful, mature design, a \u201cstrong and simple composition, with a just disposition of voids and solids…the building is thoroughly delightful in its mass and its general composition. Nothing appears that does not justify itself by its inherent beauty; archivolts, mouldings, medallions, balcony fronts, all are studied to the last degree; and as a result one has the same impulse to sit down before it with sketchbook and pencil that manifests itself in Italy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHorticultural Hall is,\u201d wrote Cram, \u201cabout the best thing Mr. Day has done\u2026 In detail it is just as delicate and lovely as the earlier work, but this detail is more carefully used, and disposed with far greater craft.\u201d Although the Days hadn’t done many buildings, “their influence has been profound and far-reaching.\u201d And most importantly, they \u201cstood unflinchingly for good taste and for intrinsic beauty…they have done nothing that was half studied… They treated their art with respect, they never forgot that an architect must be first of all a gentleman, and they held faithfully to the gentleman’s creed \u2018Noblesse oblige.\u2019”<\/p>\n

The Days, Cram declared, have \u201cturned back the tide\u2026that was overwhelming Philadelphia, and they set up their standard as a rallying point for all men loyal to good taste, to seriousness of purpose, to faithfulness in the small things of architecture as in the great.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the 20th century had another thing in store. As it turned out, greatness was fleeting for the Days\u2019 buildings on Broad Street. Horticultural Hall, the last up, was the first cut down, in its 21st<\/sup> year. Only a few interior elements survive in the building\u2019s remake as the Shubert Theatre (now the Merriam Theater<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Art Club hung on into the mid-1970s. Then it, too, succumbed. The adjacent Bellevue-Stratford Hotel needed a parking garage<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Philadelphia\u2019s decades-long \u201creign of architectural terror\u201d had finally come to an end. The powerful influence of Frank Furness, whose \u201cviolent mind\u201d generated a \u201cdegree of depravity not to be measured in words\u201d had played out. In its place, critic Ralph Adams Cram saw the rise of refinement and a \u201cdelicate sensibility\u201d of a new posse […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8701","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}