A New Chapel for Shadyside Church?

Two renderings  in the Carnegie Mellon Architecture Archives, attributed to Pittsburgh architect James T. Steen,  raise more questions than they settle about Shadyside Church.  Even the date of their production is uncertain (between 1914 and the mid 1930s – likely the late 20s).  One drawing is clearly a proposed modification (unexecuted) to the 1890 sanctuary of the church.  The other is labeled “Chapel for Shadyside Presbyterian Church.”  The pencil and watercolor rendering depicts a much more ambitious design than any of the versions actually realized at the chapel.  A pencil sketch on the reverse of the rendering adds to the mystery.

Rendering labeled as above.  Courtesy of Carnegie Mellon University Architecture Archives

Depicted is a Romanesque worship space, long and narrow, with a chancel inset in the front wall.  An exposed wooden gable roof is supported on a series of ornate hammer beams, resting on piers at the side walls.  Ample round-arch windows pierce the walls, with smaller clerestory windows paired above each.

What may be a rose window hovers on a colorful chancel wall above what appears to be a wooden reredos. The rose, clerestory and the arches of the main windows are stained glass.  The lower portion of the windows seems to be depicted as square panes of clear glass.   A substantial pulpit with a sounding board is on the congregation’s right.  To the left is a lower wooden structure, which might be a communion table with an adjacent baptismal font.  (A reredos would be unusual for a church in the Reformed tradition, but an elaborate one was erected in the new Ralph Adams Cram East Liberty Presbyterian Church in the early 1930s.)

Chapel Exterior – Shadyside Presbyterian Church

As built in 1892 (Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge), the chapel’s ground floor was used as both a small worship space and a Sunday School.  Movable glass panels accommodated this flexibility.  A library at this level is also mentioned in the architect’s proposal.  That document also describes the lower floor as accommodating a large room for social gatherings, a kitchen as well as lavatories and retiring rooms.

Church records (below) show that major modifications to the church had been under consideration as early as 1930.  In 1937-38, the sanctuary was completely redesigned and an office wing connected the main church and existing chapel at the north end of the buildings.  The Steen chapel rendering is configured such that it could not be contained within the height of the original chapel structure (completed in 1892).  This implies that the original chapel would have to be razed or the new chapel located elsewhere.  A report to the congregation calls for “a new Church School plant, together with a Church Chapel and the alteration of the Church auditorium.”  Was the word “new” intended to describe “Church Chapel” as well as “School?”

Excerpt from 1930 report to congregation

The pencil sketch on the reverse of the Steen perspective shows plan and sectional elevation views of a church with side aisles.  It seems to place a worship space in the original chapel location at the end of the cloister connecting to the main sanctuary building.  This existing cloister was built to include a pass-through as a porte-cochere and the Steen sketch does not seem to modify this.  The sketch could be interpreted as consistent with the rendering.  The sketch’s side aisles could be outside the main windows of the rendering.  This would devote a lot of space for ambulatories.

Pencil Sketches on reverse of Steen Rendering of Chapel for Shadyside Presbyterian Church (plan on left, elevation on right)

Assuming the plan shows a building approximately fifty feet wide (the existing chapel size), the worship space would be about thirty feet wide.  The rendering shows some human figures near the front of the chancel.  Using these for scale, the width shown on the rendering also seems to be thirty feet, implying ten foot aisles on each side.  Continuing on the basis of these proportions, the chapel worship space shown on the sketch is roughly forty-five feet long.  So Steen’s proposed 30′ x 45′ worship space is roughly the same size as the chapel actually built in 1952:  27′ x 44′  (Hoffman & Crumpton, architects, successors to Pittsburgh’s famed Benno Janssen).

Still puzzling would be the space devoted to side aisles if they are strictly ambulatories. In many worship spaces, the side aisles are used for seating.  The rendering, however depicts windows (or at least grill work) between the worship space and aisles.  Also to be noted, pencil lines extend downward on the sketch, parallel to the chapel long walls.  This might indicate the “new Church School plant” of the report and would place such a structure near where the 1952 Parish Hall is today.

Comparison of Steen plan sketch appearing to place the new chapel in location of existing one. (Shown at same approximate scale.)

Comparison of elevations demonstrating need for complete restructuring for the Steen chapel.  (Shown at same approximate scale.)

Although the design shown on Steen’s rendering was not built, there is a remarkable resemblance to it in the chapel worship space of 1952.  The round arched chancel inset into a stone wall and hammer beams are two notable similarities.  The clergy seats at the center of the chapel even correspond to the reredos in the Steen depiction.  Clearly, Steen’s chapel was much taller and placed a rose window (or possbly stenciled ornament) where the 1952 worship space has a Cross.  Whether Steen’s chapel design was available to designers in the early 1950s is not known.  Their solution provided a very similar worship space within confines of the existing chapel building.  By locating a room to the west side of the 1952 chapel, the space for the two side aisles were combined to be more useful as a parlor.  This only sacrificed some height in the worship space.

Detail of Steen rendering and 1960s view of 1952 chapel.

2009 views by Ellen Allston show chancel and entrance of chapel

Photos taken by Ellen Allston, longtime Shadyside member and Director of Christian Education, show the 1952 chapel just before the start of the church’s Building Community construction project.  They show warmer colors on the painted surfaces and tile in place of carpeting.  Changes had also been made to remove some furniture and make room for a new digital organ in the chancel.

Chancel of chapel 2010

The 2010 changes to the chapel (Celli-Flynn Brennan, architects) are dramatic, yet retain the intimate, worshipful ambience.  Fixed pews are replaced by high quality movable seating.  Deep, rich colors in the chancel go a step beyond Steen’s subtle color (which was perhaps meant to be stenciling). Such colors may have been used in the original 1890 main sanctuary, which did include stenciled ornament. This new chancel treatment will likely arrest attention in the way the mosaic does in the main sanctuary. The wall and ceiling colors have been further warmed and enlivened by stenciling.  The color of the woodwork in the chapel has been made uniform and consistent with the parlor and atrium.

Chapel ceiling 2010

Mysteries still surround the two  Steen renderings in the CMU archives.  However the architect would be at least bemused that so many of the features he suggested were eventually adopted in Shadyside Church’s chapel in the following century.  The composite below shows remarkable similarities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Cross at Shadyside

The Cross is the most widely recognized symbol of Christianity. And, while the Gospels and the Epistles speak of its overarching significance to the earliest believers, the Cross was not always openly displayed.  By the third century, Christians made the sign of the Cross on their foreheads.  However, as a physical artifact, the Cross was disguised during the first centuries after Christ, when persecution was widespread.  The open use of various forms of Christian Crosses at Shadyside Church was not a practice of the Early Church until the late fourth century.

The cross shape was sometimes hidden within other symbols, such as the mast of a ship or an anchor. The anchor is one of the carved medallions on the front façade of Shadyside’s Parish Hall.  As such, it recalls two aspects of Christ.  In addition to his atoning sacrifice through crucifixion, we find in Hebrews 6:19-20, “… this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf…”

Not far from the anchor is a medallion with two symbolic references. In the Cross Etoile or Star Cross, we are reminded of the heavenly guide for the Magi after the birth of Jesus as well as the instrument of his death.

Two other medallions incorporate small crosses within their symbols.  The symbol for Peter is crossed keys, referring to the authority of the church given by Christ through the Disciple.  Within the bit of each key, we see the Latin Cross.  More subtle, are crosses on the loaves in the medallion that recalls the miraculous feeding of the multitude by Jesus.

Before departing the Parish Hall, we note a Cross related to the Scots-Irish Presbyterianism of Western Pennsylvania. The form of the Celtic Cross predates its Christian symbolic use. There are numerous ancient examples, some associated with pagan religious practice. No definitive explanation is available for the Christian adoption of a superimposition of circle and cruciform. One particularly romantic story claims that the circle was used among pagans to identify a person to be sacrificed. The person on whom the circle focused the sun’s rays was to die. The placement of the Cross over the circle blocks the rays and signifies that Christ has become the sacrifice for everyone.

Two more Crosses are found outside at Shadyside. At the peak of all four main gables, an equal-armed Greek Cross is found, mounted within a circle. The use of a Greek Cross may allude to the Byzantine influence on Romanesque architecture and its various revivals. Below this example on the front façade is a Latin Cross covered with foliate carving. The graceful tapering at the ends of the Cross members is a variation on this most common Christian symbol in the Western Church.

As a result of post-Reformation iconoclasm and mistrust of the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant churches often rejected the display of Crosses in worship. This suspicion of explicit symbolism began to diminish in the mid-1800s, but was still somewhat common through the first half of the twentieth century.

In Shadyside’s chancel and nave, only the gold Cross on the communion table is found. It was added only after the 1938 remodeling of the sanctuary. Apparently, some skepticism remained and the compromise acceptance required a simple Cross. Shortly after its addition, however, the bright red backing was added to make the Cross more prominent.

When this feature was published in the predecessor website, I forgot about the Cross in the chapel chancel.  It was carried over from the 1950s chapel as it existed before the 2010 remodeling.  And so, we find only two Crosses within the building, and those of relatively recent origin. Of the eight outside, five were part of the original 1890 structure. The remaining three are a part of the Parish Hall, erected in 1953.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I Wish I Could Have Seen It

Shadyside Sanctuary 1890 facing east

A new friend, after seeing my book Evidence of Things Not Seen about the church’s architecture and Christian symbolism, remarked, “I wish I had been able to see Shadyside Church’s sanctuary before the 1938 remodeling.”  I share his sentiment which spurred me to new thinking and visualization of how it must have looked and felt. (Book available from church office (412) 682-4300).

Shadyside sanctuary 1890 facing west

I realize that my imagination has been limited by the fact that we do not have color photos of the worship space from its first half-century. I usually picture the pre-1938 sanctuary in black and white!  We do, however, have some clues to its appearance.  The architects, Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, described their proposed interior as designed “…to create a harmonious whole with encaustic color, which gives a soft and pleasing tone.”  Encaustic is a painting technique in which pigment is mixed into wax and heated after application.  Geometric pattern stenciling enlivened the plastered walls.

What colors constitute a soft and pleasing tone? We may look to Boston’s Trinity Church, the conception of Henry Hobson Richardson, mentor to Shadyside’s architects.  While the plan and massing of Shadyside derived from Trinity, it seems unlikely that the Pittsburgh Presbyterians wanted the vivid hues of the Boston church’s interior.  Richardson himself characterized Trinity as “a color church.”

Trinity Church, Boston – photo credit Ben Miller

Image result for creative commons logo

A near-contemporary of Shadyside, Detroit’s First Presbyterian Church was built on the same central tower-auditorium model. That building, now part of Ecumenical Theological Seminary, has preserved its original interior.  It points to what may well have been Shadyside’s ambiance.

First Presbyterian Church, Detroit – photo courtesy Ecumenical Theological Seminary

Other than the wall treatment, Shadyside had two pre-1938 interiors. In 1890, a somewhat spare preaching platform incorporated the Hook & Hastings organ from the 1873 building (see photo, top).  A modest “preaching lectern” held the sermon notes or text.  Some commenters point out that this typical 19th century Protestant arrangement allowed the preacher to move about the platform as he spoke.  Concern grew that attention might be drawn to the preacher rather than to the proclamation of the Word.

Shadyside sanctuary 1904 – photo courtesy Organ Historical Society

Whether or not Shadyside’s congregation felt that concern, a major remodeling of the platform accompanied the installation of a new W. W. Kimball Company organ in 1904. An ample preaching desk anchored the platform and may have encouraged a preacher to “stay put” during the sermon.

Shadyside Chapel

Today, Shadysiders may get a direct impression of the color environment inside the original worship space. During renovations and additions implemented with the “Building Community” campaign, the congregation undertook a thorough remodeling of the 1950’s Chapel.  For this space, a careful study yielded a color and stencil scheme believed to reflect those in the church’s 1890 sanctuary.  Some question must remain (unless documentation turns up) on the exact decorative plan in Pittsburgh’s smoky air, for a building equipped to accommodate both gas and electrical lighting.

Shadyside Chapel ceiling

Chancel – Shadyside Chapel – note communion table

Inside the 2010 version of Shadyside’s Chapel, one finds another echo of the pre-1938 main sanctuary. A small communion table stands in the chancel.  Careful examination reveals it to have been constructed from the 1904 preaching desk.

1904 Preaching desk later refashioned into communion table – see photo above
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Roof Over Our Heads

The buildings of Shadyside Presbyterian Church represent a wide variety of shapes, sizes and proportions. Each was designed to suit the intended (and foreseen) purposes of the spaces enclosed. Richardsonian Romanesque style readily accommodates functional design with volumes and masses in picturesque compositions. This leads to an equally varied collection of roof types, matching the functions of a roof to the building plan.       These functions include shelter from the elements (rain, snow, sun, wind and temperature extremes), disposal of rain and snow melt, ventilation, admission of light and structural soundness.

Shed Roof Form

Shed Roof on Colonnade at South Porch

Among the simplest roof shapes is a sloped, flat plane known as a shed roof.     Obvious examples of a shed roof are the colonnaded extensions to the church’s two “porches” (the sanctuary’s Westminster entrance and the Craig Room ). These are relatively small roofs, but receive and channel runoff from a number of nearby roofs.

Gable Roof Form

Entrance Gable

The gable is perhaps the most familiar roof shape and, at Shadyside, covers the transepts, the main entrance and the chancel of the sanctuary. Since it is undesirable to direct runoff toward the building or over an entrance, the two sloping sides and flat front are appropriate.

Hip Roof Form

Chapel Hip Roof with Modifications

Next in the development of shapes is the hip roof. It can be thought of as a gable roof in which the vertical triangular wall ends are “tilted back” to form two additional roof planes. While the hip roof has structural and aesthetic advantages, it is useful in limiting the water runoff volume sent in any single direction.

Shadyside Church Chapel

Shadyside’s chapel is covered by a hip roof that has (and had) various embellishments.       First, we notice that the end planes of the hip roof do not rise completely to the main ridge line. Instead, a small triangular panel is formed (known variously as a Dutch gable, gabled hip or gabelet). One source of this feature is the medieval hall building, which often housed people and animals – hence the useful ventilation feature.

The chapel building today has a “loft” level of offices above the parlor, beside the chapel worship space. When completed in 1892, the chapel consisted of a single large bay, which could be subdivided by movable walls. The three dormer windows on each side of the structure would have been an important light source during the day.  In addition, skylights were mounted on the long planes of the hip roof and were later removed. In the loft offices, the side dormers and the one above the front entrance make a very animated ceiling.  (The entrance dormer also deflects water away from the chapel door.)

Pyramid Roof Form- Showing “Sprung Section” at Base

Pyramid Roof on Church’s Lantern

A special case of the hip roof is seen on the church’s signature lantern tower.  The pyramid shape is formed by stretching four equal panels to a point high above the square base. Besides being ta most graceful termination of the tower, this form equalizes the amount of rain runoff in each direction.   Another feature of the lantern roof is functionally related to runoff: at the base the roof slope decreases. This is called a “sprung roof” and it sends the runoff away from the wall surface below (where it could increase erosion). It is also imparts a picturesque, medieval appearance to the composition.

Roof Dormer with “Witch’s Hat”

Perhaps the most complex roof is that of the lantern dormers.  They echo the pyramid shape at the front, transitioning into a gable that joins the main roof.  The bottom is sprung recalling a shape sometimes referred to as a “witches hat.”  While they are certainly charming, the dormers fill a critical purpose of ventilating the space under the pyramid.

Conical Roof Form with Gable Extension

Conical Roof at Pastor’s Study

Related to the pyramid shape, there are two conical roofs at the church. One covers the Pastor’s Study tower and blends with a gable extending to the main building. The other is half-conical in shape and tops the semi-circular apse added to the east end of the sanctuary in 1938.

Flat Roof at Parish Hall

Shadyside Church also has several examples of the so-called “flat roof.” A truly flat roof would retain snowmelt and rain. The associated leakage is a practical problem of such an arrangement. In practice, there are features to channel water away. The first large flat roof at the church was on Parish Hall. As for the authenticity of a flat roof for a Romanesque Revival structure, Shadyside’s Centennial History points out that ample precedent was found in medieval examples.

Skylight View of Lantern at Stair Tower

The lovely Sharp Atrium, constructed during the church’s “Building Community” campaign is also covered by an essentially flat roof. Indeed, the varied surrounding walls and roof lines would have made any other style impractical. Skylights in the Sharp Atrium and the new stair tower leading to Parish Hall are key features of the delightful ambience of these spaces. In this sense they borrow from the original design of the adjacent chapel roof, where skylights once existed.

Sharp Atrium at Night

And so, we have the development sequence:  function determines the plan; the plan is extruded to form useful, attractive volumes;  the projected plan sets base shape of the roof;  practical considerations, tempered by aesthetics, lead to the roof form. The resulting animated roofline, then, speaks of the varied and vital ministries that flow out of the church.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Grotesque Romanesque

Almost all architecture, from Ancient times until seventy-five years ago, rewarded the observer who looked up. Interesting, often delightful details await there.  Our earliest skyscrapers often had decoration of a scale that could only be clearly observed with magnification from the ground or from a nearby high vantage point.

Shadyside Presbyterian offers many interesting features above, among them our “grotesques.” They exist at two levels on the lantern tower, below and above the clerestory windows.  In general, a grotesque is a fanciful carving of a face, animal or vegetation.  The earliest date from the Classical period, where, in addition to a decorative function, they may have served to ward off evil spirits.  The name has Latin roots, associated with decoration of caves or grottoes.

Rows of grotesque corbels above and below clerestory window

Medieval sculptors were often afforded freedom in the form of decoration they applied to monumental structures. The resulting carvings sometimes had symbolic significance and sometimes were caricatures of acquaintances.

Shadyside is an example of Romanesque Revival architecture (specifically the Richardsonian phase). While such structures drew many forms and features from buildings of  Western Europe of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, their conception was not slavishly archeological.  Although the cross-shaped, central tower form of Shadyside has many Romanesque (and pre-Romanesque) precedents, the large stained glass windows in the transepts would have been unusual in these sources.


How, then, do our grotesques match up against Romanesque examples? First, while their form is a grotesque carving, their (nominal) function is as a corbel – a block-like support for a wall surface that projects beyond the surface below.  We find many Romanesque examples with the same form and function.  An examination of ours, however, reveals differences with Romanesque precedents.

Grotesque corbels at Kilpeck Church (c. 1140) Herefordshire, England

Photos by Sacred Destinations Travel Guide

Our grotesque faces are highly modeled and are more realistic looking than most Romanesque carving. To the modern eye, sculpture of the eleventh and twelfth centuries looks abstract, simplified and perhaps exaggerated.  In some cases, they seem delightfully cartoonish.  In fact the relatively refined appearance of our grotesque faces would seem more at home in Gothic sculpture.


Left: Gothic Carving at Chartres Cathedral, France Right:  Shadyside

Photo on left by Sacred Destinations

The eclecticism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries cheerfully allowed such apparent anachronisms.  The level of detail on foliate and interlace patterns does not seem much different, however, than period examples.

Richardsonian Romanesque carving in Toronto, Canada, Upper row similar to Shadyside’s, lower row more like Romanesque period carving.

Photo by Richard Warriner

Shadyside Church is not alone among Richardsonian buildings in this respect.  Grotesques of similar styling appear on the designs of H. H. Richardson and his followers.  And, while these carvings may seem to have a Gothic origin, they are not to be confused with Gothic gargoyles, which, by their strictest definition, are used as water spouts.


Gothic gargoyle, Bern, Switzerland and Romanesque corbel, Herefordshire, England

Photos by Sacred Destinations

No pattern seems to emerge in the design or arrangement of Shadyside’s faces. Their expressions range from pensive to grim to…well, grotesque.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stones of Shadyside

Sandstone. It doesn’t sound very durable.  Certainly, stone made from sand doesn’t seem like a material for a church that is expected to survive centuries.  But, there it is in the 1889 proposal specifications to Shadyside Presbyterian from the architect, Shepley Rutan & Coolidge: Beaver  County sandstone.

However, some of the applications for this variety of sandstone speak of its durability – government buildings, streets and many bridge piers around Pittsburgh use the stone.  Advertisements have been found for homes built of recycled Beaver County sandstone bridge piers.  There is a range of sandstone types of differing durability.  Some weather quickly.  Other types stand up well to the elements.  In general, sandstone is more easily carved than many kinds of rock.  In some technical texts,  Beaver County sandstone is known as Homewood sandstone, for the borough in the county where it is very abundant.

Stone color of original building & crispness of carved detail retained from 1890

In 1891, the US Geological Survey published this description of Homewood sandstone:

“While usually quite hard, it generally splits well and makes excellent building stone, the blocks from it being almost indestructible. Although generally of a yellowish or buffish gray tinge, it occasionally consists of almost pure white quartz grains, and hence sometimes supplies glass sand of excellent quality.”

Chapel 1892

At the time of the church’s construction, there were a number of active sandstone quarries in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We have not discovered from which quarry the stone was obtained. There were two well-established quarries operated by the Park family at Crowe’s Run, near  Conway and at New Galilee in Beaver County, starting in the early 1880s. The original main church building and the chapel (completed in 1890 and 1892, respectively) employed stone of a color that might be called “buff” or “putty.”

Quarry-faced random ashlar

The church walls are laid up in random, quarry-faced ashlar. Ashlar is stone that has been squared and smoothed to ease laying. Quarry-faced indicates that the exposed surface is left rough, giving texture and shadowing/reflecting facets that add interest to a simple and monumental mass. Random signifies that rectangular blocks of various sizes are used, so that  no regular pattern results.

Smooth-faced ashlar water table

Uniform-sized, smooth-faced ashlar is used in some locations, such as the water table. This the transitional section between the main wall and the foundation, which slopes outward from top to bottom. The original function was to direct rain water washing down the wall away from the foundation, to avoid erosion. It is also a pleasing, subtle design feature, imparting an appearance of stability to the building.

Recent construction showing falsework supports of voissoirs in arch

Shadyside Church’s Romanesque Revival style employs round arches at many door and window openings. Special wedge shaped blocks form the round arches as well as the segmental arches at the cloister and  new Westminster  entrance portico. These blocks are known as “voissoirs.” We saw that the ancient construction device of “falsework” was used on the portico. Wooden frames support the voissoirs until the arch is completed.

Gray & rust-color stone (enclosed in box) mixed with original putty color stone replacing window in 1937

Since the dedication of the Chapel, Shadyside has undertaken five significant building campaigns. The first one extended the Chapel to the north in 1908. The stone work was matched well enough to the original that little evidence remains. Subsequent building projects presented difficulties in stone selection, resulting from the progressive soot-darkening of Pittsburgh’s industrial atmosphere.

Juncture of 1937 office wing with 1892 Chapel showing color change

Stone colors distinctly different from the original “putty” were used in the 1937-38 project. A round apse was added to the east wall of the sanctuary building. An office wing was built from the northeastern corner of the main building to the chapel, creating the courtyard which recently has been transformed into the Sharp Atrium. At the same time, windows were in-filled adjacent to the new apse and at the Pastor’s Study.

The new stone was of gray color and some of it contained rust -colored veins, both subtle and pronounced. In the apse and window work, these were mixed with stones from the original wall. This original stone must have already been gray or black with soot. (See photo at bottom of page) It is not clear what visual effect this mixture would have produced. On the office wing, mainly the new gray & shades of rust-color stones were used.

1963 photo of Pastor’s Study showing progressive darkening of 1890 stone & 1937 infill

The mixing is apparent in a black and white photo from the 1960s. By this time, the 1937 stone work used to fill in windows had acquired some soot, although the skies were becoming cleaner. In the 1990s, the church stonework was chemically cleaned. Remarkably, after cleaning, the mixed stone sections blended well enough with the original walls that they were forgotten until they were noticed during construction of the Atrium.

Stone color 1953 Parish Hall

The Parish Hall was the next major addition, in the early 1950s. The mainly gray stonework includes of the rust hues. Perhaps the 1937-38 specifications were available and matched. In any case, this wing blends well with the rest of the complex, including the fields of solid putty color of the main building.

Juncture of 1982 Scharfe Wing with original building

The early 1980s “North Porch” addition (the Scharfe Wing which encloses the Craig Room) must have presented special problems. Today, after cleaning has restored the original 1890 stone surface, the North Porch stands out because of its distinct monochromatic gray hue, contrasting with the putty color. People familiar with the construction of that addition recall that the stone was obtained “from the same quarry.” Perhaps that refers to the 1937 quarry from which the gray stone was taken. Because the church was nearly black by the 1980s, it may have been decided that only gray and none of the rust would be used on the extension for a better match. More research is needed to uncover whatever information is still available from all the additions, starting in 1937.

Sample stone panel from 2010 near Chapel

Although the cleaned surfaces eased the problem, a daunting and important task faced those charged with producing stone for the “Building Community” construction project.   The church’s Building Committee was very sensitive to preserving and honoring the original fabric of the historic structure.  They undertook, with  Celli-Flynn Brennan Architects and  Volpatt Construction of Pittsburgh to match the existing stonework.  We have seen that there was a wide variety of material to match.

Brick inner wall construction used in 1890 & 1937 seen at the Apse

M I Friday Mason Contractor of Pittsburgh and  Russell Stone Products of Grampian in Clearfield County,  Pennsylvania, were engaged to supply the stonework.  Russell Stone operates quarries in what is known as “Curwensville Stone” which includes Homewood sandstone.  Several large sample panels of stone were fabricated and brought to the church for evaluation of the match to adjacent walls under varying conditions of lighting and moisture.  The success of the ultimate selection is apparent and the masonry will doubtless weather to an even closer match.

Concrete block & stone construction at Westminster entrance 2010

In addition to the slight variation in stone, changes in building methods are detectible in Shadyside Church’s latest additions. In the original buildings, brick inner walls were used with the stone exterior.  This is visible in the view of the 1937 apse, where it was opened for the Atrium beam support.  Today, the interior construction is thicker concrete block.  As can be seen in the photo of the Westminster entrance during construction, thinner stone sections were used.  Even after completion, this fact is expressed at corners where the reduced stone thickness is apparent.

2010 Westminster entrance portico against 1892 Chapel

For all the emphasis here on matching stone, exact duplication is neither a requirement or necessarily desirable. Certainly, some cathedral building campaigns spanned several centuries.  Not only material, but construction techniques and even architectural style changed, and this can be discerned by the careful observer.  Construction sympathetic to existing structures and honesty in expression of building technique are desirable goals.  It is also helpful to maintain consistent stone sizes, surface texture and lay-up pattern.  We are fortunate that many generations at Shadyside Church have had the means and the wisdom to add to our historic church building in a harmonious way.

Progressive darkening of exterior walls due to soot followed by chemical cleaning (L-R) 1890, ca 1905, ca 1920, 1963, 2006

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

…A Cathedral to a Chicken Coop

Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Station, Coraopolis

Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge 1895

“I will plan anything a man wants from a cathedral to a chicken coop.” Henry Hobson Richardson revealed to a client what his portfolio confirmed: a broad range of buildings including churches, civic and institutional buildings, offices, town homes, country homes, libraries and railroad stations.  Neither did his successors, Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, limit their scope.  And although they built only three structures in  Pittsburgh  , the variety is great:  Freemasons’ Hall Downtown (not extant), Shadyside Presbyterian Church and the P&LE rail station in Coraopolis.  Work is underway to preserve and reuse this valuable community asset by Coraopolis Train Station Project.

Old Colony Railroad Station, North Easton, MA

H. Richardson 1881-1884

It is a sign of Richardson’s genius that he is famous for his rail stations, when the first commission entered his office in 1881, just five years before his death.  Commuter rail stations were one of the most important building types in the late nineteenth century.  The railroads courted regular travelers from new suburbs with practical shelter, comfortable and handsome surroundings and, in many instances, elaborate landscaping.  The term commuter stems from the practice of discounting fares for frequent patrons:  their ticket prices were “commuted” to a lower rate.

Port Cochere, North Easton Station, Landscaping by Frederick Law Olmstead

Pittsburgh ’s pattern of residential building moved from the downtown area, to Allegheny  City (the North Side), to the East End and finally down the  Ohio River.  Summer homes were built in Sewickley, eventually used year-round.  The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie line had service on the opposite side of the  Ohio that reached to Youngstown.  They commissioned Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge to design an attractive station at Coraopolis in 1895, five years after Shadyside  Church. (The firm designed three stations for P&LE.)

Towers at Coraopolis Station & Shadyside Presbyterian Church

Richardson and his contemporaries pioneered the use of broad, low, hip-roofed structures, usually with long covered waiting areas at trackside. Often, the stationmaster needed visibility up and down the tracks.  This was provided two ways:  a bumped-out bay with observation windows or a tower.  Coraopolis employed both.  The lower tower formed the bump-out and, as early photos show bricked-in upper windows, whether it was used for observation is uncertain.  The tower is a quotation from Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge’s Shadyside Presbyterian lantern.  The proportions, round-arch windows with stone voissoirs, sharply incised square windows and “sprung” slate roof are immediately familiar to those who know the church.  (A sprung roof has an outward curvature or shallower slope at the lower edge.)

The station displays an unusual masonry treatment. An ample brown-tan sandstone water table is “battered”, enhancing the organic grounded sense of the structure.  The main walls are brick, but of unusual proportion.  They are Roman bricks which measure 2” x 4” x 12” in contrast to common brick at 2” x 4” x 8.”  Red mortar offsets the buff-colored brick.  Windows and door arches (round and flat) are sandstone.  The arches and stringcourses match the water table stone.  The polychromy of the Coraopolis station distinguishes it from the firm’s other  Pittsburgh  buildings.

Roman Brick with Red Mortar

The installation emphasized convenience and shelter with a port-cochere extending from the street side of the building. This feature has an Arts-and-Crafts feel, with the sloping water table section of the columns and extended, embellished wood rafters.  Tudor references emerge in the flat pointed arches and half timbered gable.

Port Cochere at Coraopolis Station

Polychromy continues on the broad hip roof, with red cap tiles at the ridge of the gray-black slate planes. The tower sprung roof is echoed here in the broad overhang covering the walkways.  Further picturesque roof touches include an eyebrow window, deftly executed in slate, to admit light to the interior.  The skills imparted by  Richardson  to his successors find expression in a building that does not feel frenetic, even though it has so many architectural features packed into its small size.

Exploration of the station interior awaits a time when the sadly deteriorated building can be re-opened. After retiring from commuter service, it was used for storage and warehousing.  The Coraooplis Community Development Foundation has acquired the structure, which the National Register for Historic Places lists.  Plans are to return it to a community asset on a par with its life as a rail station.  Renovation is to accommodate a café, museum and community center.

1918 Photo – Trackside Waiting Area Enclosed

And so, as Richardsonian Romanesque architecture suited a wide variety of building types, individual structures are used and adaptively re-used creatively. There are, however, no plans to designate any space as a chicken coop.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment