1. No category

Specialization and Significance: An Assessment of the Career and

University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
Theses (Historic Preservation)
Graduate Program in Historic Preservation
2012
Specialization and Significance: An Assessment of
the Career and Works of Minerva Parker Nichols
Margaret Lester
University of Pennsylvania
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses
Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons
Lester, Margaret, "Specialization and Significance: An Assessment of the Career and Works of Minerva Parker Nichols" (2012). Theses
(Historic Preservation). 208.
http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/208
Suggested Citation:
Lester, Margaret (2012). Specialization and Significance: An Assessment of the Career and Works of Minerva Parker Nichols. (Masters Thesis). University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/208
For more information, please contact [email protected].
Specialization and Significance: An Assessment of the Career and Works
of Minerva Parker Nichols
Abstract
Although her formal practice lasted just ten years and was concentrated in the Philadelphia area, architect
Minerva Parker Nichols (1861—1949) serves as a focal point for a study of women and the built environment
in late nineteenth-century America. As the first woman in the country to practice architecture independently,
Nichols carved out a prominent place in the male‐dominated field of architecture—all while specializing (as
she deemed it) in projects associated with female clients and uses. These themes in Nichols’ career make her
an apt case study through which to examine questions of significance, contesting our presumptions about how
her work can be appropriately framed, understood, and commemorated. Animated (rather than deterred) by
the ambiguities and questions of her career, this thesis is an assessment of the works of Minerva Parker
Nichols and the challenges that her career presents for preservation and interpretation.
Keywords
women, architecture, history, significance, professionalization
Disciplines
Historic Preservation and Conservation
Comments
Suggested Citation:
Lester, Margaret (2012). Specialization and Significance: An Assessment of the Career and Works of Minerva
Parker Nichols. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/208
SPECIALIZATIONANDSIGNIFICANCE:
ANASSESSMENTOFTHECAREERANDWORKSOFMINERVAPARKERNICHOLS
MargaretLester
ATHESIS
in
HistoricPreservation
PresentedtotheFacultiesoftheUniversityofPennsylvaniain
PartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsoftheDegreeof
MASTEROFSCIENCEINHISTORICPRESERVATION
2012
______________________________ Advisor
AaronWunsch
LecturerinHistoricPreservation
______________________________ ProgramChair
RandallF.Mason
AssociateProfessor
Tomyfamily,whomademyexcitementaboutthissubjecttheirown,
andtomyclassmates,whosesupportandfriendshipmadeitallworthit.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mythanksmustgo,firstandforemost,tomyadvisor,Dr.AaronWunsch,forhishelp
throughoutthisprocess.Withouthissupportformythinkingoutloud,andwithout
hisencyclopedicknowledgeofarchitecturalhistorysources,thisthesiswouldnot
havebeenpossible.
Iwouldalsoliketothankthechairofourdepartment,ProfessorRandallMason,as
wellastheotherfacultymemberswhoofferedencouragement,directionandadvice
atcriticalpointsinmyresearch.
AdditionalthanksgotoJeffreyCohenandWilliamWhitakerfortheirinsightinto
MinervaParkerNichols’career,andtoJudyHickmanforhertimeandtourofthe
DelawareChildren’sTheatre.
Finally,IamimmenselygratefultoCharlesSullivan,oftheCambridgeHistorical
Commission,andtoKellyKennedy,bothofwhomofferedinvaluableresearch
assistancedespiteneverhavingmetme.
iii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
LISTOFFIGURES........................................................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1
CHAPTERONE|MINERVAPARKERNICHOLS............................................................................7
CHAPTERTWO|PROFESSIONALIZATION:WOMEN+THEBUILTENVIRONMENT
..........................................................................................................................................................................36
CHAPTERTHREE|SPECIALIZATION:CLIENTS+COMMISSIONS...................................50
CHAPTERFOUR|SIGNIFICANCE:THEPARADOXOFTHESURVIVINGWORK.........64
CHAPTERFIVE|CONCLUSION........................................................................................................81
BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................................83
APPENDIX|MINERVAPARKERNICHOLSCOMMISSIONS..................................................88
INDEX............................................................................................................................................................93
iv
LISTOFFIGURES
FIGURE1:PairofdwellinghousesforMissM.andJ.Campbell,Germantown(Phila.),
c.1891...........................................................................................................................................................19
FIGURE2:Pen‐y‐Bryn,homeofIrwinN.Megargee,Gladwyne,PA,1892.....................19
FIGURE3:MinervaParkerNicholsdesignfortheNewCenturyClubofPhila............20
FIGURE4:Elevationandplanofthesecondfloor,NewCenturyClubofPhila...........20
FIGURE5:Reproductionof1892photographoftheNewCenturyClubofPhila........21
FIGURE6:Windowdetails,NewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia,1973.............................21
FIGURE7:ElevationrenderingofMinervaParkerNicholsdesignfortheQueen
IsabellaPavilion,1893...........................................................................................................................24
FIGURE8:MinervaParkerNicholsdesignfortheQueenIsabellaPavilion,1893.....24
FIGURE9:SophiaHaydendesignfortheWoman’sBuildingattheColumbian
Exposition,1893......................................................................................................................................25
FIGURE10:PlanfortheWoman’sBuildingoftheColumbianExposition,asdesigned
bySophiaHayden....................................................................................................................................25
FIGURE11:QueenIsabellaPavilion,asbuilt,indeviationfromMinervaParker
Nicholsdesign...........................................................................................................................................26
v
INTRODUCTION
Althoughherformalpracticelastedjusttenyearsandwasconcentratedin
thePhiladelphiaarea,architectMinervaParkerNichols(1861—1949)servesasa
focalpointforastudyofwomenandthebuiltenvironmentinlatenineteenth‐
centuryAmerica.Asthefirstwomaninthecountrytopracticearchitecture
independently,Nicholscarvedoutaprominentplaceinthemale‐dominatedfieldof
architecture—allwhilespecializing(asshedeemedit)inprojectsassociatedwith
femaleclientsanduses.ThesethemesinNichols’careermakeheranaptcasestudy
throughwhichtoexaminequestionsofsignificance,contestingourpresumptions
abouthowherworkcanbeappropriatelyframed,understood,andcommemorated.
Animated(ratherthandeterred)bytheambiguitiesandquestionsofhercareer,this
thesisisanassessmentoftheworksofMinervaParkerNicholsandthechallenges
thathercareerpresentsforpreservationandinterpretation.
MinervaParkerwasbornonMay14,1862,inPeoria,Illinois.1Afterher
father’sdeathintheCivilWar,hermothermovedthefamilytoPhiladelphiaand
1MinervaParkerNichols’principalpracticewasconductedunderthenameof“MinervaParker”until
hermarriagein1891,atwhichpointshecontinuedtopracticeandadvertiseuntil1896as“Minerva
1
openedaboardinghouseformedicalstudents.Followinginthefootstepsofher
maternalgrandfather,SethA.Doane,whodesignedbothhousesandprairie
schoonersforwesternsettlers,Ms.Parkerpursuedacareerinarchitecture.She
graduatedfromthePhiladelphiaNormalArtSchoolin1882,andalsotrainedatthe
FranklinInstituteDrawingSchoolbeforejoiningtheofficeofEdwinW.Thornein
1886.2ThisapprenticeshipinThorne’sofficeonSouthBroadStreetlastedonlytwo
years.In1888,ThornemovedhispracticetoArchStreet.Succeedinghiminhis
BroadStreetoffice,Parkerbecamethefirstwomaninthecountrytopractice
architectureindependently,withnomanattachedtoherfirm.3
Forthenextseveralyearsofformalpractice,thelifeandworkofMinerva
Parker(whomarriedandbecameMinervaParkerNicholsin1891)werefullof
seemingcontradictions,asshebothrepresentedandrejectedgendered
assumptionsaboutarchitecture.Thewomanwhopracticed(underherownfull
name)withoutamanwasthesamearchitectwhosecommissionswere
predominantlyresidentialworksandwomen’sclubs.Shearguedvociferouslyfor
thepresenceofwomeninthearchitectureprofession,andwasrecognizedbymany
contemporarytradepublicationsforherachievements—assertingaplaceinboth
branchesofthedivergentfieldofarchitecture.Magazineprofilescelebratedherasa
“ladyarchitect,”yetsheherselfresistedusinghersexasacrutch.Moststrikingly,
ParkerNichols.”Thenamescitedinhistoricdocumentswillvaryaccordingly,aswillthediscussion
ofhercareerpathinChapterOne.AllotherthesisdiscussionswillrefertoNicholsbyherfullmarried
nametoavoidconfusionwithlatersources.
2LouisStilesEdgerly,ed.Women’sWords,Women’sStories:AnAmericanDaybook(Gardiner,ME:
TilburyHouse,1994):188.
3SandraL.Tatman,“Nichols,MinervaParker(1863?—1949):Biography,”PhiladelphiaArchitects
andBuildings,accessedAugust1,2011,www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
2
shedesignedandsupervisedtheconstructionofover40commissionsineightyears,
thenretiredfromformalpracticejustfiveyearsaftershemarried.Herprojects,
therefore,resistsimpleclassificationasthoseofa“femalearchitect”—alabelthat
sheherselfcontested—andanyexaminationoffeminineinfluenceinherdesigns,or
attempttoconfineherworktoaseparate“sphere,”wouldoversimplifyhercareer
anddistorthersignificance.4
Perhapsbecauseofthesecomplexitiesandapparentincongruities,which
interruptanarrativeofheraccomplishmentsattheforefrontofwomen’s
contributionstoarchitecture,Nicholshasgarneredlittlescholarlyattention.Various
academicarticlesandbooksmentionherintheirsurveysofwomen’searlyworkin
thefield,butotherfemalearchitectssuchasLouiseBlanchardBethune(1856—
1913)andJuliaMorgan(1872—1957)usuallyreceivemorescrutiny.Bethune’sand
Morgan’scareerswerebothlongerandmoreprolificthanthatofMinervaParker
Nichols,andeachearnedsuperlativesinherownright.LouiseBlanchard(who
practicedwith,andeventuallymarried,RobertBethune)wasthefirstwoman
inductedintotheAmericanInstituteofArchitects,whileJuliaMorgan’sastonishing
numberofcommissions(over800)andherprojectsforprominentclientssuchas
WilliamRandolphHearsthavemeritedenduringrecognition.Forthesereasons,
BethuneandMorganhavebeentheprimaryfociofresearchintowomenandthe
4AndreaJ.Merrett,“FromSeparateSpherestoGenderedSpaces:TheHistoriographyofWomenand
Genderin19thCenturyandEarly20thCenturyAmerica,”TheProceedingsofSpacesof
History/HistoriesofSpace:EmergingApproachestotheStudyoftheBuiltEnvironment,Collegeof
EnvironmentalDesign,UCBerkeley(Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2010):3—4.
3
earlyprofessionalizingyearsofarchitecture,whileNicholshasoftenbeenrelegated
toabriefdiscussionorfootnote.
ThesamewasnottrueduringNichols’activecareer.MinervaParkerNichols
wasacelebratedfigurethroughouttheperiodofherformalpracticeinlate
nineteenth‐centuryAmerica,withfrequentrecognitioninbothtradecataloguesand
nationalpublications.Theopeningofherofficein1889washeraldedwithan
editorialannouncementinthePhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’Guide,
andshewasstillwellrespectedenoughatherdeathin1949towarrantaheadlined
obituaryinTheNewYorkTimes.Educatedthroughvarioustechnicalprogramsand
asanapprenticeintheofficeofE.W.Thorne,Nicholsconsistentlygarneredpraise
forherpracticalexperienceand,intheestimationofonepublication,her“energy
andpush.”5UntilhermovetoBrooklynwithherhusbandin1896,andher
subsequentretirementfromformalpractice,MinervaParkerNicholsseemstohave
earnedunusuallywholeheartedendorsementfromhercontemporaries—nearlyall
ofwhomweremale.InChapterOneofthisthesis,Iwillexaminethetrajectoryof
Nichols’careerandcommissions,andpossiblereasonsforherprofessionalsuccess
andacceptance.
Thesourcesofthatenthusiasticpraiseareevidenceofthelate‐nineteenth
century’sexpandingriftbetweenthearchitecturefield’sbuildingtradesandits
professionalizedassociations.AsIdiscussinChapterTwo,Nichols’careercoincided
withthelate‐nineteenthcentury’sideologicaldebatesbetweenthebuildingtrades
5PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’GuideIV,no.32(August14,1889):378.
4
andtheacademy‐trained“professional”architects.Thischapterconsidersthe
emerging(andshifting)definitionof“professional,”andthewaysthatNicholsand
otherwomenwere—orwerenot—consideredeligibleforthatlabel.Fromthat
studyofwomenas“professional”architects,IturninChapterThreetowardan
examinationoftheexpandingroleofwomenasarchitecturalclients,andhowthe
late‐nineteenthcentury’sburgeoningwomen’sclubsshapednewrolesand
networksofassociationforwomeninthebuiltenvironmentfields.
BuildingonthisanalysisofMinervaParkerNichols’careerandprofessional
context,IconsiderinChapterFourthepreservationchallengesthatNichols’career
presentstoday.EvenasthisthesisclaimsaplaceforMinervaParkerNicholsin
history,itchallengesthepresumptivelinkinpreservationpolicybetweenan
architect’ssignificanceasanindividualandthecommemorationofherbuiltlegacy.
Preservationplanningfortheinterpretationofthatbuiltlegacycannotbeginuntil
hersignificanceisclarified,andforthat,wemustexaminethecurrentpreservation
categoriesfordefiningthatsignificance—andthewaysinwhichMinervaParker
Nicholsdoes,ordoesnot,adheretothosenorms.Thischapterquestionsour
definitionsof“significance”andtheeffectthatthosedefinitionshaveonour
preservation,interpretation,andcommemorationofcomplicatedhistories.Using
Nichols’careerasafocalpoint,thischapteridentifiesourcurrentlimitationsin
framingunconventionalnarratives,anditexploresanexpandedunderstandingof
theassignmentofsignificance.
5
WhilethisthesisseekstocalltolightandclarifythesignificanceofMinerva
ParkerNichols’career,itisonlythefirststeptowardafullinventoryand
preservationplanforhersurvivingwork.Thearchivalresearchcontainedin
ChaptersOnetoThreeshouldservetoinformsubsequentdocumentationefforts,
whilethediscussioninChapterFourandtheConclusionmayhelptoshapethe
directionofsuchcommemorativeefforts.Apreliminaryinventoryofherwork,
basedonherpublishednoticesofcommissions“ontheboards,”isincludedinthe
appendixtosupportanyfutureresearchanddocumentation.
Althoughitlastedonlyafewyears,MinervaParkerNichols’tenureasthe
firstfemalearchitecttopracticeindependentlyintroducesthesecomplexquestions
abouttherecordofAmericanarchitecturalhistoryandtheframeworksthat
interpretthathistory.Withastatedspecializationinresidentialcommissions,
Nichols’careerbothreinforcedandrebuffedthenineteenth‐centurylinkbetween
womenanddomesticity,andthenotionofwomenasthearbitersoftaste.Giventhe
complexitiesofherarchitecturaltraining,professionalacceptance,clientele,and
networksofassociation,herworkresistssimplecategorization.Thecareerand
worksofMinervaParkerNicholsthereforeserveasafoundationforanassessment
ofthedefinitionanddesignationofsignificance.
6
CHAPTERONE│MINERVAPARKERNICHOLS
Inherstoriestohergrandchildrenlateinlife,MinervaParkerNicholstraced
herlife’sthemesofindependentwomenandarchitecturebacktoherchildhood
rootsinPeoriaCounty,Illinois.There,asthedaughterofaCivilWarwidow,she
grewupsurroundedbyself‐supportingwomen,includinghermotherandheraunts.
Theexperiencepermeatedhermemoriesofherchildhood,andindeed,shapedher
architecturaleducation,apprenticeship,andself‐employmentinPhiladelphia.As
wasevidentlaterinheruncommonclientbaseoffinancially‐independentwomen,
MinervaParkerNichols’childhoodexperienceandfamilystructureexertedastrong
influenceonherformalpractice,professionallife,andlegacy.
BorninPeoriaCountyin1862,Minervawastheyoungerdaughterof
AmandaandJohnParker,aschoolteacher.WiththeCivilWarseethinginotherparts
ofthecountry,herfatherenlistedintheUnionarmythreemonthsafterMinerva
wasborn,laterdyingofdysenterywhen“Minnie”wasjustfourteenmonthsold.
Whenhediedin1863,Amandajoinedtheranksofthewar’swidowswho,having
takenonworktosupplementtheirhusbands’soldier’spay,nowfacedafutureof
7
fendingfortheirhouseholds.6ThisunconventionalParkerfamilystructure—
althoughitwasincreasinglycommonintheyearsafterthewar—hadaformative
influenceonMinerva,evenasshereflectedinherlaterstoriesabouthowmuchher
mothershieldedherfromtheimpactoftheirfinancialsituation.Inhertalestoher
grandchildrenin1944,Nicholsobserved:“Themarvelwasthat[mymotherand
AuntSadie],overworked,unhappy,withoutmodernmethodstocharttheirwayin
childcare,succeededinprovidinglonghappydaysfortheirfatherlesschildren.”7
Indeed,thoughMinervaandhercousinsmaynothavenoticedtheirfathers’absence
astheyplayed,Amanda’swidowhooddefinedMinerva’supbringing—shereferstoit
frequentlyinhermemoirs—andputherinclosecontactwithhergrandfather,the
architectSethA.Doane.
Doane,whoisdescribedinsomebiographiesasoneofthefoundersof
Chicago,wasaconstantandsignificantpresenceinMinerva’schildhood.Herown
stories,aswellasthevariousnewspaperprofilespublishedduringheractivecareer,
mentionthearchitecturaltrainingofhergrandfather(aswellashermother)asthey
tracedherinterestandprogressioninthefield.SethDoanelivedinNewEngland
beforemovingwest,andwasajack‐of‐all‐tradesintheearlyyearsofChicagoand
PeoriaCounty.Hedesignedbothbuildingsandprairieschooners,forthosesettling
6MinervaParkerNichols,FrancesD.Nichols,andDoaneFischer,“TheBaddestDay”andotherfavorite
stories:astoldinGa‐Ga’sownwordsabout1944andrecordedinshorthandbyFrancesD.Nicholswho
didtheillustrations(Westport,CT:D.Fischer,1997):Addendum,1.
7Ibid.,15.
8
inthecountyandforthosemovingfartherwest,andhisworkshopandfarmabutted
thehousewhereParkerlivedwithhermotherandsisterAdelaide.8
Havingneverknownherfather,Parkerspentmuchofhertimeonher
grandparents’farmandinhergrandfather’scompany.Inadditiontohisexplosive
swearingthatsheclaimedhepassedontoher,Minervaevidentlyinheritedsome
measureofhisspatialawarenessandinterestinthebuiltenvironment.9Her
recollectionsareriddledwithdetaileddescriptionsofhervarioushousesinIllinois,
includinganexhaustivementaltourofherGrandfather’shouseandanaccountof
thekitcheninNormal,Illinois,thatwas“sostream‐linedthatitwasaforerunnerof
themodernkitchen.”10(Thisdescriptioninparticular,whichwasrecordedin1944,
hasechoesofthepopularprinciplesofdomesticefficiencyoutlinedinCatharine
Beecher’sTheAmericanWoman’sHome,whichwaspublishedin1869.Thekitchen
andhousethatNicholsmentionshavenodefineddateofconstruction,butthe
family’smovetoNormal,Illinois,tookplacearound1867.)Forhispart,Minerva’s
grandfatherfrequentlyputhertoworkbuildingcorncobhousesandgivingher
drawinglessons—skillshealsoinstilledinhermotherAmanda,whodesignedthe
plansforoneoftheirlaterhouses.11
AfteraseriesofmoveswithinandnearPeoriaCounty,theParkerfamily
movedtoChicago,andAmandamarriedDr.SamuelMaxwellin1875.12Ayearlater,
luredbytheCentennialExhibition,MinervaandherfamilymovedtoPhiladelphia,
8AdelaideNicholsBakerPapers,SchlesingerLibrary,RadcliffeCollege.
9Nichols,NicholsandFischer,“TheBaddestDay,”7.
10Ibid.,28.
11Ibid.,27.
12Ibid.,Addendum1.
9
wheretheylivedat1612GreenStreet.WhenDr.Maxwelldiedin1877and
Minerva’shalf‐brotherSamuelwasbornsoonafter,hermotheropenedaboarding
houseformedicalstudentsinordertoprovideonceagainforherfamily.13
Thelate‐nineteenthcenturyofferedparticularlyfertileopportunitiesfora
youngwomanlikeMinervawithaninterestinarchitecturaleducation.Bothformal
architecturalprogramsandemergingschoolsofdesignbegantoadmitwomen,
includingthefirstuniversitydepartmentsattheMassachusettsInstituteof
Technology(MIT)andCornellUniversity.Thesearchitectureprograms,established
in1865and1871respectively,werebasedatland‐grantinstitutions,andwere
thereforerequiredtoadmitwomen(althoughMITdidnotadmitthemuntil1885).14
Itwasnotuntil1879,however,thatMaryL.Pagebecamethefirstwomanto
graduatefromanAmericanarchitectureprogram,whenshereceivedherdegree
fromtheUniversityofIllinois.15By1891,twelvewomenhadearneddegreesfrom
Americanarchitecturalschools.16Theyremainedasmallpercentageoftheoverall
studentpopulationinthesedepartments,buttheincreasingnumberofspecialized
educationalopportunitiesforwomenneverthelesssignaledanexpandingrolefor
womeninthearchitecturalfield.
Predatingtheseformalcurriculaatuniversities,andwithmoreemphasison
afemalestudentbase,weretheera’semergingschoolsofdesignthattrainedmen
13Ibid.
14SarahAllaback,TheFirstAmericanWomenArchitects(Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinois,2008):24.
15“ThatExceptionalOne”:WomeninAmericanArchitecture,1888—1988(Washington,DC:American
ArchitecturalFoundation,1988):13.
Allaback,FirstAmericanWomenArchitects,24.
16MaryN.Woods,FromCrafttoProfession:thePracticeofArchitectureinNineteenth‐CenturyAmerica
(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999):76.
10
andagrowingnumberofwomeninthevisual,industrial,andarchitecturalarts.
Withcoursesinsubjectssuchasmechanicaldrawing,lithography,andengraving,
thesedesigncurriculawerecloselyrelatedtothecontemporary,fledglingprograms
thatschooledwomenindomesticarts.Unlikethoseproto‐homeeconomicscourses,
however,theseschoolsofdesignofferedwomenasocially‐sanctionededucation
andskillsoutsideofthehome.Theirareasofemphasishadanaturalproximityto
trade,earningmanysinglewomen—likeMinervaParker—ameasureof
independentemployment.
Indeed,asanundatedreportinthearchivesoftheFranklinInstitutemakes
clear,thesemarketableskillswereseenascrucialforstudentssuchasMinervawho
neededtohelpsupporttheirfamilies:
[Thisschool]isdirectedtothewelfareofaclasswhoareparticularly
deservingofattentionfromthelimitedmeansofemploymentwhichareat
presentintheirpower,andtheveryinsufficientremunerationwhichsuch
employmentnowaffordsthem.Weneedhardlyrecalltoyourmemoryhow
oftenthedisasterswhichfromtimetotimearise…fromthepeculiarsituation
ofourcountry,overwhelmmanyfamilieswhohavebeenbroughtupinthe
enjoymentoftheluxuriesoflife,withabsolutepoverty,orhowfrequently
thedeathoftheheadofafamily…leave[s]awidowandchildrenwithno
meansofsupport.17
TheCivilWarwasonlyadecadepast,andAmericansociety—alongwiththese
schoolsofdesign—facedanewsocialrealityofwomenwho,astheheadsof
households,neededtheappropriate,adequatetrainingtoprovidefortheirfamilies.
Farfromjustacharitableinvestmentinwidows’families,however,the
schoolofdesignmovementwasalsoanoutgrowthofthesocialsensibilitythat
17GraemeF.Chalmers,WomenintheNineteenth‐CenturyArtWorld:SchoolsofArtandDesignfor
WomeninLondonandPhiladelphia(Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress,1998):75.
11
womenwerethearbitersoftaste.Thepopularassumptionwasthatifwomencould
learntoproperlyhonethatinherentartistictaste,theycouldthenshapeanational
aesthetic,bothwithinandbeyondthehome.18Thephilosophywasreflectedinthe
PhiladelphiaSchoolofDesign’sown1875/6prospectus,whichstated:“Wemaintain
thatthepracticeoftheArtsofDesignisonepeculiarlyadaptedtothefemalemind
andhand,”andthat“inthelivelycompetitionofskilledlaborwhichisnow
observable…amongrivalnations,itisobviousthatthecommunitywhichpresents
objectsofutilitythemostgracefulinform…willbethemostsuccessful.”19The
educationofwomenintheartswasthereforeanissueofnationalconsequenceand
benefit,andschoolsofdesignemergedinthemid‐nineteenthcenturytofulfillthat
nationalimperative.
Philadelphiawasespeciallyrifewiththesenascentinstitutions,includingthe
PhiladelphiaNormalArtSchool,theFranklinInstitute(whichlatersupportedthe
foundingoftheSchoolofDesignforWomen),andthePennsylvaniaMuseumand
SchoolofIndustrialArts—allofwhichMinervaattended.Theseschoolsoffered
coursesandlecturesinarchitecture,aswellasateacher’scertificateprogramin
drawingatthePhiladelphiaNormalArtSchoolinwhichMinervaenrolledattheage
of17.20Shecontinuedtolivewithhermotherintheirboardinghouse,listingher
occupationinthe1880FederalCensusas“governess”whileshecompletedher
18SarahAllaback,“’BetterthanSilverandGold’:DesignSchoolsforWomeninAmerica,1848—1860,”
JournalofWomen’sHistory(Spring1998):95.
19Chalmers,Nineteenth‐CenturyArtWorld,91n.
20Nichols,NicholsandFischer,“TheBaddestDay,”Addendum1.
12
certificate.21Aftergraduatingin1882,sheenrolledtwoyearslaterintheFranklin
Institute’stwo‐yearcourseinarchitecturaldrawing—aprogramthatwasitself
startedbyawoman,SarahWorthingtonKingPeter,whosawtheneedforwomento
besuitablytrainedundertheauspicesofarespectableinstitution.22
Ms.ParkerwasnottheonlywomanwhostudiedattheFranklinInstitute;the
school’srosterincludedwomen’snamesbeginninginthemid‐1870s.23Shedid,
however,earnanhonorablementionin1885,andspecialdistinctionuponher
graduationin1886forher“commendableZealandability.”24Soonafterher
graduation,shelandedintheofficeofaPhiladelphiaarchitect,workingasan
architecturaldrafterforvariousprojectswhilepursuinganothercertificatefromthe
PennsylvaniaMuseumandSchoolofIndustrialArtsfrom1888to1889.25
Minerva’smentorwaslikelyarchitectEdwinW.Thorne,ratherthanthe
frequentlycitedarchitectFrederickG.Thorn(orhisson,FrederickG.Thorn,Jr.,who
alsopracticedinthecity).BothEdwinThorneandFrederickThornwereinactive
practiceasMinervabeganhercareerin1886,buttheirspecialtieswerequite
different.FrederickG.ThornworkedasapartnerinWilsonBrothers&Company,
withabackgroundinengineeringandextensiveexperiencewithvariousrailroad
21UnitedStatesofAmerica,BureauoftheCensus,TenthCensusoftheUnitedStates,1880
(Washington,DC:NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,1880),www.ancestry.com.
22Allaback,“SilverandGold,”90.
23SandraL.TatmanandRogerW.Moss,BiographicalDictionaryofPhiladelphiaArchitects:1700—
1930(Boston:G.K.Hall,1985):573.
24JeffreyA.Cohen,“BuildingaDiscipline:EarlyInstitutionalSettingsforArchitecturalEducationin
Philadelphia,1804‐1890,”inJournaloftheSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians53,no.2(Jun.1994):
157.
AsquotedinKathleenSinclairWood,MinervaParkerNichols:PioneerAmericanWomanArchitect
(Newark,DE:UniversityofDelaware:1992):38n.
25Nichols,NicholsandFischer,“TheBaddestDay,”Addendum1.
13
companies.26(FrederickG.Thorn,Jr.,alsoacivilengineer,workedinvariousoffices
aroundthecity,includingthatofhisfatherin1895.)27EdwinThorne,meanwhile,
wasassociatedwithresidentialprojects,manyofwhichwereinthesuburbsof
Philadelphia—consistentwithMinerva’slaterfocusondomesticarchitectureand
hercommissionsintheMainLinesuburbsofthecity.28
Inadditiontothesedivergentareasofexpertise,historianKathleenSinclair
WoodnotesthatforthethreeyearspriortoMinervaParker’sfirstindependent
listing(in1890)inthePhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’Guide(PRERBG),
ParkerandNicholsusedthesameaddressinGopsill’sPhiladelphiaCityDirectory.
Otherofficeswerealsolistedatthisaddressat14SouthBroadStreet,sothe
connectionmighthavebeenacoincidence,butthatseemsunlikelywhenconsidered
withotherevidencefromcontemporarypublications.InDecember1887,both
ParkerandThornepublishedlettersinthePRERBGarguingthatanarchitect’sname
shouldbeincludedwiththepublishedmentionofanyproject.AsWoodobserves,
theletterswereprintedsidebyside,andwereconsistentincontentandsyntax.29It
seemsclear,therefore,thatinspiteofthesourcesthatnameFrederickG.Thornas
Parker’smentor,itwasinfactEdwinW.Thorne.
Minerva’senrollmentin1888inthePennsylvaniaMuseumandSchoolof
IndustrialArtscoincidedwithEdwinThorne’sdecisiontomovehisofficeto1305
26SandraL.Tatman,“Thorn,FrederickGodfrey(fl.1857—1911):Biography,”PhiladelphiaArchitects
andBuildings,accessedJanuary27,2012,www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
27―――,“Thorn,FrederickGodfrey,Jr.:Biography,”PhiladelphiaArchitectsandBuildings,accessed
January27,2012,www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
28―――,“Thorne,EdwinW.(fl.1885—1898):Biography,”PhiladelphiaArchitectsandBuildings,
accessedJanuary27,2012,www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
29Wood,PioneerAmericanWomanArchitect,39nand8.
14
ArchStreet.Decidingtotakeoverhisofficeat14SouthBroadStreetratherthan
followhimtothenewlocation,MinervaParkerbecamethefirstwomaninthe
countrytopracticearchitectureindependently.30Shewasnotthefirsttoopenan
architecturalpractice;thatsuperlativeisgenerallyaccordedtoLouiseBlanchard,
whoopenedherfirminBuffaloin1881,inpartnershipwithRobertBethune.(She
was25atthetime.)BlanchardmarriedBethunethreemonthslater,practicingfor
nearlyallofhercareerasLouiseBlanchardBethune,andin1888(thesameyear
Parkerstartedherfirm),shewasadmittedtotheAmericanInstituteofArchitectsas
theirfirstfemalefellow.InadditiontoParkerandBethune—bothofwhomreceived
theirtrainingthroughtechnicalprogramsandschoolsofdesign—eightother
womengraduatedfromuniversityarchitectureprogramsbetween1878and
1894.31
Nevertheless,femalepractitionerswerestillrareenoughthatMinerva
Parker’snewofficegarneredsignificantpressinthebuildingcommunity.In
Philadelphia,whereParkerwasnotonlythefirstwomantopracticeindependently
butthefirstwomantopracticeatall,severaltradepublicationsnotedherarrival
aroundthetimeofherfirstlistinginGopsill’sCityDirectory.Aneditorialinthe
August14,1889,editionofthePRERBGannouncedthat“Itiswithpleasurethatwe
notetheadventofanotherentranceintotheprofessionofarchitecture,andthe
pleasureisdeepenedbythefactthatitisawoman,andtheonlyoneinthiscitywho
30―――,“Nichols,MinervaParker,”AmericanNationalBiographyOnlineFeb.2000,accessed
December14,2011,www.anb.org/articles/17/17‐01149.html.
31JeanneMadelineWeimann,TheFairWomen(Chicago:AcademyChicago,1981):145.
15
haschoosen[sic]thisusefuloccupation.”Thereceptionwasstrikinglysupportive—
wishingher“anabundanceofwork”—andcitedhersexnotasaconstraintbutasa
usefulbludgeonagainst“thetotteringbarrier—thedivinerightofmanonly,toenter
intotheactivedutiesofabusinesscareer.”32AsthePRERBGmakesclearinthisand
subsequentprofilesofParker,shehadthefullbreadthofnecessarycredentialsfor
thejob,includingbothformaleducationandapprenticeshipexperience.33
Parkerreceivedaccoladesfromother,moregeographically‐dispersed
publicationsaswell—someofwhichwereprintedjustaftersheopenedher
practice.In1890,thesameyearshefirstadvertisedintheCityDirectory,theChicago
Tribunehighlightedthefield’snewentrant,evenclaimingherasanativedaughter:
“MissParkerwasborninChicago,butshehasbeeneducatedinPhiladelphia….Miss
ParkeristheonlyladyarchitectinPhiladelphia,andthereisonlyoneother
practicingintheUnitedStates,Mrs.LouisaBethuneofRochester,NY.”34Thatsame
year,andevenfartherawayfromParker’scenterofwork,theCaliforniaArchitect
andBuildingNewscalledher“theonlywomaninAmericaactuallypracticingthe
professionofArchitecture.”35(California’stradecataloguesevidentlydidnotknow
ofLouiseBlanchardBethune’spractice.)Writtenatthewesternfringesofthe
country,thesepublicationswereassociatedwiththeprofessionalizedstrainsofthe
architecturefieldbutwereremovedenoughfromtheEastCoast’sarchitectural
32PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecord(August14,1889):378.
33ElizabethG.GrossmanandLisaB.Reitzes,“CaughtintheCrossfire:WomenandArchitectural
Education,1880—1910,”inArchitecture:APlaceforWomen,ed.EllenPerryBerkeley(Washington,
DC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress,1989):34.
34“VisitedtheProposedSites,”ChicagoDailyTribune,August29,1890.ProQuestHistorical
Newspapers:ChicagoTribune.
35“NotesandComments,”TheCaliforniaArchitectandBuildingNews11,no.6(June20,1890):66.
16
academiesandassociationstobefascinatedbytheintroductionofa“ladyarchitect.”
Whetheritwasduetoherprofessionalmeritorthenoveltyofhercareer,therefore
MinervaParker’ssexandpracticegarnerednationalcoveragefromthemomentshe
firstadvertisedhernewfirm.
FromthestartofParker’scareer,thesenewspaperarticlesandprofilesnoted
herstatedspecializationindomesticarchitecture—her“particularforte,”asthe
ChicagoTribunedescribedit.Thislineofworkofferedanaturalcontinuationofher
projectsinThorne’soffice,whereasTheCaliforniaArchitectandBuildingNews
wrote,shehadalready“satisfactorilydesignedandexecutedanumberofresidences
anddwellings.”36Indeed,hersuccessinThorne’sofficeapparentlytranslatedto
littletroublesecuringclientsuponopeninghernewoffice;thePRERBGnotedin
Marchof1890that,“ItwasneitherMissParker’swishnorintentiontoassumethe
titleofarchitectforsometimetocome,butarapidlyincreasingnumberofclients
madeitanecessity.”37Indeed,withinthefirsttwoyearsofherfirm’sexistence,
ParkerhadelevennoticespublishedinthePRERBGofprojectsontheboardsinher
office—nearlyallofwhichwereresidentialcommissions.38
DomesticarchitectureprovedtobeParker’sspecialtythroughouthercareer,
withmanyofherprojectsconcentratedalongPennsylvaniaRailroad’sMainLinein
thedevelopingsuburbsofPhiladelphia.Withcommissionsstretchingfrom
OverbrooktoElmStation(knownasNarberthtoday)toRadnor,Parkerwas
36“NotesandComments,”66.
37PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’Guide5,no.12(March26,1890):i.
38SandraL.Tatman,“Nichols,MinervaParker(1863?—1949):Projects,”PhiladelphiaArchitectsand
Buildings,accessedDecember14,2012,www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
17
involvedinseveralprojectsforthe“MainLine’s”emergingconcentrationof
suburbanmiddle‐andupper‐classresidents,aswellasforlarge‐scalespeculative
developers.39Herworkwiththelatteralsoincludedseveralhousesnear49thand
MarketStreetsinthecity,aswellasasecondcollectionofdevelopmenthousesfor
theOverbrookLandCompany,builtin1891near61stStreetandColumbiaAvenue.40
Fortheseresidentialcommissions,Parkerwasknownforherdesignsthat
employedarangeofarchitecturalstyles—inkeepingwiththenineteenth‐century
beliefthatthedesignofahouseshouldreflecttheindividualityoftheowner.Even
morethantheprinciplesofCatharineBeecher,then,MinervaParkeradvocatedthe
designidealsofcontemporariessuchasA.J.Downing,believingthattheexteriorof
thehouseshouldresonatewiththeclient(maleorfemale)asmuchastheinterior.
Inan1893editorialthatshepennedforthefrontpageofHousekeeper’sWeekly,she
wrotethat“thechiefcharmofanyhouseisitsindividuality.Therearemanythings
whichhousesorpeoplepossessincommon;butthethingwhichcharmsusisthe
thingpeculiartoacertainhouseoracertainperson.”41Herprojectsaccordingly
exhibitedthefullspectrumofstylesthatwerecharacteristicoflate‐nineteenth
centuryarchitectureinPhiladelphia,includingColonialRevivalfortheMissesM.
andJ.Campbell,QueenAnneforIrwinMegargee,andeclecticRomanesqueforthe
NewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia.
39Wood,PioneerAmericanWomanArchitect,10.
40Tatman,“Nichols,MinervaParker:Projects.”
41MinervaParkerNichols,“AnUncultivatedField,”Housekeeper’sWeekly,June10,1893,1.
18
FIGURE1 Pairofdwelling
housesforMissM.
andJ.Campbell,
Germantown
(Phila.),c.1891
Source:Architectural
ArchivesoftheUniversity
ofPennsylvania
FIGURE2
Pen‐y‐Bryn,homeofIrwinN.Megargee,Gladwyne,PA,1892
Source:LowerMerionHistoricalSociety
19
FIGURE3
MinervaParkerNicholsdesignfortheNew
CenturyClubofPhiladelphia
Source:“TheBaddestDay”andOtherStories
FIGURE4
Elevationandplanofthesecondfloor,
NewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia
Source:WomeninAmericanArchitecture
20
FIGURE5
Reproductionofan
1892photographofthe
NewCenturyClubof
Philadelphia
Source:HistoricAmerican
BuildingsSurvey
FIGURE6
Windowdetails,NewCentury
ClubofPhiladelphia,1973
Source:HistoricAmerican
BuildingsSurvey
21
Parker’sarticleinHousekeeper’sWeeklywasnoteworthynotjustforits
perspectiveonresidentialdesign,butalsoforitsinsightintoherclientbase.
Throughoutthearticle,Parkeroffersinstructionstoarchitecturalclients—with
universaluseofthepronouns“she”and“her.”Thisobviouslyisinpartattributable
tothepublicationforwhichsheiswriting(onethattargetsthewomenofthe
house),butthefactthatshewoulddirectlyaddresssuchanaudienceatallindicates
theunconventionaldemographicsofParker’sclientele.Wherecontemporarymale
architectsdesignedmostlycommercialandinstitutionalbuildings,andworked
primarilywiththoselarge‐scaleprojects’maleclients,Parkerfocusedonresidential
commissions—aspecialtythatskewedherclientbasepredominantlyfemale.This
wasnottypicalinlatenineteenth‐centuryAmericansociety,wherethemale‐
dominatedfieldofarchitecturehabituallydiscountedtheideasoffemaleclients.
ThisincludedcontemporaryarchitectJohnRoot(ofthefirmBurnhamandRoot),
whoonceofferedatoastatabanquetthatmocked“Madame,”withher“littleplan
onscentednotepapershehadstudiedathome.”Incontrast,Rootusedthatsame
speechtoapplaudtheopinionsofhismaleclients,welcomingthemwiththe
acknowledgementthatthearchitect’s“technicalandprofessionalpointofviewin
artisnotalwaysthetruest.”42ForMinervaParker,therefore,towritetoafemale
audienceandtopraiseindividualityasahome’sandawoman’s“chiefcharm”was
anunmistakableresponsetotheentrenchedmasculineattitudestowardsfemale
clients.Hereditorial,anditsintendedaudience,alsosignifiesthatwomenclients
42Woods,FromCrafttoProfession,163—4.
22
werenownumerousenoughtowarrantgender‐specificmarketingfromthe
architect.
Parker’sfemaleclientswerenotjustthoseindividualsassociatedwithher
residentialcommissions.Inaneraofemergingwomen’sclubsandbenevolence
associations,someofherhighest‐profileprojectswereherdesignsfortheNew
CenturyClubsofPhiladelphiaandWilmington,andfortheQueenIsabella
Association.HerbuildingfortheNewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia,builtin1891at
12thandSansomStreets,wasoneoftheearliestNewCenturyheadquartersinthe
country—andthefirstdesignedbyawoman.43Sheoversawitsconstruction(asshe
usuallydid),and—astheNewYorkTimesnotedintheannouncementofher
marriage—shesuperviseditscompletiononDecember23,1891,thedayafterher
weddingtotheReverendWilliamIchabodNichols.44HerplansforthePompeiian
brickandterracottabuildinggarneredhermuchpressandpraiseforits“striking,
yetdelicate,homelike,andveryharmonious”design.45Italsoearnedherthe
subsequentcommissionsfortheNewCenturyClubbuildinginWilmingtonandfor
theQueenIsabellaAssociation’spavilionfortheWorld’sColumbianExpositionin
Chicagoin1893.
Inthecaseofthelatter,theQueenIsabellaAssociationplanneditspavilionas
acomplementtotheWoman’sBuildingattheExposition.Bothprojectswouldbe
43MaryC.Francis,“TheGeneralFederationofWomen’sClubs,”Godey’sMagazine,December1895,
575.AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
44“AmongPhiladelphians,”TheNewYorkTimes,December27,1891,12.ProQuestHistorical
Newspapers:TheNewYorkTimes.
45Mrs.J.C.Croly,TheHistoryoftheWomen’sClubMovementinAmerica(NewYork:HenryG.Allen&
Co.,1898):1025.
23
FIGURE7
ElevationrenderingofMinervaParkerNicholsdesignfortheQueenIsabellaPavilion,1893
Source:“TheBaddestDay”andOtherStories
FIGURE8
MinervaParkerNicholsdesignfortheQueenIsabellaPavilion,1893
Source:TheFairWomen
24
FIGURE9
SophiaHaydendesignfortheWoman’sBuildingattheColumbianExposition,1893
Source:TheFairWomen
FIGURE10
PlanfortheWoman’sBuilding
oftheColumbianExposition,
asdesignedbySophiaHayden
Source:TheFairWomen
25
FIGURE11
QueenIsabellaPavilion,asbuilt,indeviationfromMinervaParkerNicholsdesign
Source:TheFairWomen
26
overseenbyaBoardofLadyManagerswhosehopewasthat,byorganizingaround
self‐determinedgoalsandprojects,womenwouldgainasenseofsolidarityand
purposeforsubsequentcampaignsforsuffrageandsocialissues.46Unfortunately,in
thetwoyearsofplanningleadinguptotheExposition,theQueenIsabella
AssociationandtheBoardofLadyManagersendedupsowingmoreunrestthan
unityamongtheirconstituents.
TheQueenIsabellaAssociation,asitsnamesuggests,sawtheWorld’s
ColumbianExpositionasanopportunitytocommemorateQueenIsabellawho,
alongwithherhusbandKingFerdinand,dispatchedChristopherColumbusonhis
1492voyage,whichwasthebasisforthe1893fair(originallyplannedfor1892).In
thelead‐uptothefair,aMrs.C.W.Waiteraisedthequestionatawomen’smeeting:
“WhyshouldColumbusonlybehonoredwhenQueenIsabellawastheonethat
madethediscoveryoftheNewWorldpossible?”47Tomarkhercontributionsto
America’sfounding,therefore,thecongregatedwomenestablishedtheAssociation,
anditsmemberssetaboutraisingfundsforapavilionandastatueinherhonor.
The“Isabellas”(astheycalledthemselves)hiredMinervaParker,evidently
bychoiceandnotbycompetition,whenParkerwasjust20.48Recommendingthat
thepavilionshouldincorporatecharacteristic“Moorishmotifs”(asshecalledthem)
toreflectIsabella’snativecountry,MinervaParkerNichols(nowmarried)sentto
46Weimann,TheFairWomen,61.
47AdelaideNicholsBakerPapers,2.
48“VisitedtheProposedSites.”
27
SpainforplansoftheAlhambrapalaceasinspiration.49Thefinaldesign—which
includedapartmentsforwomenandchildren,aswellas“medical,pressandlegal
departments”—wasatestamentnotonlytotheorganizingpowerofthewomen
whofundedit,buttothesocialindependenceofthewomenwhowouldtraveland
staythere.
Thedesign’spromisingintentionswerelost,however,inthedisputes
betweentheQueenIsabellaAssociationandtheBoardofLadyManagers.Ina
gambitofpoliticsamongtheassociations,theBoardofLadyManagers,ledby
BerthaPalmer,outmaneuveredtheIsabellasandconvincedtheExposition’smale‐
governedCommitteeonGroundsandBuildingstooutlawanyprivateclubhouseson
thefairgrounds.50BecausetheAssociation’spavilionwasunderwrittenby
individualdonations,unliketheExposition‐fundedWoman’sBuilding,theQueen
IsabellaAssociationabandoneditsintendedsite,aswellasMinervaParkerNichols’
proposedscheme.Whentheylaterbuiltasmallerpavilionjustoutsidethe
Exposition’sgates,theyusedamorereservedplanthanNichols’Moorishdesign.51
TheWoman’sBuildingcommission,meanwhile,wasawardedbycompetition
totheyoungSophiaHayden,arecentgraduateofthearchitectureprogramatthe
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.Thirteenotherwomen(ofvariouslevelsof
architecturaltraining)enteredthecompetition,includingLoisHowe,whowon
secondprize,andLauraHayes,whowonthirdprizedespite(orperhapsbecauseof)
49AdelaideNicholsBakerPapers,4—5.
50Weimann,TheFairWomen,66.
51Ibid.,67.
28
herjobasBerthaPalmer’sprivatesecretary.LouiseBlanchardBethunedidnot
participateinthecompetition,whichwasonlyopentowomenarchitects,because
bothsheandtheAmericanInstituteofArchitects(ofwhichshewasamember)
objectedtocompetitionsonprinciple.Shealsoprotestedthe$1,000prizemoney,
arguingthatitwasapaltrycomparisonwiththefair’s$10,000commissionsforits
malearchitectsandfirms.52
Onlyayearoutofuniversityandwillingtoacceptthemodesthonorarium,
HaydensubmittedherentryfromherhomeinJamaicaPlain,Massachusetts,where
shewasteachingartinahighschoolbecauseshecouldnotfindapositioninan
architect’soffice.53Forthenextyear,HaydentraveledbackandforthtoChicagoto
overseetheproject,althoughshehadlittleexperienceinsupervisingthe
constructionorexecutionofherplans.Overthecourseoftheproject,her
inexperiencewasevident,andherinteractionswithBerthaPalmerandtheBoardof
LadyManagersprovedoverwhelming.Inthesummerof1892,shesuffereda
nervousbreakdown.54
Hayden’scollapsewaspublicizedasanattackof“melancholia,”andasshe
traveledhometorecover,thepressquicklyseizedonitasapretextforexcluding
womenfromthearchitecturalprofession.TheAmericanArchitectandBuildingNews
wasparticularlycritical,questioning“howsuccessfullywomanwithherphysical
52Ibid.,147—9.
53Ibid.,145.
CynthiaZaitzevsky,LongIslandLandscapesandtheWomenWhoDesignedThem(NewYork:Society
forthePreservationofLongIslandAntiquities;W.W.Norton,2009):257.
54Weimann,TheFairWomen,177.
29
limitationcanenterandengageintheworkofaprofessionwhichisaverywearing
one.”Thearticlewentontolament:
Ifthebuildingofwhichthewomenseemsoproud…istomeanthephysical
ruinofitsarchitect,itwillbeamuchmoretellingargumentagainstthe
wisdomofwomenenteringthisespecialprofessionthananythingelsecould
be.55
Thecoverageof“MissHayden”and“the‘LadyManagers’”smackedofthesame
patronizingtonethatpermeatedRoot’scommentsaboutwomenclients.Evenasthe
AmericanArchitectandBuildingNewsbemoanedthat“MissHaydenhasbeen
victimized,”itscommentaryseemedtorelishtheconflictbetweenherand“her
fellow‐women.”56
Itwasanother“fellowwoman”whocametoSophiaHayden’sdefense,as
MinervaParkerNicholssubmitted“AWomanontheWoman’sBuilding”tothat
samenewspaperinAABN’sDecember10,1892issue.Despitethepolitical
maneuversthathadcostNicholsherownpaviliondesignatthefair,shewasfirmin
herrebukeoftheAABN’scriticismofwomenandtheExposition:
Commentonthesuccess“orlackofsuccess”oftheWoman’sBuilding
designedbyMissHaydenisunfairtoherandtothegeneralarchitectural
profession.Theconditionsofthecompetitionandtheselectionofadesign
madeitimpossibletosecuresatisfactoryresults.Whatotherbuilding,
whethergivenbyappointmentorbycompetition,couldhavefallenintothe
handsofanarchitecturalstudentwithoutexperienceorpractice?57
This,toNichols,wastherealcauseforSophiaHayden’sbreakdown:Hayden’s
inexperienceandlackofpracticewiththedemandsofrealclients—nothersex.
55“Chicago:TheArchitectoftheWoman’sBuilding,”AmericanArchitectandBuildingNews38,no.
883(November26,1892):134.
56“Tooursubscribers,”AmericanArchitectandBuildingNews38,no.885(December10,1892):158.
57MinervaParkerNichols,“AWomanontheWoman’sBuilding,”AmericanArchitectandBuilding
News38,no.885(December10,1892):170.
30
NicholsdidnotnecessarilyfaultHaydenfortheseshortcomingsintraining,since
shewroteextensivelyontheweaknessesofthearchitecturalfield’seducation
system,butshedidcarefullyseparatethefateofHaydenfromtheprospectsof
womenpractitionersingeneral:
Itisnotfair,becauseonewomanmakesadoubtfulsuccess,todraw
conclusionsfromherexample.Itistimetoputasideprejudiceand
sentimentalism,andjudgewomen’sworkbytheirability…Wedonotneed
womenasarchitects,wedonotneedmen,butwedoneedbrainsenoughto
liftthearchitectureofthiscountrybeyondthegraspofunskilledand
unqualifiedpractitioners.58
ShewentontocompareHayden’ssituationandtheAABN’spreferred,conventional
domainforwomen:
Becauseonewomansuffersfromexhaustioninthedailywearandtearofher
householdduty,youwouldnotsaythatwomenwereunfittedfordomestic
life.Becauseonewoman,wornwiththecareofherchildren,died,orwasa
nervouswreck,youwouldnotwithholdfromwomenthemostsacred
occupationwhichawomancanundertake.Andbecauseoneinexperienced
woman,triedbyanewposition,…isill,yourushintotherankstosaveall
otherwomenfromalikefate.59
ToMinervaParkerNichols,SophiaHayden’sbreakdownofferedcausetoquestion
thearchitecturefield’ssystemofpractice;itdidnotjustifytheeradicationofthe
field’snewestpractitioners.
Nichols’critiquewaswidelycirculatedandremarkablywell‐received,even
withinthatsameeditionofAABN.Aswastypicalthroughouthercareer,Nichols
receivedendorsementsforherowncredentialsevenbythesamepeoplewho
dismissedthequalificationsofotherwomenarchitects.Indeed,theeditorsofAABN
58Ibid.
59Ibid.
31
highlightedherarticleintheirprefatorycomments,sayingthattheywere“pleased
topublishelsewheretheprotestofMrs.Nichols—whohasprovedherownabilityto
worksidebysidewithmasculinearchitectswithoutaskingfavoronthescoreof
sex.”60TheymaintainedtheirownveiledcritiqueofSophiaHayden,pittingher
againstthe“ignorantself‐confidenceofherfellow‐women.”Nevertheless,they
separatedNicholsfromthosesamewomenonthegroundsthatNicholsherself
neverexploitedhergendertoadvancehercareer.Shewas,therefore,well‐received
asawomanarchitectpreciselybecausesheneverplayedupherwomanhood.
Instead,theAABN—andotherpublicationsoverthecourseofNichols’
decadeinpractice—praisedheron‐siteexperienceandpracticalknowledge.A
builderworkingontheNewCenturyClubinWilmingtonreportedlydeclaredthat
“hehadneverworkedforanarchitectwhobetterunderstoodthebusiness,”while
anotherproject’sbuildingcontractorwentonestepfurther:“Sheknowsnotonly
herbusiness,butminetoo.”61Coverageofherworkconsistentlycitedcomments
suchasthese,andherexpertiseinallaspectsofthedesignandconstructionprocess
earnedherregularpraisefromthebuildingcommunity.Althoughthearchitectural
presswasstillattimesacutelyawareofhersex—coverageofherworkwasnot
withoutitsowngenderedovertones—Nichols’reputationwasclearlypredicatedon
avocalrespectforhertraining,persistence,personality,andcompetence.
60“ToOurSubscribers.”
61JosephDanaMiller,“WomenasArchitects,”FrankLeslie’sPopularMonthlyI,no.2(June1900).
AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
AgnesAddisonGilchrist,“Nichols,MinervaParker,”inNotableAmericanWomen1607—1950:A
BiographicalDictionary,editedbyEdwardT.James(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvard
UniversityPress,1971):629.
32
ThisadmirationcarriedthroughNichols’decadeofpracticeinPhiladelphia,
andwasincludedinretrospectiveprofilesofhercareerevenaftersheretiredin
1896.HermovetoBrooklynthatyearmarkedtheendofherformalpractice,
althoughshecontinuedtodesignoccasionallyforfamilyandfriends.Herlater
commissionsincludedabuildingforherbrother‐in‐law’sBrowneandNichols
SchoolinCambridge,Massachusetts(1894),aswellasseveralresidencesforfamily
membersforwhichshesupervisedtheconstructionevenasdecadespassedsince
hersupposedretirement.Itwas,infact,whileshewasinspectingtheroofofher
daughter’sWestport,Connecticuthome—ahousethatshedesigned—thatshefellin
1949andlaterdied.62Shewas87.
TheNewYorkTimesrananobituaryuponherdeathundertheheadline“Mrs.
NicholsDead;RetiredArchitect,”citingbothheractivepracticefrom1895to1895,
aswellashercontinued“interestinarchitecturalmatters”afterherretirement.63
Thecolumnnamedmanyofherprojectsandhighlightedherstatusasoneofthe
firstwomentopracticearchitectureinthecountry.Itwas,however,oneofthefew
profilesofNicholspublishedinthetwentiethcentury,despiteresurgentinterest
(fueledbythefeministmovement)inotherearlywomenarchitects,suchasLouise
BlanchardBethune,LoisHowe,orJuliaMorgan.
Nichols’nameisstillrelativelyunknowntoday,eveninheradoptedcityof
Philadelphia.Asmallnumberoflocalhistorysources,suchastheLowerMerion
62KathiKauffman,“ADesigningWomanFarAheadofHerTime,”PhiladelphiaInquirer,August18,
1991,accessedFebruary28,2012,www.articles.philly.com/1991‐08‐
18/news/25806583_1_architectural‐school‐philadelphia‐club‐domestic‐architecture.
63“Mrs.NicholsDead;RetiredArchitect,”NewYorkTimes,November20,1949,94.ProQuest
HistoricalNewspapers:TheNewYorkTimes.
33
HistoricalSociety,havecitedherwork,andahandfulofhistorianshavestudiedand
writtenabouthercareer.Mostdiscussionsofherlifeareincludedinthecontextof
biographicaldictionariesofnoteworthywomen,orasaportionofalargertext
aboutwomeninarchitecture.Thesesources—withtheiremphasisoncompensatory
historyingeneralandMinervaParkerNichols’storyinparticular—oftentreat
women’shistoryassomethingtobeunearthed,deployingthenoveltyofNichols’
careersimplytocounterbalancedecadesofmale‐centrichistory.Forthesereasons,
bothNichols’lifeandherbuildingshavegoneunnoticedbyseveralcompendiaof
sitessignificanttowomen’shistory,includingWomenRemembered:AGuideto
LandmarksofWomen’sHistoryintheUnitedStates,aswellasSusanB.AnthonySlept
Here:AGuidetoAmericanWomen’sLandmarks.Bothbooksincludesitesassociated
withNichols’femalecontemporaries.
WiththeexceptionofresearchbyarchitecturalhistorianKathleenSinclair
WoodonNichols’suburbanhouses,manyofherlocalprojectshavenotbeen
identifiedorinventoried,dueinlargeparttotheirstatusasprivateresidences.Most
ofherpubliccommissions—includingtwospaghettifactories(forwhichno
documentationexists),theNewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia,andtheBrowneand
NicholsSchoolbuildinginCambridge—weredemolishedinthelastfewdecades.
HerbestknownsurvivingpublicbuildingistheNewCenturyClubofWilmington,
whichisownedandusedtodaybytheDelawareChildren’sTheatre.
Accordingtoherobituary,MinervaParkerNicholswasactiveinboth
women’sgroupsandarchitecturalmattersupuntilherdeath—asshehadbeen
34
sinceherchildhoodinPeoriaCounty,Illinois.Shapedbyherexperiencesinasingle‐
motherhousehold,andbyhercloserelationshipwithherarchitectgrandfather,
MinervaParkerNicholsforgedherownbrandofindependenceandarchitectural
practiceinthelatenineteenthcentury.Evenaftershemarriedandgaveupher
formaloffice,shecontinuedtoapplyherpracticalexperienceandacademic
expertisetoaseriesofcommissionsandtheirsupervisedconstruction.Withaclient
baseofotherfinancially‐andsocially‐independentwomen,MinervaParkerNichols
helpedtodefineanewrelationshipbetweenwomenandthebuiltenvironment.
35
CHAPTERTWO│PROFESSIONALIZATION:WOMEN+THEBUILTENVIRONMENT
ThecareerofMinervaParkerNichols,forallofitsapparentacceptancefrom
peersandprofessionals,playedoutinaneraofuncertaintyabouttheveryword
“professional.”Asthedividedeepenedbetweenthosetrainedinthebuildingtrades
andthoseeducatedintheacademies,membersofthearchitecturalfieldinthe
nineteenthcenturyengagedinanidentitydebateovercredentialsandcertification.
Theresultwasanideologicalriftbetweenthetwobranchesofthefield,witheach
disciplinerushingtoeliminatetheunqualifiedfromitsranks,inanefforttoelevate
theprofessionalstatusofitsownmembers.Intheireagernesstoexclude,boththe
buildingtradesmenandprofessionalarchitectsdefinedtheiravocationintermsthat
explicitlyreinforcedmasculineconventions,andimplicitlylimitedtheaccessof
womentotheirfield.Inspiteofthegenderedassociationsofbothherresidential
commissionsandherfemaleclientbase,therefore,MinervaParkerNicholsclaimed
thesespecializationsinordertoclaimaroleintheprofessionalizingarchitectural
field.
Practitionersdidnotevenusetheclassificationof“professional”untilthe
beginningofthenineteenthcentury.BeforeBenjaminLatrobeclaimedinthefirst
36
yearsofthenineteenthcenturythathewasthefirst“professionalarchitect,”
designersandtradesmenwereidentifiedasbuildersorcarpenters—“master
builders”iftheywereparticularlyskilledandrenowned.64Professionalsocieties
suchastheAmericanInstituteofArchitectsdidnotemergeuntilthemiddleofthe
century,andwhilesomemenstudiedarchitectureabroadattheÉcoledesBeaux‐
ArtsinParis,mostAmericanarchitectsintheUnitedStatesstudiedandtrained
domesticallyintheapprenticeshipsystem.
Latrobe’sclaimsnotwithstanding,historiansdisagreeaboutwhothefirst
“professional”architectwas—onmuchthesamegroundsofdisputeasthe
nineteenth‐centuryarchitectsthemselves.Asarchitecturaleducationopportunities
expandedintheantebellumdecades,graduatesoftheseuniversityprograms
claimedthattheireducationearnedthemthemantleofthearchitecture
“profession,”abovethemerecraftofbuildersandcarpenters.Buildingtradesmen,
meanwhile,pointedtotheircenturies‐oldindustryasthefoundationofthefield,
withtheapprenticeshipsystemasthebasisforprofessionalstatus.
Complicatingthedebatewastheintroductionofpatternbooksinthefirst
halfofthenineteenthcentury,whichmarketedresidentialdesignsonamass
scale—potentiallyempoweringtheclientattheexpenseoftheprofessional
architect(whateverthedefinitionof“professional”).AsherBenjamin’sCountry
Builder’sAssistantin1797wasthefirsttointroducepatternbookstotheAmerican
public,butcountlessothers—includingthemostpopularonesbyAndrewJackson
64Woods,FromCrafttoProfession,4.
37
DowningandAlexanderJacksonDavis—followedintheensuingdecades.Their
appealstemmedfromtheirperceiveddemocratizationofthebuildingprocess,such
thatmiddle‐classlandownerscouldpurchasearchitecturalexpertise(andtaste)in
thepagesofabook,ratherthanwiththemoreexpensiveservicesofa
professional.65
Thisthreattotheprofessionofarchitecture,fromboththebuildingtrades
andpatternbooks,spurreditsprofessionalsocietiestocallforcredentialsinthe
latterhalfofthecentury.TheAmericanInstituteofArchitects(AIA),establishedin
1857,wasfoundedontheprinciplethatthefieldneededprofessionalrulesand
standards,and,in1876,itsanctionedtworoutestoprofessionalstatus.Thefirst
wasthroughtheacademicsystem,withadegreefromoneofthegrowingnumberof
universityprogramsinarchitecture.Thesecondrecognizedtheapprenticeshippath
thatmanyinthefieldhadalreadytaken,addingtherequirementofanapplication
foralicenseafteran“appropriate”apprenticeshipperiod.66
Bothofthesepathswereconsiderablymoreaccessibleformenthanfor
women.AlthoughtheAIAsawthemasanequalizingforceforwomen,sincethey
clarifiedtheroutestoformalpracticeandofferedalternativesforcredentialing,
neitherpathcouldfullycounteractseveralcenturiesofingrainedmasculinecontrol
ofthefield.Instead,womenfacedobstacleswitheithertheacademicpathorthe
apprenticeshiptrack.Universitydepartmentsandschoolsofdesigndidincreasingly
65DellUpton,“PatternBooksandProfessionalism:AspectsoftheTransformationofDomestic
ArchitectureinAmerica,1800—1960,”WinterthurPortfolio19,no.2/3(Summer—Autumn1984):
128.
66CatherineZipf,ProfessionalPursuits:WomenandtheAmericanArtsandCraftsMovement
(Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseePress,2007):19.
38
admitandattractwomen,buttheseprograms’distancefromthepractical
challengesofrealcommissionslimitedtheeducationofarchitecturalstudents,both
menandwomen.Wheremencouldlatersecureanapprenticeshiptocomplement
theiruniversitytraining,however,women—dependentonthereceptivityofthe
supervisingarchitect—facedlimitedaccessthereaswell.
Moreover,theAIA’sowndefinitionofthetitleof“architect”framedthe
professioninexplicitlymasculineterms.In1906(afullthirtyyearsaftertheAIA’s
endorsementofprofessionalpathstheoreticallyopenedthefielduptowomen),its
CommitteeonEducationcharacterized“thearchitect”asfollows:
Anarchitectwedefineasonerankingintheclassofmenofculture,learning
andrefinement,differentiatedfromtheothersofhisclasssolelybyhis
functionasacreatorofpurebeauty….Fromtheseassumptions,itfollows
necessarilythattheobjectiveofarchitecturaleducationmustbethebreeding
ofgentlemenofcultivation…whocaninspire,organizeanddirectwidely
differentclassesofmen.67
Guidedbythisdepictionofthearchitect,whichframestheprofessionastherealm
of“gentlemen”and“menofculture,”thepathtoprofessionalstatusthroughthe
academieswasnotasaccessibletowomenasitsadvocatespresumed.
Thealternativeofcredentialingafteranapprenticeshipwasnomore
receptivetowomenthantheacademicpath.Wheremalestudentscouldjointhe
apprenticeshiptrackandseekoutapositioninanarchitect’soffice,therebylearning
thetradethroughpracticalexperience,women’saccesstoapprenticeshipswas
limited.Theyweredependentonthefavorofindividualmentors,whowere
inevitablymen.Facedwiththeprejudicesofthesamemenwhocodifiedthe
67GrossmanandReitzes,“CaughtintheCrossfire,”30.
39
professioninmasculineterms,mostwomenhabituallylostanyavailable
apprenticeshippositionstotheirmalecounterparts.68
Eveniftheycouldearnexperienceworkingonsite,women’sdresscustoms
didnothelptheirapprenticeshipprospectsintheearlyyearsofthe
professionalizingarchitecturefield.Constrictedbythecorset,theyfacedlimited
mobilityandmaneuverabilityatalltimes.Corsetsreducedthelungcapacityofits
wearerbyhalf,makingitdoublydifficulttonavigatetheconstructionsite’s
inevitableladdersandobstacles.69ItwasnodoubtforthisreasonthatMinerva
ParkerNicholsadvocatedchangeatarallyin1893.TheChicagoTribuneincluded
heronthelistofwomen“whowishtoputthemselvesonrecordasfavoringdress
reform,”althoughthenewspaperalsoarchlyobservedthat“thewomenwhowere
presenttolistenmayhavehadthesubjectofdressreformneartheirhearts,[but]it
wasconspicuouslyabsentintheirtoilets.”Bythenewspaper’sinspection,theroom
featuredanabundanceofunreformed“smallwaists,largesleeves,[and]beflounced
skirts.”70Givensuchconventionaloutfits,itislittlewonderthatevenapprenticed
womenhadmoredifficultygainingpracticalon‐siteexperiencewitharchitectural
commissions.
Evenbeforetheyfacedthechallengesofsecuringanapprenticeship,women
hopingtoenterthefieldofarchitecturefacedanuphillbattleagainstthesocial
conventionsofprofessionalwomenandthehome.Thesocialrevolutionof
68Ibid.,27—28.
69Zaitzevsky,LongIslandLandscapes,258.
70“ManyLeadersTalkOnDressReform,”ChicagoDailyTribune,May24,1893,10.ProQuest
HistoricalNewspapers:ChicagoTribune.
40
CatharineBeecher’sTheAmericanWoman’sHome(publishedin1869)didmuchto
linkwomen’sequalitywithdomesticefficiency—arguingthatifthehomewas
efficientlyarranged,womencoulddevotemoretimetootherconcerns—butitstill
upheldthesocietalconnectionbetweenAmericanwomenandtheirhomes.71
Thislinkremainedfirmfordecadesafterthebook’spublication,asliterature
bothwithinandbeyondthearchitecturefieldreinforcedthecorrelationbetween
womenandthehome.In1896,nearlythirtyyearsafterthereleaseofTheAmerican
Woman’sHome,theassociationwasstillentrenchedenoughforLymanAbbott,
authorofTheHouseandHome,toobserve:
Thehouseispre‐eminentlythewoman’sprovince,yetitisonlywithinthe
lasttenortwelveyearsthatwomenhaveenteredthefieldofhouse‐
decorationasoriginaldesigners.Everythinginthehouseconcernsthe
mistressmorenearlythanthemaster,formostofhislifeispassedaway
fromit.72
Abbott’sunfinishedthoughtwasunmistakable:thehouseconcernsthemistress
preciselybecausemostofherlifeispassedawayinit.
Theassociationofnineteenth‐centurywomenwiththehome,however,
cannotbereducedtoanunderstandingofseparatespheres,wherewomenoccupy
thedomesticrealmwhilemenworkoutsideofit.Suchacategorization—conceived
bylaterhistoriansevaluatingwomen’sopportunitiesinthenineteenthcentury—
createsadichotomyoftwodomainswhoseboundarieswere,infact,muchmore
nebulous.Nineteenth‐centuryliteraturedidemploytheideaofthe“woman’s
71StevenConnandMaxPage,eds.,BuildingtheNation:AmericansWriteAboutTheirArchitecture,
TheirCities,andTheirLandscape(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2003):324.
72LymanAbbott,TheHouseandHome:APracticalBook,VolumeI(NewYork:Scribner,1896):13.
41
sphere”inreferencetotheconceptofdomesticity,butitwastwentieth‐century
historianswhoframedtheseassociationsasdiscreteandcompletelyseparate
domainsofpublicandprivate,ormaleandfemale,space.Thus,whilewomenwere
mostdefinitelyassociatedwiththehome—andanabundanceoflatenineteenth‐
centuryliteratureatteststothis—the“cultofdomesticity”(ashistorianshavecalled
it)didnotsignifythatawoman’splacewasonlyinthehome.Instead,socialrealities
ofthelate‐nineteenthcenturyweremuchmorecomplicated,particularlyaswomen
found(and,insomecases,founded)increasedopportunitiesforeducationoutside
ofthedomesticrealm.73
Indeed,thelate‐nineteenthcentury’sschoolsofdesign,inPhiladelphiaand
elsewhere,wereclearlyestablishedasresponsestothispresumptionofwomen’s
domesticity.Bygivingwomenaneducationatrespectableinstitutions,these
programsofferedtheirfemalestudentsawaytoearncreditsandcredentials
outsideofthehome,wheretheywerealreadyseenastheskilledexpertsof
domesticefficiency.Theschools’curricula,then,wasbothacontinuationof,andan
expansionbeyond,themodernizationandrationalizationofthehomethat
CatharineBeecherpromoted.
MinervaParkerNichols’careersharessimilarthemeswiththeBeecher
domesticmovementandthepopularlady’shomemagazinesofthenineteenth
century.Likethem,shebelievedthatthehomewasworthyofindividualdesignthat
consideredwomen’sdomesticneeds.Theopeningofherfirmin1890,however,
73Merrett,“SeparateSpheres,”3—4.
42
amplifiedthesocialradicalismoftheseothernineteenth‐centurycurrents,as
Nicholsworkednotonlyoutsidethehomebutalsoindependently.
Withadepthofbotheducationandpractice,MinervaParkerNicholsand
LouiseBlanchardBethuneareanomaliesinthisprofessionalizedcontextofwomen
inthearchitecturalworkplaceinthelatenineteenthcentury.Bothwomentrainedin
theofficesofestablishedmalearchitects(NicholsworkedforEdwinThorne,
BethuneforRichardA.WaiteandF.W.Caulkings),gainingenoughpractical
experiencetostarttheirownfirmsandsecuretheirowncommissions.Nichols,who
receivedevenmoreformaleducationthanBethune,receivedconsiderabletraining
fromPhiladelphia’svariousschoolsofdesign,includingdegreesandcertificates
fromfourdifferentinstitutions.Neitherwoman,however,studiedinauniversity
architectureprogram—ostensiblythemoreaccessiblerouteforwomentogain
entryinthefield.(Aftergraduatinghighschoolwithaspecialinterestin
architecturaldrawing,LouiseBlanchardBethunedecidedagainststudyingat
Cornell,takingthedraftingpostintheofficeofWaiteandCaulkingsinstead.)74
ThesuccessofNicholsandBethuneinsecuringapprenticeshipsbegs
comparisonwithwomensuchasSophiaHayden,thedesigneroftheWoman’s
Buildingwhocouldnotfindregularemploymentinthearchitecturefieldafter
earningherdegree.Existingclassandgendernormsobviouslyinfluencedeach
woman’sprofessionaltrajectory,butthedivergenceintheirprofessionalstanding
andsuccess—despitetherelativecontemporaneousnessoftheircareers—suggests
74Allaback,FirstAmericanWomenArchitects,45.
43
thatotherfactorswerealsoinvolved.Oneelementwaslikelypersonalityand
persistence.InthecaseofNichols,thePhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’
Guidesummedupthisfactorasitprofiledherpersonalqualitiesandprofessional
achievements:“Energyandpushgenerallymeetwithsuccess,andasthereisevery
evidencethatshepossessesboth,thelatterisevidentlywithingrasp.”75Bethune’s
ownwritingsandpracticehintthatshewasapparentlyequallydetermined,offering
someindicationwhythetwowomenwereabletothrive.
Inaneraofuncertaintyaboutprofessionalismingeneral,andambivalence
aboutwomenarchitectsinparticular,however,temperamentdoesnotentirely
explainNichols’andBethune’ssuccess.Theshiftsineconomicclimatemayhave
beenanotherextenuatingcircumstancethatworkedinNichols’andBethune’sfavor,
butworkedagainstSophiaHaydenwhenshegraduatedfromMITjustafewyears
later.In1876,whileMinervaParkerwasstillinschoolandbeforeshesoughtan
apprenticeship,thecountrywasinadepression.Buffalo,however,managedto
withstandtheeconomicclimate,anditsbuildingboomsustainedfirmssuchas
WaiteandCaulkings’practice—alongwithLouiseBlanchard’searlyyearsof
apprenticeshipandpractice.Bythe1880s,thecountryhadrecovered,and
architecturalfirmshadenoughworkthatMinervaParker—withseveraltechnical
degreesasrecommendations—couldfindadraftingpositionintheofficeofEdwin
Thorne.76By1893,asSophiaHaydengraduatedandsearchedforaposition,the
countryhaddescendedonceagainintoaneconomicpanic—onewithasharp
75PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecord(August14,1889):378.
76Zaitzevsky,LongIslandLandscapes,257.
44
impactonarchitectureprojectsandjournals(suchastheAmericanArchitectand
BuildingNews).77Unabletosecureanapprenticeship,assomanyotherfemale
graduatesofarchitectureprogramshadtroubledoingaswell,SophiaHaydentooka
jobteachinginahighschoolinstead.
Whetheritwasbecauseofhersex,herpersonality,heracademiceducation
andlackoftechnicaltraining,herpersonality,orhereconomictiming,Sophia
HaydennevergainedthepracticalexperiencethatMinervaParkerNichols
consideredfoundationalandimperative.Nicholswasadamantabouttheeducation
andexperiencethatwasnecessaryforarchitecturalpractice,dismissingthose
people(menorwomen)whosoughtpositionswithoutpropertrainingoreducation.
Inhereditorialsthatassertedwomen’squalificationsforthefield,shefaultedsome
ofherfemalecontemporariesfortheirinsufficientpreparation.Aswasclearinher
defenseofSophiaHaydenduringtheWoman’sBuildingincident,shethoughtthat
Haydenandtoomanyotherwould‐bearchitectslackedpropertraininginworking
withclients.Havingmade“athoroughstudyofthebusiness”herself,Nichols
questionedthosewhoblithelypursueditwithouteducatingorpreparing
themselves.Herrespectfortheemergingprofession—tornasitwasbetweenits
buildingtradesanditsacademycurricula—convincedherthatarchitecture“isa
businessthathastobelearnedandthoroughlymasteredlikeanyother.”78Those
women(ormen,forthatmatter)whodiscountedtheappropriateproceduresand
77MaryWoods,“TheFirstAmericanArchitecturalJournals:TheProfession’sVoice,”Journalofthe
SocietyofArchitecturalHistorians48,no.2(June1989):130.
78Ibid.
45
practicewerenot“professional”architects,byMinervaParkerNichols’definitionof
theword.
Assheadvocatedarchitecturalstandardsandthequalificationsofthe
“professional”architect,Nicholswascarefultostakeoutthemiddlegroundinthe
debatesoverprofessionalism.Believingthatbothmethodsoftrainingwere
valuable,shesupportedbothapprenticeshipsaswellasprofessionalcredentials,
callingforarchitectstobelicensed.79However,unliketheAIA’ssimilar
recommendations(issuedineffectivelygenderedterms),Nicholswasfirmthat
theserequirementsshouldpertainequallytomenandwomen,ratherthancodified
intermsthatinstinctivelyfavoredmenorreflexivelybenefitedwomen.
Iftheseissuesofaccess,education,andcredentialscouldbeaddressed,
MinervaParkerNichols(alongwithLouiseBlanchardBethune)wasoptimistic
abouttheopportunitiesandprospectsforwomeninterestedinthearchitecture
professions.InhereditorialinHousekeeper’sWeekly,sheequatedthenew
profession—andtheevolvingplaceofwomenintheprofession—with“thenewland
inthefarWest,”where“therearemanyclaimsnottaken.”Sheurgedwomento
investtheir“courage,somecapital,muchlaborintraveling,…andareallovetalent
forthework.”Thesewerethequalitiesthat,whencoupledwiththoroughtraining,
couldofferwomeninthebuiltenvironmentprofessionssomemeasureofsuccess.
Ofcourse,asignificantfactor—bothadvantageousanddifficult—inMinerva
ParkerNichols’careerwasthefactthatshepracticedindependently,ratherthan
79“WomenasArchitects,”Friends’Review:aReligious,LiteraryandMiscellaneousJournal,April30,
1891,637.AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
46
undertheauspicesofalarger,male‐dominatedfirm.Thereisnotestimonyofher
timeinEdwinThorne’soffice,andnospecificevidencetosuggestthathersexwasa
factor(positiveorotherwise)inherprofessionalstandingthere.Byleavinghis
officein1888andstartingherownpractice,however,shemanagedtoavoidsome
ofthediscriminationinprivatefirms’hiring,salaries,andadvancementthatother
womenworkingforlargerofficesregularlyfaced.80
Still,despitetheseadvantagesofdesigningalone,Nicholsfacedclearand
constantchallengesofindependentpractice.Mostpressingamongthesewasthe
pursuitofcommissions,which(foranarchitectspecializinginsmall‐scaleprojects)
wasaperpetualconcern.Theissuepresentedpalpableremindersofthedifference
betweenthemenadoptingthearchitecturalprofessioninthenineteenthcentury,
andthesmallnumberofwomenwhosoughttodothesame—beginningwiththe
availabilityofnetworksofassociationformenandforwomen.Wheremen’sclubs
hadexistedfordecades,andprofessionalizedsocietiessuchastheAIAwereclearly
variationsonthosesamemasculinegatherings,equivalentwomen’swereonly
beginningtoemergeinthelatenineteenthcentury.Thesenewspacesand
associationsincreasinglyallowedforwomentomeetsociallyandinteract—aswas
thecasewiththeNewCenturyClubsinPhiladelphiaandWilmington,whichhada
measurableimpactonthetrajectoryofMinervaParkerNichols’commissionsand
clientele.Theseclubswerestillyoungandsmall,however,andNicholsandother
femalepractitionersstillenjoyedfarfeweropportunitiestosecurepatronsor
80JudithPaine,“PioneerWomenArchitects,”inWomeninAmericanArchitecture:AHistoricand
ContemporaryPerspective,ed.SusanaTorre(NewYork:ArchitecturalLeagueofNewYork,1977):54.
47
commissionsthantheirmalecounterparts,whocouldfindbothcolleaguesand
potentialclientsattheirvariouswell‐establishedsocialleagues.
Thisdisparitycontributedtoaperceptiononthepartofsomewomeninthe
fieldthattheyowedtheirprofessionalaccesstothemenwhotraditionallylimited
suchadmittance.MinervaParkerNicholsinsistedonhertrainingasher
commendationforpractice,andwithoutjoiningtheAIAorotherprofessional
societies,shecouldavoidgendereddeference.LouiseBlanchardBethune,however,
waseagertojoinboththeWesternAssociationofArchitectsandtheAmerican
InstituteofArchitects—professionalizedsocietiesthatshareanunderstandingof
thearchitectas“onerankingintheclassofmenofculture.”81Asaresult,Bethune’s
speechatherinductionin1888intotheAIAsignaledagratitudetoher“fellows”(a
genderedterminitself)fortheirbenevolenceinadmittingher.Shewascarefulto
notethatwomeninarchitecturewerenot“warmlywelcomed”bythepublicorthe
profession,butshealsoarguedthattheymetnoserioushostility—aclaimthat,in
hercase(andpossiblyothers’),wasnotnecessarilytrue.Ina1900articleabout
Bethuneandotherwomenarchitects,FrankLeslie’sPopularMonthlynotedthat
Bethune’smembershipwas,infact,“metwithmuchopposition.”82Whetherornot
shewasawareofthisdisputeoverherinduction,Bethunedescribedherselfas
grateful—evenindebted—tothemenwhoultimatelyadmittedhertotheInstitute.
Thus,althoughsheclaimedthat“thefutureofwomaninthearchitecturalprofession
iswhatsheherselfseesfittomakeit,”Bethunecouldnotavoidcastingherown
81Paine,PioneerWomenArchitects,62.
82Miller,“WomenasArchitects,”6.
48
successasthethankfulresultof“thenoble‐heartedmenwhosefar‐seeingpolityand
kindlynaturehaslaidthisstepping‐stone.”83ToBethune,gainingentryinthe
professionalizedechelonsofthearchitectureprofessiondependedonpersonal
talent,thorougheducation—andapprovalbythemenoftheclub.Despitehercalls
foranewnormof“equalremunerationforequalservice,”LouiseBlanchard
Bethunecouldnotavoidaconcessiontoestablishedconventionsandpatrimonyin
themale‐orientedprofessionofarchitecture.
Theseentrenchedassociationsofthe“professionalizing”fieldofarchitecture
accentuatethegenderedimplicationsofMinervaParkerNichols’concentrationin
residentialarchitecture.Theyalsounderscoretheunusualcompositionofherclient
base,withitshighrepresentationoffinanciallyindependentmiddle‐andupperclass
women.Inaneraofdebateovertheprofessionalizationofarchitecture,withits
divergentbranchesthateachexcludedwomen,MinervaParkerNicholsaccepted
herspecializationofcommissionsandclientsinordertoassertherownplaceinthe
profession.
83LouiseBlanchardBethune,“WomenandArchitecture,”TheInlandArchitectandNewsRecord,
March1891,21.
49
CHAPTERTHREE│SPECIALIZATION:CLIENTS+COMMISSIONS
AlthoughMinervaParkerNicholsembraceddomesticarchitectureinher
professionalpractice,capitalizingonitsopportunitiesasaspecialization,shecould
notavoidorescapethetype’straditionalassociationswithwomen.Herdecisionto
specializeinresidentialcommissions,then,wouldseemtobelessofachoicethan
muchasanacquiescencetocontemporaryconventionsforfemalearchitects.
Indeed,giventhatfemalearchitectsweresocloselyidentifiedwiththe“domestic
sphere”intheireducationandattemptstopractice,itisoflittlesurprisethatthey
wouldthenbelinkedwiththatsamedomainfortheirprofessionalcommissions.
Indeed,thatputativefeminineormaternalinstinctservedasthebasisfor
womenarchitects’unavoidableassociationswiththearchitectureofdomesticity.As
LuluStoughtonBeemremarkedintheInlandArchitectinOctober1884:“Women
arenaturallybetterjudgesofcolor,betterintheblendingoffabrics,besides
knowingintuitivelywhatiswantedaboutahouse—wantstoosmallformento
perceive.”84FrankLeslie’sPopularMonthlyevaluatedthesefeminineskillssimilarly,
writingspecificallyofMinervaParkerNichols:“Aswithmostoftheseladies,itisthe
84GwendolynWright,“OntheFringeoftheProfession:WomeninAmericanArchitecture,”inThe
Architect:ChaptersintheHistoryoftheProfession,ed.SpiroKostof(Berkeley,CA:Universityof
CaliforniaPress,2000):282.
50
homefeaturesoftheworkinwhich,withtruefeminineinstinct,[Mrs.Nichols]takes
thegreatestpride.”85Evenastheyearnedprofessionalstatusoutsideofthehome,
therefore,womenarchitectswereneverthelessverymuchstillassociatedwiththe
traditionalgenderedrolesassignedbycontemporarygendernorms.
Almostwithoutfail,thepraiseforthetalentofwomenindomestic
architecturewas,inthesamebreath,dismissedbecauseofthenegligibleskillthat
suchresidentialcommissionsrequired.AswithBeem,whocharacterizedthe“wants
toosmall”ofresidentialdesign,thesecommentariesfrequentlyechoedthe1876
wordsoftheAmericanArchitectandBuildingNews(thesamenewspaperthatlater
backhandedlydefendedSophiaHaydenin1893):
First,theplanningofhouses,atleastsofarastheconvenienceoftheir
arrangementisconcerned,thoughaverynecessarypartofanarchitect’s
duty,isnotarchitectureatall;andtheabilitytoarrangeahouseconveniently
doesnotintheleastmakeanarchitect.86
Thedoublestandardswereunmistakable:womenarchitects’credentialsand
talentswerebestsuitedtodomesticarchitecture,butdomesticprojectsdidnot
qualifyas“architecture”atall.Theascensionofwomentothearchitectural
professionwasthereforeprogressonlyinsofarasitearnedmanywomenwork
outsideoftheirownhomes.Residentialarchitecturesecuredthemaplacewithin
thenascenttradesofarchitecture,buttheirstandingwithinthatclasswasoneof
second‐tierrank.TheirprofessionalstatuscouldnothelpMinervaParkerNicholsor
85Miller,“WomenasArchitects,”2.
86AsquotedinWright,282.
51
otherfemalearchitectsavoidaltogetherthehomesoftheirclientsorthehierarchy
ofprofessionalcommissions.
Femalearchitects’clientnetworkswereequallyencumberedwiththe
implicationsoftheirgender.Justaswomenarchitects’accesstoprofessional
societieswashamperedbytheirgender,theyhadlessaccesstonetworksof
associations—includingwell‐establishedsocialclubsorprofessionalassociations—
forcommissionsaswell.Aswasthecasewiththeirquestforapprenticeships,
therefore,womenneededtocurryfavorandcommissionsonapersonal,ratherthan
corporate,basis.AstheeducatorHenryFrostassessedthesituationin1936:
[Women’s]professionalwork,bothinarchitectureandlandscape
architecture,islikely,thoughthisisbynomeansalwaystrue,tobein
domesticfields.Thesentimentalreasonsforthiscanbeignored.Thetrue
reasonisthatwomenpractitionersthusfararemorelikelytobe
commissionedbyindividualsthanbycorporationsandorganizations.87
Thus,sinceprojectsforindividualsweremuchmorelikelytobeprivateresidences
ratherthaninstitutionalbuildings,womenarchitects’workwasmorelikelyto
involvedomestic,ratherthancorporate,designs.
Therewere,therefore,manycircumstantialreasonswhyMinervaParker
Nicholswouldadoptdomesticarchitectureasher“particularforte”—rationales
rangingfromprofessionaltrainingtogenderedassumptionstoaccesstoclients.All
ofthesewerenodoubtfactorsinherdecisiontospecialize,suggestingthatitwasin
somemeasureanobligatoryspecialty.However,herdecisiontospecializewasnot
oneofpassiveacquiescence.Rather,sheactivelyembracedthisnicheinclientsand
87Wright,“FringeoftheProfession,”283.
52
commissionsforherindependentpractice.Asseveralprofilespublishedduringand
soonafterhercareernoted,Nicholsfeltthat“specialistsinarchitecture,asin
medicine,aremostassuredofsuccess.”88Herspecializationindomesticarchitecture
wasthereforemorethanasimpleacquiescencetosocietalassumptions;rather,it
wasanacceptanceofprofessionalrealitiesinordertoclaimherownprofessional
status.Justasshetookadvantageofthefewavenuesavailabletowomeninorderto
earnherplaceinthemale‐dominatedfieldofarchitecture,Nicholscapitalizedonthe
presumedspecialtyofresidentialarchitecture,seizingtheopportunitiesforclients
andcommissionsthatsuchaspecializationcouldgenerate.
Nichols’specializationindomesticarchitecturealsoassertedtheimportance
oftheprofessionalarchitectsingeneral.Inthiseraoftensionbetweenarchitects,
builders,andpatternbooks,residentialcommissionscouldbeparticularlydifficult
forprofessionalizedarchitectstosecure.Tradesmenarguedtoclientsthatthe
architectwasanunnecessarygo‐betweeninthehomebuildingprocess,while(from
theperspectiveoftheclientdecades)ofpatternbookpopularityhadusurpedsome
oftheexpertiseofthearchitectureprofession.Incontrasttocontemporarylarge
institutional,corporateprojects—whichpresentedobviousjustificationforthe
involvementofprofessional(male)architects—residentialcommissionshadbeen
somewhatdemocratizedbythispoint,withprofessionalarchitectsedgedoutby
empoweredclientsandcheaperbuilders.Domesticcommissionsthereforerequired
88FrancesElizabethWillardandMaryA.Livermore,eds.,AWomanoftheCentury:FourteenHundred‐
SeventyBiographicalSketchesAccompaniedbyPortraitsofLeadingAmericanWomeninAllWalksof
Life(Buffalo,NY:Moulton,1893):536.
53
muchmoreeducationoftheclients,asNicholsneededtoconvincethemoftheneed
forprofessionaldesigningeneral,andforherspecializationandexpertisein
particular.
Nichols’publishededitorialsfocusedonthistopic,assheseizedoncolumns
inHousekeeper’sWeekly,Woman’sProgress,andelsewheretoemphasizethistheme
ofarchitecturally‐informedandsavvyclients.“Iwishfirsttoremindyouoftheduty
architecturalclientsowetothemselves,andsecondly,theonetheyowetothe
architect,”shewroteinWoman’sProgressin1893.Thisresponsibilitythatclients
owedtothemselveswasoneofeducation,assheurgedthemto“beasfamiliarwith
thebroadgeneralstylesofarchitectureandarchitecturalornamentastheyarewith
generalliterature.”89Believing,asmanyinthenineteenthcenturydid,thatahouse’s
architecturalstylereflectedtheowner’sindividuality,shebemoanedthe
architecturalilliteracyofclientsthatresultedin“thewildconglomeratestylewhich
assailsusoneveryside.”90Whilesheencouragedtheeducationoftheclient,
therefore,sherejectedthereplacementofarchitectswiththedemocratizationof
patternbooks—arguingthatthedesignandtheclientwouldsufferwithoutthe
architect’sexpertise.
Itwasnatural,therefore,thattheclient’ssecondresponsibility,asdefinedby
Nichols,wastothearchitect,whocouldserveasanauthorityandadvisorinthese
architecturalstyles.(Nichols’familiaritywiththeseissueswithclientsdemonstrates
thedepthofherownexperienceandexpertiseinthesematters.)Thepopulismof
89MinervaParkerNichols,“Architecture,ArchitectandClient,”Woman’sProgress,May1893,60.
90Ibid.,61.
54
patternbooksandresidentialdesign,sheclaimed,haddistortedthebuilding
processanddemotedthearchitect:
Yourdutytothearchitect,Ibegofyou,inthenameofasufferingclassof
laborers,donotsay,becauseyoufurnishedthearchitectwithsomerude
sketches,fromwhichtoworkoutyourdesign,that‘Iwasmyown
architect.’…Itwouldseem[today]thatthearchitectisemployedasadelicate
charityorasascapegoatbetweenownerandcontractor,thelattergetting
theprofit,theformerthecredit,andthearchitectallblameonbothsides.91
Instead,Nicholsadvocatedfortheprofessionalarchitect(muchastheAIAandother
professionalsocietiesweredoingaswell),valuingtheroleofspecialized,
professionalexpertiseinchoiceofstyleandthequalityofdesign.
Nichols’owncommissions,bothresidentialandotherwise,representeda
broadrangeofarchitecturalstyles,rangingfromColonialRevivalandArtsand
Crafts(formanyofherdomesticprojects)toMoorishRevival(fortheQueen
IsabellaPavilion).SuchvarietyspoketotheindividualityofNichols’clients,andto
theacademicarchitecturaltrainingthatequippedherforsuchdisparate
commissions.Herworkswerethetangiblereinforcementofherwritings,which
deploredarchitecturalpopulism,andinsistentlyjustifiedthearchitectural
profession.
Nichols’strategyofprofessionalizationthroughspecializationsucceeded,as
herdomesticprojectsearnedherplaudits,clients,andhigher‐profilecommissions.
In1887,justayearaftershejoinedE.W.Thorne’sfirm—andayearbeforestarting
herown—shehadfourpagesofplanspublishedintheOctober1887issueof
CarpentryandBuilding.Theseplans,elevations,anddetailswerehercontributionto
91Ibid.,62.
55
thejournal’sSeventeenthCompetition,andinpublishingthem,Carpentryand
Buildingnotedtheexceptionalismofhergenderinthefieldofarchitectureandin
thepagesoftradecatalogues:“ItisnotoftenthatCarpentryandBuildinghasthe
opportunityoflayingbeforeitsreadersevidencesoftheabilityofwomentoactin
thecapacityofarchitectsanddesigners.Withtheexceptionofthelettersfrom[a]
‘Farmer’sDaughter’and‘ACarpenter’sWife,’allthatwehavesofarpublishedhas
comefromtheothersex.”92Inprintingherwork,thejournalacknowledgedthe
rarityofhercareer,aswellasthespecializationofherwork.
Nichols’specializationandspecialstatusalsoearnedhercoverageinthe
March1890issueofThePhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’Guide.
PRERBGwasthepremierdirectoryforPhiladelphiaarchitectsandtheirprojects,
whichmadeitallthemorenotablewhenshegarneredafullfront‐pageprofileand
picture.Shewasjustthefifthpersonselectedforthisdistinction,theonlyarchitect,
andthefirstwoman.93Thearticle,publishedinthesameyearthatshefirst
advertisedintheGopsill’sPhiladelphiaCityDirectory,madenoteofherspecialtyin
domesticarchitecture.Ratherthanthelarge‐scalecommissionsthatearnedmost
contemporaryarchitectstheirpraise,orthereal‐estatemogulswhoweretheusual
subjectsforPRERBG’sprofiles,itwasMinervaParkerNichols’“beautifulandartistic
homes”thatearnedherplauditsinthejournal.Indeed,thesheernumberofactive
commissionsseemstohavebeencauseforrecognition,withalistingofprojectsthat
92CarpentryandBuilding9,no.10(October1887):197.
93Wood,PioneerAmericanWomanArchitect,7.
56
includedelevendifferentresidentialprojects—“onlyafewofthemanyexcellent
plansthathavebeenfurnishedtocustomersbyMissParker.”94
ThePRERBG’sprofilehighlightstheanomalyofMinervaParkerNichols’
professionalreception.Whereotherwomenwerebackhandedlypraisedoroutright
dismissedaspractitioners,Nicholswasunusually—andalmostunequivocally—
well‐receivedandrespected.ThePRERBGarticlewasnotwithoutitsgendered
overtones,drawingmanyofthesameparallelsbetweenwomenanddomestic
architectureasothercontemporarypublications,includingtheAmericanArchitect
andBuildingNews.Butwherethosenewspapersconcludedthatdomestic
architecturewastheidealscaleforwomen’stalents,andthereforethetestoffemale
designers’success,thePRERBGassuredeven“themostskeptical”thatNichols“will
usetheopportunitiesthusaffordedherwithhonortoherselfandtheprofessionshe
soablyrepresents.”Whileherdomesticcommissionsservedasherfootholdfor
publication,therefore,herspecializationgarneredherpraisenotsimplyforthe
noveltyofhergender,butforthequalityofherworkandthepromiseofher
professionalprospectswithin,andevenpotentiallybeyond,domesticarchitecture.
AsisevidencedbytheprojectsenumeratedinthePRERBGprofile,Nichols’
statedspecialtyalsohelpedhertosecurenumerousclients.Indeed,herclientele
grewsoquicklythatsheleaptintoindependentpracticemuchearlierthanplanned,
asthePRERBGnotedwhenitfirstincludedmentionofherfirm.Inthefirsttwo
yearsaloneofherprivatepractice,sheplacednoticesinnearlyeveryissueofthe
94“MinervaParker(Architect.),”PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’GuideV,no.12(March
26,1890):1.
57
biweeklyPRERBG,announcingprojectsontheboardsforindividualclientsthat
includedacottage,adwelling,astonehouse,andaresidence.
Asidefromtheirsheerquantity,Nichols’noticesinthePRERBGaremost
significantfortheircluestoherclientbase—oneunusuallydominatedby
independentwomen.Therearemenamongherpatronlist,includingGeorgeM.
Christy,LouisT.Brooke,andJamesF.Beale.Morestriking,however,arethe
commissionsforMrs.S.E.Bewley,Mrs.Maxwell,MissL.E.Gallagher,andfourteen
otherwomen,alongwithtwowomen’sclubsandtheQueenIsabellaAssociation.
TheirpresenceandprominenceinNichols’listofclientsspeakstothelate
nineteenthcentury’semergingnetworksofsocializationandfinancialindependence
forwomen.
Nichols’commissionsfortheNewCenturyClubsandtheQueenIsabella
Associationpointtotheburgeoningwomen’ssocietiesofthelatenineteenth
century,whichemergedasacounterbalancetothetraditionalmen’sclubs.
Capitalizingonwomen’sgrowingsocialindependence,theseclubsoftenformed
withareformistmission,andtheirclubhousesservedasheadquartersforthese
emergingdiscussionsofpoliticsandsocialchange.Theassociations’founding
documentsoftenstatedtheprinciplesfortheircreation—aproudsignof
governanceandself‐organization.TheNewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia,for
example,highlighteditsintentionasanindependent,progressiveheadquartersfor
itsfemalemembers:
Tocreateanorganizedcenterofthoughtandactionamongwomen,forthe
protectionoftheirinterestsandthepromotionofscience,literatureandart,
58
andtofurnishaquietandsafeplaceinPhiladelphiaforthecomfortand
convenienceofitsmembers.95
Theverypresenceofaclubhouseinthecitywasasignaloftheprogressivismof
women’scausesinPhiladelphia,astheclubsfosteredaneweraofpoliticaland
socialgrowthandindependence.
ThefactthattheNewCenturyClubbuildingsweredesignedbyawomanwas
anothersourceofpridefortheclub’smembers.(ThesamewastrueoftheQueen
IsabellaAssociation,whichboastedofitspaviliondesignbyafemalearchitect.)The
officialhistoryoftheNewCenturyClubhighlightedthefactthat“thework,asfaras
possible,wasdonebywomen,”andthatthedesigndetailswereoverseenbythe
club’sself‐appointedcommittees.96(Mrs.J.C.Croly’schronicleofthePhiladelphia
clubalsoremarkedthat“thedesignwasMrs.HenryC.Townsend’s,thearchitect
wasMrs.MinervaParkerNichols”—anironicstatementinlightofNichols’
complaintsaboutdesignownershipinWoman’sProgress.)97Withfundingsecured
entirelyfrommemberpledges,thewholedesign,financing,andconstructionofthe
NewCenturyClubheadquarterswasatangibleassertionofwomen’ssocialstanding
andredefinedindependenceinthelatenineteenthcentury.
AlthoughtheNewCenturyClubkeptitsrecordsprivateinitsearlyyears—in
anefforttoshieldthenascentclubfromanyexternal(male)disapproval—the
membersofthesewomen’sclubs(includingtheQueenIsabellaAssociation)were
farfromsociallyobjectionable.Rather,theywereamongthemostrespectedwomen
95Croly,HistoryoftheWomen’sClub,1022.
96Ibid.,1026.
97Ibid.
59
intheirrespectivecities,associatedwithsomeofPhiladelphia’sandChicago’s
“noblestactivities.”98Thememberswereeducated,andinmanycasesprofessional,
middle‐andupper‐classwomen(bothsingleandmarried).TheQueenIsabella
Association,forexample,comprisedaremarkablecollectionofprominentwomen
fromthecity’shighestsocialechelons,including:

Dr.JuliaHolmesSmith,a“tallandqueenly”womanfromNewOrleans,
whohadjustgraduatedfromschoolwhentheCivilWarbrokeout,and
hadsubsequentlystudiedmedicineandpracticedforfourteenyears;

Mrs.CatherineVanValkenbergWaite,whostudiedlawwithherhusband
(ajudge)andpublishedtheLawTimesinChicagobeforeconductinga
successfulrealestatebusiness;

Mrs.CorrineS.Brown,thewifeofaChicagoBanker,whoactedasthe
correspondingsecretaryfortheInternationalLaborCongressandwasan
advocateforlaborandeconomicreform;

Dr.FrancesDickenson,“abornorganizerinspiteofherfrailanddelicate
appearance.”99
Farfromexistingattheedgesofacceptablesociety,therefore,thesewomen’sclubs
gatheredthemostprominentfemalemembersofsociety.Theircommissioningof
MinervaParkerNicholsastheirarchitectwasanindicationofhersocialstanding,
andprofessionalstatus,aswell.
98Ibid.,1028.
99AdelaideNicholsBakerpapers,3—4.
60
EquallysignificantforNichols’careerwastherolethattheseclubsplayedin
herownprofessionalnetworks.Althoughhergenderprecludedherparticipationin
manyofthesocietiesthatearnedhermalecounterpartstheircommissions,these
women’sclubsofferednewvenuesforinteractionandassociation.Indeed,these
clubsservedasNichols’footholdinsecuringforfuturecommissions—astrategy
thatotherfemalearchitects(includingJuliaMorgan,whodesignedtheBerkeley
Women’sClubin1929)lateradoptedtogainentrytotheprofession.
AmongtherostersofmembersattheNewCenturyClubsinPhiladelphiaand
WilmingtonarenamesthatalsoemergeinMinervaParkerNichols’oeuvreas
individualcommissions.WomensuchasRachelFosterAveryandEmilyW.Taylor
knewMinervaParkerNicholsthroughherworkwithwomen’scauses,andeach
womanhiredNicholsin1890todesignahousebeforealsosupportingNichols’
designfortheNewCenturyClubheadquarters.Moreover,theClub’smemberrolls
includedMissEmilySartain,thePresidentofthePhiladelphiaAcademyofDesign,
whothatsameyearhiredMinervaParkerNicholstoteachclassesonhistoric
ornamentandclassicarchitecture.100Asupporterofwomen’sreformcausesherself,
MinervaParkerNicholspracticedarchitectureinaneraofincreasingsocial
independenceforwomenthattranslatedtoanexpandingpatronageofwomen’s
clubsandclients.
Inadditiontotheseupperclasswomenandwidows,MinervaParker
Nichols’clientrosterincludesmanyfinanciallyindependent,middle‐classwomen—
100Wood,“Nichols,MinervaParker.”
61
evidenceofthesamesocialphenomenonofwhichMinerva’sownmotherAmanda
wasapart.Thesewomen—“thesingleandself‐supporting”—wereanexpanding
demographicinnineteenth‐centuryAmerica,astheCivilWarandindustrialization
producedself‐sufficientwomenbycircumstanceandbychoice.101MinervaParker—
beforehermarriagetoReverendNichols—washerselfamemberofthisclass,as
weremanyofherclients,includingtheMissesCampbell(oneofwhomwasa
schoolteacher),MissL.E.Gallagher,MissMarryBotts,MissElizabethNewport,and
MissSarahStewart.Foreachofthesewomen,Nicholsdesignedahousethat
explicitlyexpressedtheindividualityofthehomeasitimplicitlysignifiedthe
independenceofthehomeowner.
InitsprofileofMinervaParkerNicholsin1893,Woman’sProgress
commentedontheopportunitiesthatNichols’careerpresentedforwomenand
architecture:
Ifwomenadoptedarchitecturemoregenerallyasaprofession,therewould
certainlybedemandfortheirservices—formanywomenprefertohave
businessrelationswithmembersoftheirownsex.Itwouldprobablybean
inducementformorewomentobuildhouses,iftheyweresuretheycould
securetheassistanceofacompetentwomanarchitect.102
Theseobservations—alongwithMinervaParkerNichols’instructionstothefemale
clientinHousekeeper’sWeekly—areaclearindicationthatwomen’sparticipationin
thefieldwasstillfledgling.Newtotheworldofarchitectureintheprofessionalized
sense,women(asarchitectsandasclients)neededtocultivateanunderstandingof
101AnneH.Wharton,“TheWoman’sClubofToday,”Arthur’sHomeMagazine,July1891,501.
AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
102“RepresentativeWomen:MinervaParkerNichols,Architect,”Woman’sProgressI,no.2(May
1893):59.
62
boththetheoriesandthepracticeofthefield.MinervaParkerNichols,well‐versed
inboth,wasconsequentlyastrongadvocateforboththeeducatedarchitect—and
herclients.Together,asWoman’sProgresspredicted,theycouldadvancethe
professionalandsocialstandingofeachotherinthefieldofarchitecture.
Asthefieldofarchitecturefounditsprofessionalfootingingeneralinthelate
nineteenthcentury,italsofacedthetandememergenceofwomenasarchitectsand
womenasclientsinthebuiltenvironmentfields.Facedwiththeseshiftingrolesand
identities,thearchitecturefielderuptedwithdebatesofnotonlyprofessionalization
butalsospecialization,inbothcommissionsandclientele,inthelatenineteenth
century.Inlightofthosedebates,andthesurvivingremnantsofNichols’career,and
wemustconsiderthelegacyandsignificanceofherdesignsandcommissionstoday.
63
CHAPTERFOUR│SIGNIFICANCE:THEPARADOXOFTHESURVIVINGWORK
MinervaParkerNichols’independentpracticeandfinancially‐independent
clienteleofferacompellingwindowintowomen’ssocialandprofessional
developmentinthenineteenthcentury.Thestrengthofherstory,anditsrelationto
thetrajectoriesofotherwomeninthebuiltenvironmentfields,wouldseemto
suggestanimperativeforpreservationaction.Yetthegenderimplicationsof
Nichols’career,andtheshiftingacknowledgementofherfemale‐nessinherpractice
andprofession,affecthowweframeherroleinbothwomen’shistoryand
architecturalhistory.Thesamecomplexitiesthathavehamperedherinclusionin
architecturalhistoriesnowcomplicatethecommemorationofherbuiltlegacy,
revealingandaccentuatingthelimitationsinourcurrentunderstandingof
significanceanddesignationintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.
AnydiscussionofMinervaParkerNichols’significancemustbeginwiththe
acknowledgementthat—evenifwecanclarifythenarrativesandimportanceofher
career—designationdoesnotguaranteethepreservationorprotectionofher
works.NationalRegisterdesignationimposesnomandatesonitslistings;theonly
supervisoryauthorityitintroducesisiftheownerpursuestaxcreditsfora
64
rehabilitationproject.Thethreatofde‐listingisrarelyinvoked,andaproperty
couldbedemolishedwithnointerventionfromNationalRegisteradministrators.
Preservationpolicyonalocallevel,guidedbyseparatelocalregisters,offers
somemeasureofjurisdictionandregulatoryoversight.Manycitiessuchas
Philadelphia—theplaceofsomeofNichols’highest‐profilecommissions—have
theirownhistoricalcommissionsthatsupervisechangestolocalregister‐listed
properties.Eventhesearchitecturereviewboards,however,arelimitedin
jurisdictionbytheirenablinglegislation;theycanmakedemolitionmoredifficult,
butnotbaritaltogether.SmallermunicipalitiessuchasLowerMerionTownship,
whichencompassesmanyofherresidentialprojects,oftenhaveevenlesscontrol
overthefateoftheirlistedproperties.Eventhoseboroughsortownshipsthathave
theirownlocalregisterandarchitecturalreviewboardcanonly,likelargercities,
deterbutnotprohibitthedemolitionofalocally‐significantsite.Athematic
nominationofNichols‐designedresourcesinbothPhiladelphiaandLowerMerion
couldbegintoaddresstheseissues,buttheresultantdesignatedpropertieswould
stillfacethesamethreatsasotherNationalRegistersites.
ParsingthethemesandsignificanceofNichols’career(orthoseofother
historicfigures)maythereforeseemtobeafutileexercise.Butdeterminationsof
significancesetprioritiesforpreservationpolicy,anddesignationhasthepowerto
increaseawareness,advocacy,andpreservationopportunities.Furthermore,an
overly‐broadapproachtosignificance—onethatassumesahistoricpropertyor
personissignificantuntilprovenotherwise—risksdullingtheimpactofdesignation
65
anddamagingthepublicperceptionofsignificance.Suchanapproachiscommon
practiceincurrentpreservationpolicy,aspropertiesassociatedwithcertain
prominentarchitectsareoftenreflexivelydesignatedwithlittleconsiderationfor
thequalityorrepresentativevaluesofthework.Afterall,ifwelistandvenerateall
oftheworksofrenownedarchitectssuchasFrankLloydWrightorFrankFurness,
howdowedistinguishbetweenthosearchitects’bestworksandtheirworst?Too
often,wecorrelatetheimportanceofthepersonwiththeimportanceofthe
architecture—andinstinctivelyassignsignificancetoboth.Itisthereforeworth
scrutinizingthecurrentframeworksfordesignationandhowweassignandascribe
thatsignificance.
Theverydefinitionof“significance”isafluidandflexibleconceptin
preservationpolicy,treatedas—asRandallMasondescribesit—astandardofself‐
evidence.103Indeed,theNationalRegistercriteria,aswellasthe60‐pagebulletin
thatexplainshowtoapplythosecriteria,usetheterm“significant”frequently
withouteverofferingadefinitionorclarifyingitsuse.Instead,thedefinitionisleftto
beimpliedbythecriteriathemselves,circlingtheissuewithoutdirectlyaddressing
it.Asaresult,theconceptof“significance”isopen‐ended,theresultant“areasof
significance”arevague,andthecriteriaaresubjectivelyappliedbasedonshifting
understandingsoftheword.Intheabsenceofaclearerunderstandingof
“significance,”wemust,inkeepingwithcurrentpreservationpolicy,usethecriteria
103RandallMason,“FixingHistoricPreservation:AConstructiveCritiqueof‘Significance,’”Places16,
no.1(2004):64.
66
forsignificancetoapproximate“significance”itself(therebyfulfillingthatso‐called
“standardofself‐evidence”).
TheprominenceofMinervaParkerNichols’architecturalpracticeinthelate
nineteenthcenturydoesnotpinpointhowwecanunderstandhercareerandits
architecturalorassociativevaluestoday.Rather,thecomplexitiesofherrelatively
shorttenureofformalpractice,herprofessionaltimingandreception,herstated
specialization,andherunusualclientbaseanimatethefirstquestionsof
categorizationandcommemoration.Forthesereasons,herbiographyandpractice
serveasausefullensforexaminingourestablishednotionsofsignificanceandour
criteriaforevaluatingsignificantpeopleandsignificantworks.Areherlifeand
workssignificantforarchitecturalhistory?Forwomen’shistory?Forboth?Orfor
neither?Itisthislastpossibilitythatwemustconsider—anddispensewith—first.
ThehistoricalrecordonwomeninAmericanarchitecturehas,bydefault,
deemedMinervaParkerNicholsinsignificantintheevolutionofarchitecturalor
women’shistory.Thebrevityofherformalpracticeandthemodestscaleofmostof
hercommissionshaveobscuredherplaceinlatenineteenth‐centuryAmericaand
itsarchitecture.Adeeperreadingofhercareer,however,andherprofessional
timingasawomanandanarchitect,encouragesamorenuancedunderstandingof
hercommissionsandherclientele.Withthisproperunderstandingofher
professional,architectural,andsocialcontexts,wemustthereforecorrectthe
historicrecordandallowthatMinervaParkerNichols’careerholdsatleastsome
measureofsignificance.
67
ButunderwhatcategorydoesNichols’significancefall?TheNational
Registercriteriaincludeagreatdealofvaguenessintheirguidelines,butthat
nuancethatissonecessarytoconsiderhercareerdoesnottranslatewelltothe
stricturesofcommemoratingherwork.Rather,thecriteriarelyon“areasof
Americanhistory”tosilothesignificanceofpropertiesassociatedwithimportant
individuals,segmentingoutthepreservationvaluesofthepropertyandconflating
theimportoftheindividualwiththatofthesite.WhiletheRegisterstopsshortof
offeringafinitelistofoptionsfortheseareasofsignificance,itsuggestsseveral—
including“commerce,exploration/settlement,literature,politics,etc.”—whichserve
asthebasesforaproperty’sresearch,documentation,anddesignation.Inthecase
ofMinervaParkerNichols,then,wecanonlyinterpretthecomplexitiesofhercareer
byignoringthoseverycontradictions,focusinginsteadontheeasily‐categorized
themesofarchitecturalhistoryandwomen’shistory.
Atfirstglance,Nichols’professionalpracticesuggestsaclearlinkbetween
hercareerandthedesignationofsignificanceunderthethemeof“architectural
history.”Afterall,shewasthefirstwomantopracticearchitectureindependentlyin
thecountry,andsignificanceinpreservationpolicyhasoftenfixatedontheconcept
of“first”or“most”or“best.”Uponreflection,however,thesamesuperlativesthat
makeNichols’careerinterestingforarchitecturalhistorianscomplicatethe
placementofherworkinarchitecturalhistoryandthedesignationofthatwork
withincurrentpreservationframeworks.
68
Nichols’careertrajectoryiscuriousinthatshespentnearlyfivedecadesin
retirementandinformalpractice—comparedwithameretenyearsofformal
practice(eightofwhichwereindependent).Shedesignedover40projectswhile
workingonherowninPhiladelphia,butshecontinuedtodesignbuildingsforfamily
andfriendsevenafterclosingherfirmandmovingtoNewYork.Someofher
buildingssurvivetoday,includingseveralofherresidentialcommissionsfromboth
herpracticingyearsandherlaterdecadesofwork.(Heronelarge‐scaleprojectin
theselateryearswasthebuildingfortheBrowneandNicholsSchool,whichwas
torndownin1968.)104Thedistinctionbetweenherformalpracticeandherlater,
occasionalcommissionsmaythereforeseemlikeastrangecontrasttodraw,given
hercontinuous(albeitincreasinglysporadic)workfromtheageof24untilher
deathat87.Yet,aswithsomanyotheranomalousaspectsofNichols’career,the
nuancesofherformalandinformalpracticedonotsuittheestablished
understandingofimportance,inwhichsignificancehasspecifiedperiods(without
fixeddefinitions).
Nichols’oneclearsuperlative(asthefirstwomantopracticewithoutaman)
intheevolutionofthefieldofarchitectureisonlyashortchapterinthelonger
contextofherlife,yetouremphasisonhercontributionsinindependentpractice
wouldseemtoprivilegethoseyearsabovetherest.Infact,theNationalRegister,as
arule,generallyconsiderseligiblepropertiestobe“thoseassociatedwiththe
104CharlesM.Sullivan,emailmessagetoauthor,February6,2012.
69
productivelifeoftheindividualinthefieldinwhich(s)heachievedsignificance.”105
But,aswiththeideaof“significance,”theconceptofanindividual’s“productive
period”isopen‐ended.IfMinervaParkerNichols’significanceispredicatedonher
individualpractice,doesthismeanthatonlythosepropertiesdesignedbetween
1888and1896aresignificantandeligiblefordesignation?Afterall,muchlikea
politicalfigurewhoseterminofficeservesashis“productiveperiod”ofsignificance,
Nichols’practice—whichservesasthebasisforherownsignificance—was
relativelybriefandfinite,lastingforjusteightyears.Doeshersignificance’speriod
ofproductivity,then,fadewithherformalretirementin1896?Ifso,our
understandingofhersignificancewouldseemtoexcludeseveralcommissionsfrom
laterdecadesofherlifethatmightotherwisebeconsideredrepresentativeor
exemplaryworksinNichols’oeuvre.Yet,ifwedonotlimitthescopeofherworkto
theyearsassociatedwithherindependentpractice,optinginsteadtotreatherwork
equallyandindiscriminately,thenweonceagainriskapplyingthevaluesof
significanceinanimprecise,arbitrarymanner.Onceagain,MinervaParkerNichols’
careerandworkscallintoquestionthepreservationandcommemorationofa
narrativethat—aswithsomanyothers—doesnotconformtoourestablished
preservationparameters.
MinervaParkerNichols’relationtothenineteenth‐centurynarrativeof
architecturaleducationandprofessionalizationisalsodifficulttoisolate.Shewas
105BethGrosvenorBoland,NationalRegisterBulletin32:GuidelinesforEvaluatingandDocumenting
PropertiesAssociatedwithSignificantPersons(Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.):
16.
70
notthefirstwomantopractice—thatdescriptorappliestoLouiseBlanchard
Bethune—northemostprolific—alabelthatcouldarguablybeappliedtoJulia
Morgan.Moreover,inanarrativeoftheprofessionalizationofarchitectureinthe
nineteenthcentury,herstoryonceagainprovesproblematic:shewasnotthefirst
womaninductedintotheAmericanInstituteofArchitects(Bethunewas),oreven
anyotherprofessionalsociety.Thesuperlativesofthosewomenaresimpler—afact
reflectedintheirmuchmorethoroughstudybyscholarsandtheirmuchmore
noticeableinterpretationincommemorativelandmarks.Instead,Nichols’career
occupiedterritorysomewherebetweenthebuildingtradesandtheacademy‐
trainedarchitectsinthenineteenthcentury’sgrowingriftofarchitecturaleducation
andprofessionalization.Sheheldno“firsts”or“mosts”inthatmiddlegroundthat
wouldbeeasytoveneratetoday.
Professionally,MinervaParkerNicholsdidholdthe“first”ofindependent
practice,butarchitecturally,shewasinsomewaysstillverymuchwithinthestatus
quoofwomeninthenineteenthcentury.Herfewpublicprojectsnotwithstanding,
shespecializedinabuildingtypethatwasinmanywaysstillassociatedwith
women,inthemostlimitingsense.Shehadfewlargerprojectstohername,and
thoseshediddesign—suchasthetwowomen’sclubsandthespaghettifactories—
werefarfromthescaleofBethune’s,orevenSophiaHayden’s,largestworks.Asa
result,ifwearetounderstandhersignificancetoAmericanarchitecturalhistory,we
mustreconsidertheparametersofhercareerandtheseemingordinarinessofher
commissions.
71
Thosecommissions,andtheirassociatedclientbase,introducetheother
potentialareaofsignificanceforMinervaParkerNichols’career:women’shistory.
ApplyingthisemphasiswouldtieintonotonlyNichols’significanceasanindividual,
butalsothatofherfemaleclients.Usingherpersonalstoriesandherclients’
commissionsasthefocalpoints,thiscategorizationofsignificancecouldpresenta
narrativeofmiddle‐andupperclasswomen’ssocialandfinancialindependencein
thenineteenthcentury.
AsrecentdecadesofscholarshipbyJoanScottandothershave
demonstrated,however,applyingthisframeworktoquestionsofsignificancerisks
distortingthe“spheres”ofgenderandconstructingahistorythatretrospectively
“discovers”women’scontributionstoAmericansociety.Inthecaseofthelatter,
ElizabethPleck,aprofessorofwomen’shistory,argues:
Thecompensatoryapproachtowomen’shistory,nomatterhownecessaryas
aremedyfortheinvisibilityofwomenandtheiraccomplishments,placestoo
muchemphasisonthosewomenwhoselivesdepartedfromthetypical
femaleexperiencethroughactivisminpubliclife.106
Theflawsinthisapproach,anditsskewedemphasisonthe“atypicalfemale
experience,”becomealltooclearinthestudyofMinervaParkerNichols.Afterall,
wasshe—withherindependentpracticeandearlyarchitecturaltraining—a
departurefromthetypicalfemaleexperience?Ordohermarriageandsubsequent
retirementfromformalpracticeconformtoourunderstandingofthelate
nineteenthcentury’s“typical”woman,renderingherworkunworthyoffurther
106PagePutnamMiller,ReclaimingthePast:LandmarksofWomen’sHistory(Bloomington,IN:Indiana
UniversityPress,1992):8.
72
studyandcommemoration?Ourconceptsofsignificance,asguidedbytheNational
Registercriteria,embracethedesignationofbothrepresentativeandexceptional
propertiesbutofferfewclarificationsofthedistinctionsbetweenthetwo.
Forthetenyearsthatshepracticedarchitecture,andparticularlyduringthe
eightyearsthatsheconductedasolopractice,MinervaParkerNicholswasvery
muchtheatypicalwomaninnineteenth‐centuryAmerica.Newspapershighlighted
hersingularity,andhercontemporariesnotedheruncommoneducation,choiceof
profession,anddepthofexperience.Suchcoveragewascommonduringher
independentcareer,andevenoccasionally—inthecaseofthe1887Carpentryand
Buildingarticleaboutherwork—beforeherindependentpractice.These
distinctions,accordedbyNichols’contemporariesduringheractivecareer,are
importantinunderstandingherhistoriccontextanddefininghersignificance.In
termsoftheperceptionandreceptionofhercareer,then,MinervaParkerNichols’
significancewouldseemtobepredicatedonthatcontemporaryconsensusin
nineteenthcenturyAmericathatshewasindeedatypical.Thecommemorativeand
interpretivechallengesofhercareercouldthereforeberesolvedbyhighlightingher
singularity—andheratypicalplaceinnineteenth‐centurysocietyand
professionalism—inordertounderstandtheothernormsthatmadeherworkso
importantandremarkable.
ButwhatofMinervaParkerNichols’perceptionofherself?Towhatextent
shouldherunderstandingofherowncareer’stypicalness,anditsplacein
architectureandhistory,informhowweconsiderhertoday?Givenhowmuch
73
emphasisweplaceonprimarysourcesinourresearchofhistoriccontextandour
statementsofsignificance,itwouldseemthatherthoughtsshoulddirectlyinform
ourconclusions.What,then,dowemakeofthefactthatsherefusedtorelyonher
sextojustifyandpromotehercareer?HereditorialfortheAmericanArchitectand
BuildingNews,forexample,washeadlined“AWomanontheWoman’sBuilding,”but
itwasfirminitsdismissalofgenderasthebasisforanarchitect’squalificationsor
success:“Wedonotneedwomenasarchitects,wedonotneedmen,butwedoneed
brainsenoughtoliftthearchitectureofthiscountrybeyondthegraspofunskilled
andunqualifiedpractitioners.”107Manyofherotherpublishedcolumnsechoed
thesesamewords,arguingforeducationalopportunitiesandprofessional
credentialsregardlessofgender—anddecryingboththemenandthewomenwho
didnotupholdthestandardsoftheprofession.Herrejectionofhersexasacrutch
forhercareercastssomedoubtonourownassociativelinkbetweenherfemale‐
nessandhersignificance.Canwethenframeherworksasthoseofasignificant,
“atypical”femalearchitect,whenshewoulddisputetheverybasisofthatgendered
designation?Onceagain,ourrelativelyindiscriminateuseoftheword“significant,”
intheNationalRegistercriteriaandelsewhere,arenotclearaboutthese
discrepanciesbetweenthehistoricrecordandreflectiveperception.
ThesameissuescloudtheunderstandingofNichols’workinrelationtoher
femaleclientbase.IftheirrelationtoMinervaParkerNicholsisthecompelling
narrativeofhercareer—illustratingthetandememergenceofwomeninthebuilt
107Nichols,“AWomanontheWoman’sBuilding,”170.
74
environmentasarchitectsandasclients—thenthedesignationofproperties
associatedwithNicholsshould,intheory,dependnotonlyonthearchitect’s
significance,butalsoontheclient’s.Thisunderstandingofsignificancewouldseem,
then,toprecludethedesignationofNichols’projectsformaleclients,including
severalpossiblyextantresidentialcommissions.Thus,allofthecomplicationsin
definingNichols’careerandsignificancewouldbecompoundedbysimilarquestions
ofherclients’historicalimportanceand—inthecaseofthewomenclients—their
“typical”or“atypical”femaleexperience.
Onceagain,aswithusingarchitecturalhistoryasanareaofemphasis,
employingwomen’shistoryasthesiloforMinervaParkerNichols’significance
provesdifficult.Hercareersimplydoesnotadheretoourcurrentmethodsof
understandingsignificance,offeringacasestudyofthelimitationsinourcurrent
assumptionsandassignmentsofsignificance.MinervaParkerNichols’narrativeand
worksilluminatetheweaknessesinourdesignationsthataresimultaneouslytoo
narrowlycategorizedandtoobroadlyapplied.Theseomissionsandambiguitiesin
thecriteriaofsignificancemayhavebeendesignedforflexibility,buttheyconfuse
theframeworkofdesignation,challengetheinterpretationofimportantnarratives,
andconflatethestoriesofhistoricfiguresandsites.Consequently,ourcultural
landscapeofdesignatedpropertiesisthesubjective,idiosyncraticresultofpolicies
thatequatesignificancewithvalue—withouteverclarifyingeither.
Givensuchvague,imprecisedefinitionsandapplicationsofsignificance,the
evaluationofthesite’sintegrityhastypicallyservedasourlimitingfilterfor
75
preservationandcommemoration.Indeed,theNationalRegistergoessofarasto
identifysevenaspectsofintegrity(althoughitadmitsthattheirevaluationmaybe
subjective):location,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feelingand
association.AccordingtotheRegisterbulletin,eligibleproperties“willalways
possessseveral,andusuallymostoftheaspects”ofintegrity;withoutthem,a
propertyisautomaticallyineligiblefordesignation.108
Thisemphasisonarchitecturalintegrityhasparticularramificationsfor
historicresourcesassociatedwithminoritypopulations.AntoinetteJ.Leepointed
outthisissuewhileworkingfortheofficeoftheNationalRegister.InherbookThe
AmericanMosaic:PreservingaNation’sHeritage,Leeciteshistorians’concernthat
sitesassociatedwithethnicorwomen’shistoryoftenfareworsethanthoseofthe
dominantculture.Theemphasisonarchitecturalintegrityinevaluatingsites’
eligibilitythereforeskewsourconceptsofsignificancetowardthedominantcultural
narrativeandbuiltlegacy.109PagePutnamMillerechoesthisargument,maintaining
that“thesearchforpristineoriginalsofwomen’spastisfrustratingandnear
impossible,yettheneedforidentifyingandlandmarkingsitesthatcanconnectusto
women’sstruggles,experience,andaccomplishmentsisgreat.”110Theverymeasure
ofintegrity,whichintheorylendsadegreeofobjectiverationalitytothe
108NationalParkService,NationalRegisterBulletin15,44.
109Miller,ReclaimingthePast,18.
110Ibid.,21.
76
designationofhistoricsites,insteadfurtherdistortsthepreservationofourbuilt
environmentasitprivilegesthephysicalfabricovertheothervaluesofthesite.111
MinervaParkerNichols’workhasclearlybeenpronetothelossofintegrity
thatLeeandMillerdiscuss.Domesticprojects,likeallbuildings,passthrough
differentownersanddifferentarchitecturalstyles,buttheyaremoresusceptibleto
modificationthanmanyotherbuildingtypologies.Herdesignsarethereforeanideal
illustrationofthelimitationsinthefabric‐centricunderstandingofsignificance.
Together,theuseofsignificanceandintegritytoassesssignificanceengenders
glaringgapsinthepreservedlandscapeofarchitecturalandAmericanhistory.
Attimes,thesegapsareattributablenottomisappropriationof
“significance,”ortoflawsintheNationalRegistercriteria.Rather,sometimesthey
areevidentsimplybecauseoftheinevitablelossofhistoricbuildings.Inthese
scenarios,otherpropertiesassociatedwithasignificantpersonorarchitectural
stylehavebeenlostovertime,resultinginaparadoxofthesurvivingwork.This
beginswithourassumptionthattangibilityofasitehasvaluebeyondthemere
narrativeofitsstory.Theparadoxarises,however,fromthefactthatwecanonly
preserveandinterpretwhathasalreadysurvivedtothepresentday.
Thesesitesthatremainmaynotbethebestrepresentativeresourcesforthat
interpretationorthatsignificance.TheNationalRegisterconsidersthispossibility,
andaddressesthedilemma:“Somepropertiesmightbeeligibleastheonlysurviving
propertyassociatedwithasignificantindividual.Suchapropertymightincludea
111Mason,“FixingHistoricPreservation,”68.
77
person’slasthome,evenifmostorallofhisorhersignificantaccomplishments
occurredbefore(s)helivedinthehouse.112Farfromitsemphasisonarchitectural
integrityandphysicalfabricasalimitingfactor,then,theNationalRegisterallows
forthecommemorationofless‐representativesiteswhenanother,more
appropriatesitehasalreadybeenlost.Thesurvivingworkthereforeassumesa
distortedsignificancebyvirtueofitssurvival,regardlessofwhetherornotitbest
representstheassociativevaluesoftheindividualorthearchitecturalvaluesofthe
designer.
InthecaseofMinervaParkerNichols,thisparadoxisevidentinthe
demolitionanddesignationofherdesignsfortheNewCenturyClubsofPhiladelphia
andWilmington(respectively).Bothfitwithinourunderstandingofhercareer’s
trajectory,andeachbuildinghighlightstheanomaliesofherclientbaseand
professionalmoment.Yet,Nichols’designfortheNewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia
wasamongherbest‐received,andmost‐publicized,designs.ItwasthefirstNew
CenturyClubheadquartersdesignedforwomenbyawoman,anditemployedan
eclecticarchitecturalstyleinkeepingwithitsPhiladelphiacontext.Itsmembership
includedmanyoftheindividualsthathiredNicholsforothercommissions,aswell
asthepresidentofaschoolofdesignforwomenwhereNicholsatonepointtaught.
Moreover,itsconstructionwasentirelyfundedandoverseenbythe
membersoftheClub,anditsfinisheddesignincorporatedaccommodationsforout‐
of‐townmemberstostayovernight,aswellastheaterspace,lecturehalls,
112Boland,NationalRegisterBulletin32,16.
78
committeerooms,andparlors.ThebuildingfortheNewCenturyClubof
PhiladelphiathereforetouchedonmanyofthesalientthemesofMinervaParker
Nichols’career,includingherownarchitecturaltrainingandeducation,her
professionalpractice,thenetworkofassociationsandcommissionsthatthese
nascentwomen’sclubsprovided,andthefinancialandsocialindependenceof
womeninthenineteenthcentury.Itwouldbeperhapstheperfectvehicletoconvey
MinervaParkerNichols’significance(usingwhateverunderstandingofthatterm)—
ifithadnotbeendemolishedin1973.113
TheNewCenturyClubofWilmingtonsurvivestodayastheonlybuilding
associatedwithMinervaParkerNicholsandhercommissionsforwomen’sclubs.
Thebuildingisarchitecturallyinterestingandhistoricinitsownright,designedby
Nicholsin1892andfundedonceagainbythewomenoftheclub.Itsdesignis
ColonialRevival,andincludesroomsthatservemanyofthesamefunctionsasthe
NewCenturyClubofPhiladelphia’shallsandparlors.Butitdoesnotseemtohave
hadthesameimpactonNichols’professionalnetwork,helpinghertosecureother
residentialcommissions.Itwasalsothesecondcommissionforawomen’sclubin
hercareer,succeedingherworkwiththePhiladelphiaclubbyoverayear.114Itstill
standstoday,though,andassumesthesignificancethatwouldotherwisebe
ascribedtothePhiladelphiaheadquarters.ItwasnominatedtotheNational
113LibraryofCongress,PrintsandPhotographsDivision,HistoricAmericanBuildingsSurvey,PA‐
1522.
114TheNationalRegisterdoesnotdrawthelineat“first”or“earliest,”butitalsodoesnotdefinewhat
cardinalnumberitdoesexclude.TheNewCenturyClubofWilmington,forexample,ispromotedas
“onlythefourthstructureintheUnitedStatesdesignatedforexclusiveuseasawoman’sclub.”
(PatriciaA.MaleyandRobertBriggs,NationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesInventory—Nomination
Form:NewCenturyClub,January1983):3.
79
Registerin1984andapproved,bearingouttheRegister’swillingnesstodesignate
thesurviving,butperhapsnotmostsignificant,work.Thisparadoxofthesurviving
workrendersallourotherquestionsaboutsignificancemoot,ifthesurvivingsiteis
designatedanyway,yetitalso(ironically)divertstheinterpretiveemphasisfrom
thefabric‐centricapproachtothevalues‐andnarrative‐basedonethatwenow
claimtoseek.
WhatthenshouldwemakeofbothMinervaParkerNichols’careerandthe
NationalRegister’scriteriafordesignatingherwork?Herbiographyoffersa
compellinginterpretivelensforseveralthemesofAmericansocialandarchitectural
history,butourcurrentassumptionsofsignificancefallshortofunderstandingand
recognizinganomalousnarrativessuchashers.Toonarrowlydefinedandtoo
broadlyapplied,theyleaveseveralquestionsabout“significance”unresolved,
establishingapresumptivelinkbetweentheimportanceofthearchitect(asan
individual)andtheinterpretationofherarchitecture.
Framedintheseterms,thelimitationsinourdefinitionsofsignificanceare
clearlybroaderthanthechallengesofcommemorationthatMinervaParkerNichols’
careerintroduces.Herstory,withallofitsambiguitiesandcontradictions,merely
accentuatesthosesamequalitiesinthecriteriafortheNationalRegisterofHistoric
Placesandinourvaluesofsignificance.MinervaParkerNicholsseemstobe
instinctivelyandclearlyimportant,andyetthecomplexitiesofhercareerandwork
challengeourdefinitionsanddesignationofthatverysignificance.
80
CHAPTERFIVE│CONCLUSION
MinervaParkerNichols’formalcareerwasbrief,andmanyofherworksno
longerstand.Nevertheless,herimportanceforarchitectural,social,andwomen’s
historyispalpable,nomatterhowcomplicatedthethemesofherbiographyand
commissionsare.Historyvaluescomplexity,andourpreservationframeworksfor
designatingandcommemoratingthathistoryshouldbeagileandarticulateenough
toaccommodatethatcomplexity.Ourdesignationsofsignificancearenot,intheir
currentform,suitableinthecaseofMinervaParkerNichols—orindeed,anyother
personwhoseimportanceisnotsimpleorsortable.Nichols’careerandworksserve,
therefore,notonlytoillustrateanimportanteraofwomeninthebuiltenvironment,
butalsotoilluminatetheweaknessesofourpreservationframeworksthatdonot
adequatelyrecognizethatimportance.
ThecommemorativeinstrumentsforinterpretingNichols’significancecould
takemanyformsandarefodderforfuturepreservationplanning.Althoughmostof
herhigher‐profileworksnolongerstand,severalofherresidentialcommissionsas
wellasoneofherwomen’sclubssurvivetoday.Bothtypesarekeyelementsinthe
81
storyofhercareer,andeachoffersopportunitiesforinterpretationofhernarrative
andofitslargerarchitectural,social,andhistoricalcontextandimpact.
Aswehaveseeninourdiscussionofsignificance,however,wecannotlimit
ourinterpretationtothetangibleremnantsofthebuiltheritage.Doingsowould
privilegetheexistingfragmentsoverthebroaderbodyofwork,disposingofthe
complexitiesofNichols’career(andotherswithsimilarlycomplicatedtrajectories)
byfavoringthesurvivingwork.Instead,ourrecognitionofhersignificanceshould
allowforthefullestunderstandingofthatidea,andweshouldadoptarangeof
responses—including,perhaps,virtualtoolsaswellasexhibitsormultiple‐property
nominations—befittingthespectrumofthemesthathercareerencompasses.
Ourcurrentlimitationsofframingandunderstandingsignificancedonot
meanthatweshouldnotseekpluralisminourcommemorationofheritage.Instead,
asanassessmentofNichols’commissionsdemonstrates,thefieldofpreservation
wouldbenefitfromanapproachtocomplexnarrativesthatembracesabroader
understandingofheritage—withoutresortingtoacompensatorypursuitof
diversity.Nichols’decadeofformalpractice,withitscomplicatedthemesofgender,
professionalism,anddesign,fallsoutsideourestablishedrecordofarchitectural
historyandourcurrentframeworksforsignificance.ThecareerofMinervaParker
Nichols,andthecontradictionsofherwork’sspecializationandsocialnorms,
animatesaworthwhilechallengetoourunderstandingofsignificanceandtheways
inwhichourdesignationsareascribed,assigned,andassumed.
82
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott,Lyman.TheHouseandHome:APracticalHandbook,VolumeI.NewYork:
CharlesScribner’sSons,1896.
AdelaideNicholsBakerPapers.SchlesingerLibrary.RadcliffeCollege.
Allaback,Sarah.“’BetterthanSilverandGold’:DesignSchoolsforWomenin
America,1848—1860.”InJournalofWomen’sHistory(Spring1998):88—
107.
―――.TheFirstAmericanWomenArchitects.Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinois,2008.
“AmongPhiladelphians.”NewYorkTimes,December27,1891,12.ProQuest
HistoricalNewspapers:NewYorkTimes.
Bethune,LouiseBlanchard.“WomenandArchitecture.”TheInlandArchitectand
NewsRecord,March1891,21.
Boland,BethGrosvenor.NationalRegisterBulletin32:GuidelinesforEvaluatingand
DocumentingPropertiesAssociatedwithSignificantPersons.Washington,DC:
U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.
CarpentryandBuilding9,no.10(October1887):197.
Chalmers,F.Graeme.WomenintheNineteenth‐CenturyArtWorld:SchoolsofArtand
DesignforWomeninLondonandPhiladelphia.Westport,CT:Greenwood
Press,1998.
“Chicago:TheArchitectoftheWoman’sBuilding.”AmericanArchitectandBuilding
News38,no.883(November26,1892):134.
Cohen,JeffreyA.“BuildingaDiscipline:EarlyInstitutionalSettingsforArchitectural
EducationinPhiladelphia,1804‐1890.”InJournaloftheSocietyof
ArchitecturalHistorians53,no.2(Jun.1994):139—83.
83
Conn,StevenandMaxPage,eds.BuildingtheNation:AmericansWriteAboutTheir
Architecture,TheirCities,andTheirLandscape.Philadelphia:Universityof
PennsylvaniaPress,2003.
Croly,Mrs.J.C.TheHistoryoftheWomen’sClubMovementinAmerica.NewYork:
HenryG.Allen&Co.,1898.
Edgerly,LouisStiles,ed.Women’sWords,Women’sStories:AnAmericanDaybook.
Gardiner,ME:TilburyHouse,1994.
Francis,MaryC.“TheGeneralFederationofWomen’sClubs.”Godey’sMagazine,
December1895,575.AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
Gilchrist,AgnesAddison.“Nichols,MinervaParker.”InNotableAmericanWomen
1607—1950:ABiographicalDictionary.EditedbyEdwardT.James.
Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversity,1971.629.
Grossman,ElizabethG.andLisaB.Reitzes.“CaughtintheCrossfire:Womenand
ArchitecturalEducation,1880—1910.”InArchitecture:APlaceforWomen.
EditedbyEllenPerryBerkeley.Washington,DC:SmithsonianInstitution
Press,1989.27—40.
Kauffman,Kathi.“ADesigningWomanFarAheadofHerTime,”Philadelphia
Inquirer,August18,1991.AccessedFebruary28,2012.
www.articles.philly.com/1991‐08‐18/news/25806583_1_architectural‐
school‐philadelphia‐club‐domestic‐architecture.
LibraryofCongress.PrintsandPhotographsDivision,HistoricAmericanBuildings
Survey,PA‐1522.
“ManyLeadersTalkOnDressReform.”ChicagoDailyTribune,May24,1893,10.
ProQuestHistoricalNewspapersChicagoTribune.
Mason,Randall.“FixingHistoricPreservation:AConstructiveCritiqueof
‘Significance’.”Places16,no.1(2004):64—71.
Merrett,AndreaJ.“FromSeparateSpherestoGenderedSpaces:TheHistoriography
ofWomenandGenderin19thCenturyandEarly20thCenturyAmerica.”The
ProceedingsofSpacesofHistory/HistoriesofSpace:EmergingApproachesto
theStudyoftheBuiltEnvironment,CollegeofEnvironmentalDesign,UC
Berkeley.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2010.
Miller,JosephDana.“WomenasArchitects.”FrankLeslie’sPopularMonthlyI,no.2,
(June1900).AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
84
Miller,PagePutnam.ReclaimingthePast:LandmarksofWomen’sHistory.
Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress,1992.
“MinervaParker(Architect.).”PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’GuideV,
no.12(March26,1890):1.
MinervaParkerCollection.TheArchitecturalArchives.UniversityofPennsylvania.
“Mrs.NicholsDead;RetiredArchitect.”NewYorkTimes,November20,1949.
ProQuestHistoricalNewspapers.94.
NationalParkService.NationalRegisterBulletin15:HowtoApplytheNational
RegisterCriteriaforEvaluation.Washington,DC:U.S.Departmentofthe
Interior,1995.
Nichols,MinervaParker.“AnUncultivatedField.”Housekeeper’sWeekly,June10,
1893.
―――.“Architecture,ArchitectandClient.”Woman’sProgress(May1893):60.
―――.“AWomanontheWomen’sBuilding.”AmericanArchitectandArchitecture38,
No.885(December10,1892):170.
Nichols,MinervaParker,FrancesD.Nichols,andDoaneFischer.“TheBaddestDay”
andotherfavoritestories:astoldinGa‐Ga’sownwordsabout1944and
recordedinshorthandbyFrancesD.Nicholswhodidtheillustrations.
Westport,CT:D.Fischer,1997.
“NotesandComments.”TheCaliforniaArchitectandBuildingNews11,no.6(June
20,1890):66.
Paine,Judith.“PioneerWomenArchitects.”InWomeninAmericanArchitecture:A
HistoricandContemporaryPerspective.EditedbySusanaTorre.NewYork:
ArchitecturalLeagueofNewYork,1977.54—70.
PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’GuideIV,no.32(August14,1889):
378.
PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordandBuilders’Guide5,no.12(March26,1890):i.
“RepresentativeWomen:MinervaParkerNichols,Architect,”Woman’sProgressI,
no.2(May1893):59.
85
Tatman,SandraL.“Nichols,MinervaParker(1863?—1949):Biography.”
PhiladelphiaArchitectsandBuildings.AccessedAugust1,2011.
www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
―――.“Nichols,MinervaParker(1863?—1949):Projects.”PhiladelphiaArchitects
andBuildings.AccessedDecember14,2012.www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
―――.“Thorne,EdwinW.(fl.1885—1898):Biography.”PhiladelphiaArchitectsand
Buildings,AccessedJanuary27,2012.www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
―――.“Thorn,FrederickGodfrey(fl.1857—1911):Biography.”Philadelphia
ArchitectsandBuildings.AccessedJanuary27,2012.
www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
―――.“Thorn,FrederickGodfrey,Jr.:Biography.”PhiladelphiaArchitectsand
Buildings.AccessedJanuary27,2012.www.philadelphiabuildings.org.
Tatman,SandraL.andRogerW.Moss.BiographicalDictionaryofPhiladelphia
Architects:1700—1930.Boston:G.K.Hall,1985.
“ThatExceptionalOne”:WomeninAmericanArchitecture,1888—1988.Washington,
DC:AmericanArchitecturalFoundation,1988.
“Tooursubscribers.”AmericanArchitectandBuildingNews38,no.885(December
10,1892):158.
UnitedStatesofAmerica,BureauoftheCensus.TenthCensusoftheUnitedStates,
1880.Washington,DC:NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,1880.
www.ancestry.com.
Upton,Dell.“PatternBooksandProfessionalism:AspectsoftheTransformationof
DomesticArchitectureinAmerica,1800—1960.”WinterthurPortfolio19,no.
2/3(Summer—Autumn1984):107—150.
“VisitedtheProposedSites.”ChicagoDailyTribune,August29,1890.ProQuest
HistoricalNewspapers:ChicagoTribune.
Weimann,JeanneMadeline.TheFairWomen.Chicago:AcademyChicago,1981.
Wharton,AnneH.“TheWoman’sClubofToday.”Arthur’sHomeMagazine,July1891,
501.AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
86
Willard,FrancesElizabethandMaryA.Livermore,eds.,AWomanoftheCentury:
FourteenHundred‐SeventyBiographicalSketchesAccompaniedbyPortraitsof
LeadingAmericanWomeninAllWalksofLife.Buffalo,NY:Moulton,1893.
“WomenasArchitects.”Friends’Review:aReligious,LiteraryandMiscellaneous
Journal,April30,1891,637.AmericanPeriodicalsSeriesOnline.
Wood,KathleenSinclair.MinervaParkerNichols:PioneerAmericanWoman
Architect.Newark,DE:UniversityofDelaware,1992.
―――,“Nichols,MinervaParker.”AmericanNationalBiographyOnlineFeb.2000.
AccessedDecember14,2011.www.anb.org/articles/17/17‐01149.html.
Woods,Mary.“TheFirstAmericanArchitecturalJournals:TheProfession’sVoice.”
JournaloftheSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians48,no.2(June1989):130.
―――.FromCrafttoProfession:thePracticeofArchitectureinNineteenth‐Century
America.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999.
Wright,Gwendolyn.“OntheFringeoftheProfession:WomeninAmerican
Architecture.”InTheArchitect:ChaptersintheHistoryoftheProfession.
EditedbySpiroKostof.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2000.
280—309.
Zaitzevsky,Cynthia.LongIslandLandscapesandtheWomenWhoDesignedThem.
NewYork:SocietyforthePreservationofLongIslandAntiquities;W.W.
Norton,2009.
Zipf,Catherine.ProfessionalPursuits:WomenandtheAmericanArtsandCrafts
Movement.Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseePress,2007.
87
APPENDIX│MINERVAPARKERNICHOLSCOMMISSIONS
FromthePhiladelphiaArchitectsandBuildingsProject,
availableatwww.philadelphiabuildings.org
Namesarequoteddirectlyfromthesource,retaininganytypographicalerrorsfromthe
publishedreferences.
PUBLISHED CLIENTNAME/
TYPE
REFERENCE BUILDINGNAME
PRERBG
MaxM.Suppas
Dwelling
4/23/1888
REFERENCE
LOCATION
Preparingplans
PRERBG
11/26/1888
PRERBG
4/29/1889
PRERBG
5/8/1889
PRERBG
5/8/1889
GeorgeM.Christy Dwelling
Johnstown
City,Cambria
County,PA
(ElmStation)
E.J.Davis
Completedplans
(ElmStation)
PRERBG
5/8/1889
PRERBG
5/22/1889
PRERBG
7/10/1889
PRERBG
8/21/1889
PRERBG
10/23/1889
PRERBG
10/23/1889
PRERBG
2/12/1890
PRERBG
2/12/1890
MrsS.E.Bewley
Dwelling
Stable
Dwelling
“...alsoplansfor...” (ElmStation)
LouisT.Brooke
Dwelling
PreparingPlans
W.R.Wright
Dwelling
Radnor
Township,
Delaware
County,PA
“...alsoplansfor...” (ElmStation)
Mrs.Maxwell
Dwelling
Completedplans
MillerJustice
Dwelling
Completedplans
ParksleyLand
Inn
andImprovement
Co.
JamesF.Beale
Dwelling
Preparingplans
Virginia
(Parksley)
Completedplans
Mrs.E.C.Hartell
Lansdowne
Borough,
Delaware
County,PA
(ElmStation)
Dwelling
Store
GeorgeW.Christy Dwelling
Preparingplans
Mrs.Hartell
Preparingplans
Dwelling
88
Pennsylvania
(OakLane)
(“Elm”)
Lansdowne
Borough,
Delaware
County,PA
PRERBG
3/19/1890
PRERBG
3/26/1890
PRERBG
4/16/1890
MissL.E.
Gallagher
E.Y.Taylor
Dwelling
Completedplans
Dwelling
Ontheboards
MissMaryBotts
Dwelling
Completedplans
PRERBG
4/23/1890
PRERBG
5/28/1890
Dr.W.P.Painter
Dwelling
Completedplans
J.H.Carter
Dwelling
Completedplans
PRERBG
5/28/1890
J.H.Carter
Dwelling
Completedplans
PRERBG
5/28/1890
PRERBG
6/18/1890
PRERBG
6/18/1890
PRERBG
7/2/1890
PRERBG
7/2/1890
PRERBG
7/30/1890
MissElizabeth
Newport
F.B.Crooke
Dwelling
Completedplans
Dwelling
Completedplans
C.F.Johnson
Dwelling
Completedplans
HenryR.Binnett
Dwelling
Completedplans
ParkesleyLand
ImprovementCo.
Guneo&Raggio
Dwelling
Completedplans
Factory
Completedplans
PRERBG
8/27/1890
Executive
Committee,
Women’s
Department,
ChicagoWorld’s
Fair
MissStewart
Clubhouse Engagedtodraw
Office
plans
building
Dwelling
Completedplans
Cuneo[sic]&
Raggio
Factory
Awarded
contracts
Self
Dwelling
Preparingplans
PRERBG
8/27/1890
PRERBG
9/3/1890
PRERBG
89
(Moore’s
station)
Philadelphia,
PA
(Germantown)
49thSt.and
MarketSt.,
Philadelphia,
PA
49thSt.and
LudlowSt.,
Philadelphia,
PA
NewJersey
(Longport)
Texas
(Beaumont)
Virginia
(Parkesley)
Virginia
(Parkesley)
700—704
MarriottSt.,
Philadelphia,
PA
Illinois
(Chicago)
(Avon‐by‐the‐
Sea)
700—704
MarriottSt.,
Philadelphia,
PA
(OakLane
9/10/1890
PRERBG
10/15/1890
PRERBG
11/1/1890
PRERBG
11/1/1890
PRERBG
11/1/1890
PRERBG
12/17/1890
PRERBG
12/17/1890
PRERBG
2/11/1891
PRERBG
2/11/1891
Mrs.Baugh
Dwelling
Preparingplans
Mrs.Rachel
FosterAvery
Chicago
Exposition
Mrs.Jardan
Dwelling
Stable
Ontheboards
ChicagoWorld’s
Fair
WallaceMunn
IsabellaPavilion
Pavilion
Columbian
Exposition,
Chicago
IsabellaPavilion
Pavilion
PRERBG
3/25/1891
W.J.Nichols
Dwelling
PRERBG
3/25/1891
Abraham
Pennock
Dwelling
PRERBG
4/22/1891
Columbian
Exposition
Committee/Quee
nIsabella
Pavilion
Mrs.E.C.
McCammon
Pavilion
Dwelling
Preparingplans
PRERBG
7/22/1891
IdaV.Stambauch
Preparingplans
PRERBG
9/16/1891
Razzio&Guaneo
Dwelling
Office
building
Factory
PRERBG
3/1/1891
PRERBG
4/22/1891
Dwelling
Dwelling
Pennsylvania
(Somerton)
Preparingplans
Illinois
(Chicago)
Ontheboards
Pennsylvania
(Bala)
Completedplans Illinois
(Chicago)
Completedplans (OakLane,
NPRR)
Illinois
(Chicago)
Competitionentry Illinois
(Chicago)
90
Station,NPRR)
Illinois
(Chicago
Columbian
Exposition)
“...alsoplansfor...” Bellefonte
Borough,
CentreCounty,
PA
Preparingplans
Lansdowne
Borough,
Delaware
County,PA
Illinois
(Chicago)
Engagedtodraw
plans
Gettysburg
Borough,
Adams
County,PA
California
(Santa
Barbera)
7thSt.and
MarketSt.
PRERBG
11/4/1891
(*probably
MarriottSt.—
see1890
ref.*),
Philadelphia
Illinois
(Chicago)
ChicagoWorld’s
Fair/Isabella
Pavilion
DavidS.
Cresswell
Mrs.E.R.Gaskill
Hall
Preparingplans
Dwelling
Awarded
contracts
Preparingplans
Philadelphia,
PA(Nicetown)
Ohio(Canton)
UnitarianChurch
School
Guano&Raggio
Factory
Stable
Completedplans
PRERBG
6/29/1892
M.Barber
Dwelling
Ontheboards
PRERBG
6/29/1892
PRERBG
8/24/1892
Dr.M.N.Johnson
Dwelling
Mrs.M.Barbour
Dwelling
Awarded
contracts
PRERBG
10/26/1892
PRERBG
12/7/1892
MooreBros.
Dwelling
Completedplans
Delaware
(Wilmington)
7thand
MarriottSt.
(“adjoining
present
plant”)
BroadSt.and
W.DauphinSt.
(“Broadabv.
DauphinSt.”),
Philadelphia
California(San
Francisco)
BroadSt.and
W.Dauphin
St.,
Philadelphia
(untitled)
Dwelling
PRERBG
12/7/1892
F.L.Harrington
Dwelling
Completedplans
Awarded
contracts
Ontheboards
PRERBG
4/19/1893
JohnO.Sheets
Dwelling
PRERBG
4/19/1893
JohnO.
Sheetz/Sheetz
residence
Dwelling
PRERBG
11/18/1891
PRERBG
11/18/1891
PRERBG
11/18/1891
PRERBG
6/1/1892
91
Pennsylvania
(Cynwyd)
UpsalSt.,
Philadelphia
(Germantown)
“...alsoplansfor...” 3313
HamiltonSt.,
Philadelphia
Philadelphia,
PA
PRERBG
4/19/1893
PRERBG
10/18/1893
PRERBG
10/18/1893
Buildingsof
Delaware
OakLane
Dr.IdaV.
Stambach
Dwelling
California
(Santa
Barbara)
Mrs.JohnO.Keim Dwelling
“...alsoplansfor...” Cheltenham
Township,
Montgomery
County,PA
IrwinN.
Dwelling
Completedplans Pennsylvania
Megargee
(Roseglen)
NewCentury
Clubhouse Wilmington,
Clubof
Theater
NewCastle
Wilmington
County,DE
(Delaware
(1014
Children’s
Delaware
Theatre)
Ave.)
WallaceF.Munn Dwelling
1012Oak
Lane,
Philadelphia
92
Preparingplans
INDEX
A
M
AmericanArchitectandBuildingNews31‐
‐34,47,53,59,76,85,88
AmericanInstituteofArchitects(AIA),4,
16,31,39‐‐40,41,48‐‐50,57,73
Morgan,Julia4,35,73
N
NationalRegister66,68,70‐‐72,75‐‐76,
78‐‐79,81‐‐82,85,87
NewCenturyClub24,34,36,60‐‐61,63,
80‐‐81
B
Beecher,Catharine43‐‐44
Bethune,LouiseBlanchard4,16,17,31,
35,45,48,50‐‐51,73
BrowneandNicholsSchool35‐‐36,71
P
Page,MaryL.11
Patternbooks39‐‐40,55‐‐57
PennsylvaniaMuseumandSchoolof
IndustrialArts13‐‐15
Philadelphia2‐‐3,5,8,10,12‐‐19,24,35‐
‐36,43‐‐46,49,58‐‐63,67,71,80‐‐81,
85‐‐88
PhiladelphiaNormalArtSchool3,13
PhiladelphiaRealEstateRecordand
Builders’Guide(PRERBG)5,15‐‐16,18,
46,58‐‐60,87
C
CornellUniversity11,45
D
Doane,SethA.3,9‐‐10,87
E
Thorne,EdwinW.3,14,15,45‐‐46,49
Q
F
QueenIsabellaAssociation24,29,30,
60‐‐61
FranklinInstitute3,12‐‐14
Thorn,FrederickG.14‐‐15
W
G
Wilmington24,34,36,49,63,80‐‐81
Woman’sProgress56,61,64‐‐65,87
Women’sclub3,6,24,60‐‐63,73,81
Gopsill’sPhiladelphiaCityDirectory15,58
H
Hayden,Sophia30,32‐‐34,45‐‐47,53,73
Housekeeper’sWeekly19,23,48,56,64,87
Howe,Lois30,35
93

 Download  Report

Paperzz.com

Your Paperzz

© Copyright 2026 Paperzz