[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
'PROVED PAR' S I -LVAN A I -N E-Rl- CA,Diiv]LD-LD INTO COUN.']'Y-E@, 'j,'qNVNQUjJPS-kN-D ]_OTTS 1, P If I A -, V,I,, m I.,B 00010- qu Lo Dan LLAUUA@SUUMUUUM L [Uiuuuiu v a Ho BUFA a ano J u ouffilo 'ADO 0 0 15 Et" in u mail olic "MUCI ril MUER1101jull Ian t J,c T I L Al 0-- 1J. N 0 A4 ff"IR D JA 4@ x 7;@ V ,L.!t LIM& - A R 1- 0 y E F, if A R S Y @v c* no c) MD D -Y@APP@m,-@tn-PROVED PART Or PE 2N SI(IP.S-IkN LOTTS n OUDEJOUILIMMEMS j KI a 21E Hon unundompnw,14mrjujujunuum DBOU a c PHI U11 vi El"! 01 a n oi D 0 0 0 u " IG 1111FUS Milan Don, ODUMMUMI MUMVIOUDD E -,Iz VII N I h L L I c @Vh@ 16 r A R T A 0 JI- I- VII T jw A 0 N A b 4A S , T !@A Rg A R T 0 F s .1@ F, w J A R S :1. -Y rc- p no TDD D 'J 1, T - D--) ej Lnaws 0 ataR Zons too t-ere RESOURCE PRO=ION PLAN/ A Franiework for Decision-Making in Protecting the Cultural Resources of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone --mum 06- Oak Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Ca@mission if% Dr. Larry E. Tise, Executive Director Bureau for Historic Preservation Cee Jay Frederick Associates in association with John Milner Associates October 1981 le Cover: PennsyLvania in 1687, reproduced from an engraving in the coZZection of The Library Company of PhiZadeZphia. This edition of the map sur- vey by Thomas HoZme and printed in 1687 is the reduced version pub- Zished in London about 1700. T-0 F,,LldL=,aEK)T TC(T El *Z) T-q surloj @at@xns g T-V L74UG Kl0qUaAUj PLW Sdr-W 'V Saz)T puadclv 09T CZT S-Fs,@TPW '4Tufl APn-4S TZT UOT-4pquamooc Pue SAaAms bu-r-4sTxz sao-mosad z)-r-To-4sTH 6TT Liomms srsATpw qTufl Apn,4s VOT COT uoT-4u-4umm--)oa Pue s.,@a&ms E>u-r-4sTxa sacunosa@j TeoTj6oToaqow TOT LoT::pnpo-T4uj @UoZ Tuqsleoo -IaA--F-d aleml2T@CVVTueATAsUU--d'9LR ul -6u-EuueTcl uoTq--)9,40-Td aomosau UOT:P9-40ad 6L uoT EL . qenT2Aa UoT4poTJTqLrapI L9 sao-mosea OT.104srH UDT V9 I 4-0940ad 6V mT UoTq-enTuAa 4le3TJ-14u@PI sac) -inosad TSOT50TOOLPaV LDT::pnpo-T4ui SS90c)aci BuTuu2Td uOT40a4cacl ;90-Tnosed BE i2,4La aoa nosaH .6uTqsTx, ST ZTuLnf)_ro -10 . q UOT*4vmojui aoznosGU buT . _; STSPa saoxmsad Tein-4TnD Bur .4sTxa TT AaO4s-rH 6 AM-4STWad 9 ULTcI UOTW9-40-ld ;90-TnOSad @LR puno-TB@pua 90 aSfI PUL' U0TTeZ-rUP.6-Eo auoZ T-e-WL-OD -TaAlld ;Dxe0)PT@Q/12TueATAsuu9d 991 u0T'4le4uawTdarj: uuTd z saAT:[eT-4TuI buTuueTcl T uoT:pnpo-r4ui uoT::pnpo-T4uj UeTd UOT:Pa-40ad aoanosa@j air4 pu2 auoZ TT?4sL-00 a;9AT'd ax2mPTGCVPTtmATAsuu9d ata T s-4uauiabp9TmoLn[oV abied SLNI= ao alevm ACENCKLEDGEMENTS On February 1, 1981 the Bureau for Historic Preservation (BHP) of the Pennsylvania Historical affff-Mu@seun Commission (PHMC) entered into a contract with Cee Jay Frederick Associates of West Chester, Pennsylvania for the preparation of this Resource Protection Plan. Funding for the project was provided frcin the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under pro- vision of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of 1972 (P.L. No. 92-583) and the Amndmients of 1976 (P.L. No. 95-370), administered by the C2M office, Office of Resources Management, Department of Environmental Resources (DER), Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through a subgrant to the PHMC. As executed, however, the contract involved the combined efforts of Cee Jay Frederick Associates working in association with John Milner Associates (Daniel G. Roberts, Dr. Richard J. Webster, Betty J. Cosans, Julie Martin-Cushman, and Scott Washburn), also of West Chester. Cee Jay Frederick Associates was responsible for the planning framework and historical components of the study, while John Milner Associates was responsible for all archeological (pre- historic and historic) content. An exception to this rule involved the provision of historical background information by Dr. Richard J. Webster. The work of the Project Team was overseen directed and reviewed by the BHP. To that end the Project Tewn is grateful'for the contribution made to the overall effort by the many people involved. Most notable among those who provided such assistance are Ed Weintraub, former State Historic Preservation Officer, Brenda Barrett, Director of the Bureau for Historic Preservation, William L. Miclaughlin, Preservation Planner and Gregory Ramsey, Architectural Historian. Administration for the study was provided by the Coastal Zone Management Program via the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Individuals who were instrumental in this regard include E. James Tabor, Manager CZM Program, and Bill Johnson, Chief Monitoring and Coordination Section. In addition to these overall efforts, assistance for specific tasks was provided by various individuals and agencies which among their many activi- ties also perform numerous functions as the custodians of the cultural re- sources of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. Most noteworthy among this group is the Philadelphia Historical Comnissicn, which, under the direction of Dr. Richard Tyler and the continued assistance provided by him, Patricia Simiontkowski and Jefferson Moak, was most instrumental in unravelling, interpreting and inventorying the cultural resource base of the City of Philadelphia. Similar assistance was provided in Bucks and Delaware Counties by the Bucks County Conservancy through the efforts of the Director of the Historical Sites Survey, Kathryn A. Auerbach and the Delaware County Planning Department through Nancy V. Webster, Preservation Planner, and Jim Woodland, Assistant Survey Coordinator. The former two presently serve as Survey Co- ordinators for their respective counties for the conduct of.the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey- Further assistance was provided by Michael Wolf, Chief of land Resources Planning for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Ctnutission; Marshall Becker of the Department of Anthropology/Sociology, West Chester State College; Ed Hinderliter, Architect and Archeologist; George Steinrock, Philadelphia District Army Corps of Engineers; Nancy Kolb, Pennsbury Manor; and, the fol- lowing individuals: Art Breitinger, Bucks County Planning Commission Ward Childs, Philadelphia City Archives Jay Custer, Department of Anthropology, University of Delaware Kerry Dyer, CZM Planner, Delaware County Elmer Erb, Avocational Archeologist Jonathan Gell, Archeologist, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Beth Glover, Bucks County Planning Commission Chris Grey, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Joyce Jordon, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Ken Kugel, Bucks County Planning Commission Harry Leslie, Superintendent, Neshaminy State Park Terry McNeilly, Mercer Museum Walter Moleski, Environmental Research Group Leedom Morrison, City of Chester, Division of City Planning J.B. Post, Philadelphia Free Library Jeff Safferstein, Bucks County Planning Commission Edna Sweely, Delaware County Planning Commission Joanne Wiggins, Bucks County Planning Commission Lorraine Williams, Bureau of Archeology & Ethnology, New Jersey State Museum Carter Van Dyke, Bucks County Planning Commission ii The Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone and the Resource Protection Plan I I Introduction I 0 HE Perinsylvania/De laware River Coastal Zone Cultural Resource Protec- tion Plan has been designedas a guidebook to be used-by anyone con- cerned with the identification and preservation of historic and arche- ological resources. It provides its users with a clear and systematic approach to identifying, evaluating and protecting historic and prehistoric resources i.e., a framework for decision-making relative to the protection of these re- sources. The Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone served to provide a rich resource base to draw upon for examples and illustrations of the various pro- cedures identified herein as ccmponents of this framework for decision-making. Historic and prehistoric resources are addressed as they relate to these gen- eral groups: prehistoric archeological resources, historic archeological re- sources and historic resources. Prehistoric archeological resources refer to sites which contain evidence of indigenous Indian settlement and related activ- ity. Generally these sites will date before the first European settlements in the early seventeenth century. Historic archeological resources a sites which contain remains from activities subsequent to European incursion and settlement. Historic resources refer to above-ground structures which are presently observable in the Coastal Zone. These historic resources also may serve to identify potential historic archeological resources since the sites may likely contain below-ground evidence of earlier historic settlement. These three resource groups are collectively referred to as "cultural resour- ces.11 All resources may exist as individual sites, structures, or districts, encompassing a few or hundreds of acres. The Resource Protection Plan has four major components. This section introduces the various agencies involved in the conception of this project and those that will be responsible for its implementation, a summary description of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, a discussion of how this docu- ment may be used, a brief prehistory and history of the study area, the exist- ing cultural resources of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, and a discussion of the format for resource organization employed in the study. Section 2 describes the Resource Protection Planning Process and Section 3 analyzes the cultural resources in the Coastal zone, their condition, existing state of preservation and documentation, and likely preservation alternatives that may be pursued to ensure their future protection. These components of the plan are supplemented by appendices referenced throughout and also contained within this document. HE Pemsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone Cultural Resource Protec- tion Plan embodies an adaptation of a planning process developed by the former Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) of the U. S. Department of Interior and documented in the report entitled Resource Pratection Planning Process (RP3). The adaptation and application of the I;P3 process to the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone was conceived by the Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Com-nis- sion, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER), the State agency charged with administering the Coastal Zone Management Program. Funding for. the project was provided via the Coastal Zone Management (C2M) Program. The Bureau of Historic Preservaticn, as principal-initiator of the pro- ject, views the Plan as a possible prototype for a State Resource Protection Plan and an opportunity to organize surveyed cultural.resource information in the oldest settled area of the State, while the Department of Enviroinmental Resources regards the Plan as an important step toward,the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Program, as documented in the ia Coastal. Zone Management Program Technical Record. In developing a policy framework, the Technical Record observes that the two coastal zones in Pennsylvania con- tain some of the S 's oldest communities and concentrations of historic sites and that: "Unless government and private citizens begin to plan imme- diately for preservation and protecticn of significant sites and structures, -they may eventually ccm to be viewed as 'stumbling blocks' in the way of lprogress'.11 2 Man HE implementation of the Resource Protection Plan will depend on the extent to which the guidelines are accepted and used by both public and private users concerned with the protection of the cultural resources of the Delaware River Coastal Zone. Both the Bureau for Historic Preservation and the Department of Environmental Resources have specific agency and review responsibilities which can be used toiniplement the protection and preservation objectives contained in the Plan. Foremst, however, this plan is designed to be implemented at the local level through rmmicipal planning and zoning activ- ities, historic and preservation group initiatives, and through the general guidance it provides for documentation and survey work. The Department of Environn-ental Resources, Bureau of Coastal Zone Manage- nient - the agency created to administer the CZM program in the State - will use the document in the conduct of its numerous review and permitting respon- sibilities. The Bureau for Historic Preservation will utilize the document in its environmental review capacity (Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as an-ended), to promte preservation planning in the Coastal Zone and other areas of the State and as an organizaticnal and evaluation tool in assessing the Pennsylvania Historic Resources Survey. At the nunicipal level - townships, boroughs, cities - the Protection Plan will provide officials with a planning tool with which to update Compre- hensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances, respond to development proposals, and undertake their own preservation initiatives in an effort to protect and/or preserve cultural resources. Not only will the Protection Plan enable local planners to identify and evaluate significant historic and archeological re- sources in their comnmity, but it also provides them with a nrethod to deter- mine the most appropriate actions to ensure their preservation and/or enhance- ment. Local historic commissions, boards and associaticns - public and private will find that the Plan'.provides both an organization and decision-mking framework for researching, surveying, documenting, and protecting historic and archeological resources. 3 The co'aata@ HE Peru-isylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone boundaries were develoloed as a ccuponent of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Technical Record from general guidelines provided in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583). The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Ccmmission was the managing agency for the Delaware River portion of the study. A distinct five-(5) part definition was used to delineate the Coastal Zone boundaries in the Delaware Valley which includes all tidal areas of the Delaware River and its tributar- ies.' all adjacent land parcels, and those parcels that directly use coastal resources. The principal natural environmental criteria include all areas in and adjacent to the tidal waters of the Delaware River and its tributaries and all flood plains associated with these areas. This area extends approximately fifty@six (56) miles along the River from Marcus Hook to Morrisville and along the Schuylkill River to the Fairmount Dam below the Philadelphia Art Museum. Significant inland extensions occur along Marcus Hook, Chester, Ridley, and Darby Creeks in Delaware County; Cobbs, Frankford, and Pennypack Creeks in Philadelphia County; and, Neshaminy Creek in Bucks.County. The final bounda- ries encompass approximately fifty-two (52) square miles or 33,042 acres spread across three (3) counties -- 7,621 in Delaware County, 13,354 in Philadelphia County, and 12,067 in Bucks County. The boundaries of the study area are de- picted on all.maps contained in Appendix A. Approximately 36% of the study area is vacant and undeveloped land, while close to half (46%) is in commercial and industrial uses. Of.the remaining land, 6% is in residential use, 2% in recreational and cultural uses and 10% in ccmmmity service and military uses. Most industry is concentrated in Delaware County, consisting of large oil refinery complexes, ship yards, paper nonufacturing and electric and gas utility facilities. Tinicum Marsh and the open area around the Philadelphia Interna- tional Airport provide the only major break in this continuous strip of develop- ment. Residential pockets occur in Marcus Hook and Eddystone Borough and Essing ton and Lester Villages in Tinicum Township. Major land uses in Southwest Phila- delphia include the oil refineries at Girard Point and along the lower Schuyl- kill River and the U.S. Naval Yard. Pier and warehouse facilities best typify the Philadelphia riverfront fram South Philadelphia to the Port Richmond Term- inal. North of Port Richmond the area becomes a mix of industry, electric, water and sewage treatment facilities, and public institutions. The northwest Thrresdale area is mostly residential with a few remaining estate and river- front hones. Residential and mixed ccmmercial uses continue into Bucks County through Bristol and Talleytown Boroughs to the large Fairless Works of the U.S. Steel Corporation in Falls Township, and the Borough of Morrisville at the northern limit of the study area. The-political subdivisions of the area are listed in Figure 1. 4 Delaware County Bucks County Lowear Chichester Township Bensalem. Township Upper Chichester Township Bristol Township Marcus Hook Borough Bristol Borough Trainer Borough Talleytown Borough Chester City Falls Township Ridley Township Morrisville Borough Ridley Park Borough Eddystone Borough Prospect Park Borough Philadelphia County Norwood Borough Falcroft Borough Philadelphia City Darby Township Tinicum Township Figure Z. PoZiticaZ Subdivisions of the PennsyZvanialDeZaware River CoastaZ Zone. Included are thirteen (13) municipalities in Delaware County and.six (6) in Bucks County. Although they perform different goverrmiental functions, Philadelphia County and City have the same boundaries. The residential population of the study area is about 33,000 and employment is approximately 80,000 (1970). 5 0 Q)Tgan-olsatnQn land, Uss 09 the REM(DUM . 0 HE Resource Protection Plan is organized to provide the user with a comprehensive understanding of andready access to the various steps in what is essentially a two-step process: the determination of historic/ @-ric significance, through resource identification and evaluation, and @he development of a planning strategy. These steps are distinguished by their prerequisite research and data needs and the order in which the process must occur. A planning strategy is only prepared to preserve and protect those cul- tural resources considered significant. Significance is related to a resource's prehistoric and historic value and its associated architectural and contextual integrity, wtdle a planning strategy relates legal and economic "preservation techniques" to specific preservation objectives and site conditi ons. The historic and prehistoric context and resource base for the study area is presented in the following t@m subsections - "Background" and "Existing Cultural Resources." The former provides a brief historic sketch of the Delaware Valley. The latter describes the primary resource organizational tool in the Protection Planning Process -- the Study Unit. Study units, in the con- text of this study, serve to organize the resources according to a prehistoric/ historic them and chronological limits defining distinct trends or events with- in the conceptual framework-of the overall theme. A discussion of the potential for the expansion of the existing cultural resource base has been addressed via statements about the identification of historic resources over time -- Future Considerations. The "Resource Protection Planning Process," Section 2, is organized by types of resources (i.e., Archeological v. Historic) and then according to the three (3) basic ccuiponents of the preservation planning processes - identifica- tion, evaluation, and protection. Identification outlines the data inventory procedures to be used in surveying an area for potential historic and archeolog ical resources and the specific criteria to consider in the performance of an evaluation. This step, in essence, serves to identify, organize and document a preliminary list of historic and archeological resources. The evaluation then considers four (4) aspects of cultural resources in order to determine significance. The historic/prehistoric evaluation considers the relationship of resources to their respective Study Units, enabling the user to detern-Line the importance of the resource(s) relative to the overall History of Development of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. The physical/architectural evaluaticn examines the integrity of the specific resource, while the contextual evaluation examines how the resource's environment may enhance or detract, - I from its specific historic/prehistoric value. The final component of the eval- uation considers the preservation disposition of the resource, that isthe ex- tent to which the resource has been preserved and is protected. Protection, the third step in the Preservation Planning Process, leads to the development of a preservation planning strategy or operating pl _. Based on the outline of the resource evaluation, preservation plan objectives are developed. Various preservation objectives are discussed; however, specific object-ives may be employed in response to the evaluation process and the pres- ervation techniques associated with the attainment of each objective. A dis- 6 cussion of the relationship between th preIservation planning tech- niques and each objective then follows. It provides the user with an exten_ sive "shopping list" of preservation options which is presented as the ideal preservation strategy, or ideal plan, which is developed without any consider- ation for 'real world' conditions. Following this, an achievability assessn-ent is Performed, which examines the actual site conditions-(e.g., local zoning or neighborhood characteristics) associated with the cultural resourcest and how these 'real world' conditions influence the selection of the appropiate pres- ervation techniques or the attainment of certain ideal preservation objectives. The develOPffent of an operating plan concludes the Resource Protection Planning Process. This step essentialiy -combines the results of the three (3) previous protection analyses and assists the user in identifying specific, possible inter- im, or additional, preservation orplanning techniques which may be necessary to ensure the achievement of the desired preservation objective(s). Moreover, this step may cause the user to reassess his/her initial approach and adopt a different plan objective. The Resource Protection.Planning Process is applicable to almost any cul- tural resource planning or evaluation problem - e.g., it may be involved with the development of a planning strategy for the,protection of all cultural re- sources within a given area (site, municipality, region, etc.), orthe evalua- tion of the impact associated with some proposed development action affecting an individual resource/site. Regardless, it is intended to provide an objec- tive basis for decision-making and offer alternative methods for protection. It does not dictate solutions; ratherit offers a procedure which the user may employ in addressing preservation problems and presents alternative planning strategies and techniques. The selection of a particular course of action is obviously contingent on many more factors than a plan, such as this one, could ever address. Depending.upon the particular task at hand, the user may enter the process at any point. If a resource's significance has already been deter- mined, the user my only need to explore appropriate plan objectives or preser- vation strategies and techniques. A user assigned the task of examining an area for potential cultural resource value would undoubtedly be involved in the com- ponent process of identification and evaluation. The Pennsylvania/0elaware River Coastal Zone has been used as a case study to illustrate a practical application of the process and provide examples to be used in discussing the various steps. The application of the "Process" to another area would primarily involve the definition of the study units and the revision, albeit slight, of the list of applicable preservation and planning strategies and techniques. The basic background information needed to under- stand the cultural resources of the study area are presented in the subsection entitled "Existing Cultural Resources." 7 Background 0 rrost casual observers, the prehistoric or pre-contact. history of North America is believed to center upon the historically or ethnohistorically documented Indian groups whom the Europeans first encountered as they be- gan to colonize.the New TAbrld. Implicit in this assumption is that the history of the European colonists and the indigenous native population -both had their beginnings simultaneously, that is, beginning in the early sixteenth century. Overlooked in this popuLar belief is the fact that, just as the European colo- nists possessed a cmplex and well-documented historical development prior to their arrival in the New World, so too did the native Ainerican Indian. The only difference is that written history had its origins in Europe hundreds of centur- ies before it began in the New World. Consequently, all that is known of native American Indians prior to the coming of the white man and recorded history is learned through the study of archeology, or prehistory. No written words have survived on the cultural antecedents of the historic contact native American, but, through meticulous recovery and analysis of their material culture remains, the archeologist can nevertheless gain a relatively accurate glimpse of their lifeways. Current evidence suggests that man has been in mst parts of the New World since at least 12,000 years ago, and perhaps in some areas as early as 20,000 years ago. Generally, it is believed that man entered the New World by way of a Bering Strait landbridge between Siberia and Alaska made accessable by low- ered sea levels resulting frcin increased continental glaciation. Evidently, these first native Americans spread rapidly throughout the New World, for evi- dence of their material culture is found fram Alaska to.South America, and from California to the East Coast, at roughly the same time. These first inhabitants are known as Paleoindians, and their subsistence was based primarily on the hunt- ing of big game. The succeeding 10,000 years or so are marked by increasingly mre complex cultural systems and adaptations. The Indians of the Archaic and Transitional periods succeeded the Paleoindian in the northeastern woodlands, with a life- style based primarily on restrictive hunting and foraging according to seasonal availability of a wide variety of game and foodstuffs. By about 1000 B.C., native Americans of the Woodland tradition began to adopt a semi-sedentary life- style, brought on in large measure by certain technological innovations, such as the development of ceramic cooking vessels and incipient horticulture. And finally, by the time Europeans first set foot in the New world, the local Indians (known as the Lenape) had adopted a largely sedentary lifestyle centered upon agriculture and village life. Most of the archeological sites which have been excavated or otherwise in- vestigated in North America (including the Coastal Zone) do not date to historic or contact times. In the northeast at least, there seems to have been an em- phasis placed upon the investigation of earlier sites, in particular sites dating to the Archaic-Transitional-Woodland continuum. Cn the surface, it would appear that archeologists have not taken an active interest in the archeology of later tribal groups such as the Lenape. However, the real reason lies in the fact that historically documented Indian groups such as the Lenape tended 9 to cluster in' the same areas which were attractive to European colonists, such as broad alluvial-floodplains at major stream junctures or other low-lying coastal areas close to ccnstant and plentiful water and faunal/floral resources. Consequently, as the Indians -were -gradually pushed out of their original - - I hcmeland by European and, ultimately, American expansion., their former sites and villages tended to become obliterated by subsequent development. Such is the case in the Pennsylvania/Delaw-are River Coastal Zone, for many of the early towns and cities, including at least Morrisville, Bristol, and Philadelphia, are reported in some of the early historical documents as being located on the sites of former Indian villages. The information which these sites could have provided pertaining to the Lenape and their antecedents is probably lost for- ever but, if careful planning of future development is carried out, wea may yet uncover significant undisturbed evidence of native American occupation of the study area. Pegional Prehistoric Chronology Cultural Periods Dates Historic Contact (Lenape) A.D. 1550 - A.D. 1750 Iate Woodland A.D. 1000 - A.D. 1550 Early-Middle Woodland 1000 B.C. - A.D. 1000 Transitional (Thrminal Archaic) 1800 B.C. - 800 B.C. Archaic 7000 B.C. - 1000 B.C. Paleoindian 10,000 B.C. - 7000 B.C. 10 COUVIAL ERA, 1638-1775 countries laid claim to the Delaware River valley in the early seventeenth century: Holland, England, and Sweden. The Swedes were the first to establish permanent settlements, in 1638, but they fell to the Dutch in 1655, who, in turn, came under English jurisdicticn nine years later. The most significant seventeenth century date for the Coastal Zone, however, was 1681, the year that Charles II of England granted William Penn the province of Pennsylvania. Profound changes followed that act. Careful planning, fair dealings with native Americans (Indians), honoring property holdings of earlier Swedish and Dutch settlers, effective propaganda geared to yeoman farmers and craftsmen, and Quaker tolerance and energy transformed the eastern region of the province 'and the Coastal Zone in particular, into a case study of successful colonizatim. In only 18 years after Penn's arrival, the area's population had burgeoned from 500 to 20,000, with approximately half of those people in Philadelphia, which would culturally and economically dcminate the region for the next 300 years. The foundation for this pre-im-dnence rested on both Philadelphia's early development under the guiding hand of Penn and the settlement pattern of early farmers. Contrary to Penn's scheme of agricultural hamlets in the medieval tradition, early Pennsylvanians preferred individual farmhouses in the midst of their extensive holdings. once cleared, the rich soil produced such high yields and marketable surpluses that by 1700 Pennsylvania was already known as the "Granary of America." Since Philadelphia had been established at the be- ginning of the province, it easily became the collection and supply center for the many far-flung farmers. Its handling of both foreign and inland conTerce made it the financial and trade center fornot only Pennsylvania but also much of the region south of New York, serving to stymie the economic development of many surrounding towns. The Coastal zone, however, enjoyed such a bustle of activity that towns as close to Philadelphia's port as Kensington and Southw-ark as well as more distant Bristol and Chester.enjoyed independent cultural and economic lives. In spite of the number of towns along the Coastal Zone, farming probably remained the area's most c-cnmn occupation during the colcnial period; this was especially the case along the stretch north of Kensington. The failure to rotate crops, however, reduced yields per acre until at the time of the Ameri- can Revolution they were nearly one-quarter of those at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Such soil depletion encouraged westward migration and diminished the uriportance of agriculture in the Coastal Zone, a trend that escalated in the nineteenth century. TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 1775-c. 1860 After the lean years of the Azerican Revolution, Coastal Zone communities enjoyed a burst of growth. Philadelphia's role as capital of the new national 11 government streng thened that city's econamic position and enriched its cultural life, of course, but the area's renewed prosperity rested on the historic advan- tages of geographic location and enterprising people, abetted by a general na- tional economic recovery and a steady stream of eager immigrants. In many re- spects the years between the knerican Revolutionary War and the krerican Civil War constituted a transition between two ways of life in the Coastal Zone. Towns grew.into cities and farms focussed on urban markets as the econcmic base shifted frcrn agriculture and commerce to manufacturing. By 1860 more than 800 products were made in the Philadelphia area, many in the Coastal Zone itself. Transportation served as the linchpin. in this profound transformation. First came turnpikes, when the Lancaster Turnpike entered the Coastal Zone in the 1790's. Thirty years later canals tapped the coal fields to the north. Some, like the Schuylkill Navigation Company fran Port Carbon and the Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal frcm Easton, had a direct, physical i=act on the Coastal Zone; others like the Delaware and Chesapeake and I@Jorris Canals had more indirect, yet lucrative., effects by shortening trade links to Baltimore and New York. Railroads-also developed during this transitional period and proved to be the most significant means of land transportation for the rest of thenineteenth century. Railroads had their beginning in the 1830's and ran through the Coastal Zone by 1860, both forming the core of major export facil- ities like Port Richmond and connecting mills with.sources of fuel and raw materials. Political repercussims fram: this growth led to the formation of Delaware County in 1798, the consolidaticn of the City and County of Philadel- phia in 1854, and such growing pains in Bucks county as the successful move- ment of its seat fraL Bristol to Doylestown in 1805 and failed attempts to par- titio n it. =STPJAL HEYDAY, c. 1860-c. 1900 At the outbreak of the Civil War the United States was an emerging nation; by the end of the nineteenth century it was an industrial colossus, dwarfing the production of such European giants as Great Britian and.Germany. The Coastal Zone, already enjoying a surfeitofentrepreneurs with established mills, workers with developed skills, and an increasingly sophisticated transportation system, joined the rest of the country in a golden age of industriali::-m. Like Philadel- phia and Delaware Counties in general, the Coastal Zone saw agricultural acreage converted to ccmmercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rai-lroads.grew in importance as a carrier of bulk cargo, and after the Civil War they interlaced the area. Street car lines, which appeared in Philadelphia and Chester at the end of the 18501s, mushroomed in number, and during the 1890's electrification was introduced. Tn conjunction with ccomuter rail lines they encouraged the development of residential suburbs, a movement of the affluent away frcm unfavorable living conditions near cannercial and industrial activities. Suburbanization had contradictory effects on the Coastal Zone: a marked decrease in-the number of comfortablef bourgeois dwellings in the industrialized southern end and an increase in the amount of sLmptuous villas in the more sparsely popu- lated northern end. in short, the great wealth, qUIckly accumulated, contributed to a class stratification fraught with potential political and social disruptions. Philadelphia, with its textile mills, shipyards, sugar refineries, heavy machinery factories, and huge warehouses and piers, remained the dominant metrop- 12 polis in the area. In 1900, for example, Philadelphia's populaticn was thirty- eight tines greater than that of Chester, the next largest city in the Coastal Zone. CCNTINUEC PROSPERITY, c. 1900-c. 1950 The rapid changes that swep t through the Coastal Zone after the Civi-I War only accelerated in the early decades of the twentieth century. Rural land vir- tually disappeared in the lower parts of the area and markedly diminished in the upper region. manufacturing was king. Because of the dominance of rmnufact:ur- ing the two world w-ars were able to generate economic boom for the Coastal Zone. During World War I the new Baldwin locomotive Works in Eddystone was converted into thelworld's largest rifle manufacturing plant, and shipyards all along the Delaware River constituted the greatest shipbuilding center in history, con- structing over one-third of the country's total tonnage. When World War II called for a return engagement, Baldwin switched,fran rifles to tanks, turning out its first one in early 1941, and shipbuilding again bocned. Migration con- tinued to provide an ample labor supply, especially fran abroad until.the mid- 1920's and fran rural America during the 1940's, creating housing and transit needs in adjoining areas. Philadelphia celebrated the arrival of the new century by. converting City Hall tower into a gigantic electrical Pcman candle. It was a spectacular, and prophetic, displayl for electricity was to beccm the great source of energy that supported the profound changes of the twentieth century. By 1900 the tech- nological difficulties of electrical transmission had been mastered, and by 1902 Philadelphia Electric Company cleared the financial, legal, and political hurdles necessary for operating a regional electrical generation and transmission system. The electrification of factories, homes, trains, and trolleys proceeded steadily thereafter, leading to the gargantuan generator at Port Richmond in the 1930's. Electricity, in combination with the autcmbile, introduced the cheap power and mobility that pemitted -unprecedented dispersal of living pat- terns. This meant that while more people were working in the Coastal Zone, fewer people were probably living there. Electrical.powered mass transit also contributed to this dispersion of population. Philadelphia's subway and ele- vated system expanded for twenty years after it first opened in 1905, and while trolley lines declined in the region as the family car grew in popularity during the 1920's, trolleys remained important in the Coastal Zone itself. Although the region's sophisticated transportation network benefitted the Coastal Zone's economy in the early twentieth century, it held long-term disad- vantages. The rail lines, warehouses, and port facilities that had made the area a major concentration and redistribution center were increasingly under- mined by rmtor trucks and improved highways. The trend was interrupted by World War II and its gasoline raticning, but it resumed in the post-war years to help bring another era of change to the Coastal Zone. POST4NMR PERIOD, c. 1950-1980 Post-war growth in the Philadelphia area had a highly visible impact on the Coastal Zone. The automobile remained the fundamental causal.factor :in these changes. The automobile's role in dispersing both population and distri- 13 bution centers, already discernible in the 19301s, continued after World War II. For sparsely populated parts of Bucks County it brought new economic develop- nent and prosperity; the opening of U.S. Steel's Fairless Hills plant in 1952 created thousands of new jobs which generated needs for new housing and shop- ping areas. For heavily.developed areas like Chester and Eddystone the motor age meant economic decline. Rapidly changing tecl-mologies, international carpe- tition, and lower taxes and-labor costs in the South forced former giants like Baldwin Iocomotives and Sun Ship to the brink, and often over it. The ship- building industry, for example, a thriving and basic industry in the Coastal Zone as late as 1945, faced a sad demise by 1980. Just as the nineteenth-century railroad required tracks, the twentieth- century auto requires highways. Paved roads ran nearly everywhere throughout the Coastal Zone, but they are more strikingly visible in Philadelphia, where two major freeways, the Schuylkill and Delaware Expressways (Interstate Routes 76 and 95, respectively) form borders along Philadelphia's Schuylkill and Dela- ware River parts of the Zone. Continued expansion of residential and commercial enclaves outward fran Philadelphia during the 1950's are 1960's raised concern about two matters: the natural environment and public recreation.' It led to such federal govern mental procedures as envircmTental impact studies before conmencing public pro- jects and such local actions as setting aside park lands and playgrounds. A major step was taken to preserve the.surviving natural environment in the Coastal zone when the Tinicum Wildlife Preserve was formed. , Provisions for recreation, however, proved moredifficult.. Historic sites like Pennsbury Manor and the Morton Hmiestead, established before the war, continued to draw large crowds, but new facilities faced rising costs. Penn's landing:in Philadelphia devel- oped very slowly in the 1970's and had not reached its promise yet by 1980. Meanwhile a riverfrant park along the east bank of the Schuylkill River moved fran planning stages to the digging stages. In spite of occasional disappoint- ments and an uncertain economy, life in the Coastal Zone was better in 1980 than it had been fifty years earlier. The air and water were less polluted, the standard of living was'higher, and living groups were more tolerant and cm- patible. 14 9 I uj 8 0 4 VON 4u ;3 4,41 d v 04 OV4 :9 4 "IN lBwn'a Sze Girgan'R'sn'ng Rwowce RnUannatonOn (aFTf historic and archeological resources are indexed and rrapped accord- , to a formt addressing contemporary political subdivisions. How- ever, this type of organization does not provide any historical context for decisions concerning significance or preservation activity. Thus, a sys- tem is required which is capable of providing the preservation planner with resource inforimtion that may be needed to direct future resource survey work, -and evaluate the significance of and protect known cultural resources. In addition, it is important to know how they are similar, or dissimilar, to other historically-related resources; how many there are of distinctly different types, and the extent to which they might already be preserved. The Resource Protection Plan incorporates an organizational framework wtuch seeks to satisfy these infornational. needs--S@@y units, which "...are used to initiate the or- ,ganizatian of inforration in historical terms and are fundamental to develop- '-,.",,,meht of a resource-based planning process" (HCRS 1980). The components of a study unit typically are: a conceptual, or thematic, historic, or prehistoric frameuurk; a geographical distribution; and, chronological limits. "A study unit could be defined as one or more topical and chronological themes con- sidered in the context of a specifically-defined geographical area of a state. @.,Often the geographical area will have recognizable natural characteristics that have facilitated, inhibited, or otherwise influenced human activity, (prehistoric and historic) within its boundaries" (HCRS 1980). This organi- zational structure is.represented schernatically in Figure 2. The Coastal Zone is considered to represent a hcmogeneous geographical unit; and, for the pur- poses of this study is not considered to be a variable component of the study --units. Study units, as presented herein, are uniquely defined according to a conceptual framework adjusted according to son-echronological limits. Thus, the Pennsylvania/Delaware Valley Coastal Zone Study Units serve to organize the historic and prehistoric cultural resources in a manner which represents the history and.prehistory of the study area. Since historic and historic archeological resources represent the same historic activities and tixne span, they rmy be organized according to the sm-e study units. Prehistoric arche- ological study units.are, however, distinct. STUDY UNITS Prehistoric Archeological Study Units Introduction As discussed above, there are three key elermnts which must be taken into account in the formalation of study units, including a conceptual frane7onrk, geo- graphical distribution, and chronological limits. In the case of the southeastern Pennsylvania Coastal Zone, geographical distribution is not a significant factor in the formulation of prehistoric archeological study units because of the limited size and homogenous geomorphological unit conprising the Coastal Zone. The con- ceptual frareunrk and chronological limitations, however, are quite significant elenmts in the forrmlation of prehistoric study units. As outlined in the fol- lowing pages, the conceptual framework for study unit fornulation corresponds to 15 X, 1900A.D. 27 25 24 7 1500A.D. OALD. 7 7 20 7 is 7 17 10000B.C. 14 7 29 8 la@ ,W- 1 owawwe Rtmr Paleo Figure 2. Study Units (Scurce: HCRS, Resource Protection PZanninq Process p. Z3) 16 the standard Paleoindian-Archaic-Transitiaial-+k)odland-Historic Contact tradi- tion, or period system, which has been employed by American archeologists throughout the twentieth century. Each tradition is characterized by a rela- tively flexible time span, which is based largely on the demise and/or onset of certain elements of indigenous materIal culture or subsistence strategy. Thus, for example, when the archeological record indicates the presence of-dis- tinctive side-notched and corner-notched projectile points about 6-8,000 years ago, archeologists know that the period under ccnsideration is the Archaic, and not the earlier Paleoindian. Similarly, the presence of ceramic cooking vessels in the archeological record signal to the archeologists that the relevant time period is the Woodland, rather than the earlier pre-pottery Archaic-atansitional continuum. Accordingly, the study units described in the following pages con- stitute a set of arbitrarily defined.ordering concepts which form subsets of a 12,000-year cultural continuum. Such ordering has been greatly faci-litated by the development of radiocarbon dating of organic remains, a development wiuch a-Ilowed for a more precise absolute chronology to be applied to the cultural continuum. Thus, archeologists are fairly confident of the dates which they apply to each of the traditions, or study units, they may use to order their universe. Wbile the traditions or study units may have had little or no reality in the minds of those who actually participated in the prehistoric cultural system (that is, the aboriginal inhabitants), that system is the only one which later archeological observers possess which can even attempt to successfully order the complex cultural continuum which the archeological record reveals. In the case of prehistoric study units discussed below, the basic ordering elements are con- ceptual and chronological, rather than functional or geographical in nature. 1. Paleoindian (c. 10,000 B.C. - c. 7,000 B.C.) The Paleoindian Tradition is the earliest widespread North American cultural tradition for which there is abundant evidence all over North, and even South America. Although artifacts diagnostic of Paleoindian a known for the Coastal Zone of southeastern Pennsylvania, they are quite uncommon. The primary dis- tinctive hallmark of Paleoindian is the fluted point, a lanceclate-shaped pro- jectile point (or arrowhead) which characteristically has a groove, or flute, on each face parallel with the longitudinal axis of the artifact. This tool, as well as others of the Paleoindian Tradition, has frequently been found in asso- ciation with large mammals, such as bison, mammoth, or mastadon, particularly in the west. Accordingly, Paleoindian groups have been characterized primarily as a big-game hunting tradition that is organized into small, tightly-kni:t.._...- highly-mobile groups or bands which exploit seasonal herds of big game. While evidence is slowly accumulating that Paleoindian. groups probably exploited biotic resources as well, there can be no dispute that large terrestrial mamTals formed an important part of their subsistence base. No direct evidence exists which links Paleoindian subsistence with riparian or lacustrine resources, although certainly such resources must have been utilized to some extent. During the Paleoindian period, the clumte was considerably colder than it is now, and much of southeastern Pennsylvania and the New Jersey Coastal Plain was probably tundra or taiga. Large Pleistocene mammals coexisted with the Paleoindian, including the mastadon, woolly mammoth, caribou, elk, and perhaps musk ox. Because the residual effects of the last glacial advance (the Wiscon- sin) were still in evidence at the time Paleoindian groups occupied the landscape, 17 their remains often are associated with glacial or periglacial features. For example, because sea level was considerably lower 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, due to substantial increases in the size of the polar ice caps, Paleo' indian sites today are known to be underwater orin coastal or riverine marshes. Some Paleoindian sites, in fact, are believed to be :many miles out in the Atlantic Ocean, on the Outer Continental Shelf . At the time they were occupied by Paleoindian groups, however, the sites were completely terrestrial, and located in positions designed to neximize their exploitation of the local environnent. In the nearby Coastal Plain of New Jersey, a, periglacial feature known as a pingo increasingly is yielding evidence of Paleoindian occupation in associa- tion with it. Pingoes are small depressions, lakes, ponds, or catchbasins which forn-ed on the landscape just beyond the maxinum extent of the Wisconsin glaciation (an irregular east-west line, called a terminal moraine, trending roughly between Staten Island and Delaware Water Gap, Pennsylvania). Other Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene features which consistently yield evidence of Paleoindian in the Coastal Zone region include extinct lakes and streambeds, as well as secondary and tertiary river terraces. As no ted earlier, no Paleoindian sites are presently known for the Pennsylvania/Delaw7are River Coastal Zone. However, many isolated or disturbed fluted point discoveries have been made in the Delaware River Valley, leading at least one early authority to speculate that the major river valleys, in par- ticular the Delaware, were favored habitational loci for Paleoindian groups. Most of our knowledge of Paleoindians in the Mid-Atlantic region, however, does not come fran these isolated finds, but rather from the few known sites in the region which have been excavated. These include the Shoop Site, in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, the Zierdt Site, near Port Jervis, New York, the Plenge Site, in Warren County, New Jersey, the Duchess Quarry Cave Site, near Florida, New York,. the Port Mobil Sites, on Staten Island, and the Shawnee- Minisink Site, near Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Recently, considerable evidence of Paleoindian occupation has ccm to light at the Turkey Swarp Site, in Monmouth County, New Jersey. 2. Archaic (c. 7,000 B.C. - c. 1,000.B.C.) The Archaic Tradition witnessed the develoFanent of a new set of cultural- adaptive mechanisms in response to changing envircnmental conditions. The gra- dual retreat of ice sheets and periglacial conditions prior to c. 8,000 B.C. created a :more favorable errvironmntal regiuen which increased regional carry- ing capacities of such resources as car@all game, fish, shellfish, nuts, seeds, and other foodstuffs. Accordingly, human groups began adapting their exploita- tive and subsistence strategies to these new or more abundant resources. No , I unifonn culture type is to be found wie-Lin the Archaic Tradition for, as various microhabitats or biames care to be exploited by various groups, differential cul- tural expressions began to emerge. Thus, Archaic manifestations in coastal environments became adapted to maritime conditions and resources, those in up- land environments became adapted to resources and conditions as they exist at higher altitudes and in dense forest, and scme Archaic groups even becam adapted to desert conditions in the Great Basin west of the Pocky Mountain. It is gen- erally believed that most Archaic cultural groups lived in widely scattered mi- gratory bands similar to those thought to characterize Paleoindian groups, but that, due to a now more stable and abundant food supply Archaic groups were able 18 to exploit a far wider range of resources than their predecessors and even participate in seasonal schedules or rounds. In short, Archaic groups utilized a much more efficient food procurement system than did Paleoindian groups, a system which enabled them to exploit many different types of bicues and the resources they provided. The more favorable environmental conditions noted above for the Archaic period included a general warming trend during the entire 6,000-year time span. This warming trend probably resulted in the reduction of open environment while the previous alpine tundra. conditions at the higher elevations were probably replaced by coniferous-forests, with mixed conifer-deciduous populations char- acterizing the lower slopes. Concomitant shifts in animal populations would probably not have been as great, with the environment still supporting a large variety (though perhaps found in smaller concentrations) of faunal species. The warming tend begun about 8,000 B.C. culminated in a wann-and dry ex- trene about 1,000 B.C. It is during the latter periods of this stage that the oak-chestnut climax association evident in the eastern woodlands today first made its appearance. Open areas were probably continuously retreating during this warming and drying trend. Due to a marked increase in nut and fruit bear- ing trees in a deciduous-don-Linant forest, the carrying capacity for most forms of faunal life would have greatly increased. Such animals as deer, black bear, wild turkey, and other faunal species more adapted to warmer conditions re- placed the large cold-adapted Pleistocene nwmals. The more diverse floral and faunal resources brought on by the changing -environment allowed for a more diverse pattern of exploitation and settlement by Archaic peoples. The band-territorial pattern begun in the Paleoindian period still continued, but it was less predicated on unrestricted wandering and more related to scheduling and seasonal rounds. Subsistence activities, accordingly, were based on the local seasonal availability of foodstuffs, and settlement patterning reflected this seasonality. Fishing camps were occupied primarily during the late spring and ea ly spawning runs, and located near known spawning areas. Nut-gathering and hunting camps were primarily occupied during the autumn months when such resources were plentiful. Larger base camps, of course, were generally occupied year round with varying population density, depending on the season and the group activities at the time. Our knowledge of Archaic peoples derives primarily fran analyses of their chipped stone artifacts. Very little else of their culture has survived, ex- cept for stone hearths, and they had not yet developed pottery-making techniques. Similarly, the bow and arrow was not yet known, and game was probably procured by spear and atlatl (spear-thrower), a wooden or bone implement by which more thrust and, hence, killing power, could be achieved in hunting with a. spear. Remains of Archaic house structures (in the form of post molds) are quite rare, but thereis scue evidence to suggest that they may have been circular -in con- figuration, and constructed by a sapling framework covered with bark or other vegetal matter. As with the Paleoindian, natural shelters such as caves or rock outcrops were frequently utilized by Archaic peoples. Because of perceived differences in artifact types and localized cultural expression, the Archaic period is scmtimes further divided into three sub- periods, the Early, Middle, and late Archaic. Clear-cut chronological evidence for this division, how-ever, is not yet available, and there is still considerable 19 disagreement among archeologists regarding what cultural factors are well enough defined to support these divisions. Much of the confusion stems from the lack of precise stratigraphic and chronologic definition at most Archaic sites sofar excavated in the northeastern woodlands. Until such clear-cut stratigraphic and chronological evidence becoms available, such divisions should be used with caution. The small Archaic can-psite (or.perhaps small base camp) is by far the most ubiquitous kind of prehistoric site known in the northeastern woodlands. However, in southeastern Pennsylvania most are known from the Piedmont or Ridge Valley uplands, oriented more toward wall tributary streams than toward the larger river systems. Most significantly no Archaic sites are known for the Pemsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, although nmy are known for other parts of the Delawaxe Valley. Those which are known generally take the form of an occupation horizon at a floodplain site along the Delaware overlain by later prehistoric components. Such sites often have the unfortunate charac- teristic of mixed cultural conponents in which stratigraphic integrity is minimal due to evidence of later and earlier Indian occupations becoming irre- trievably mixed. Excavated sites in the vicinity of the Coadtal Zone vkdch con- tain Archaic components include the Abbott Farm Site, near Trenton, New Jersey,, the Byram Site., near Stockton, New Jersey, the Raccoon Point Site, near Bridge- port, New Jersey, and the Florence Site, near Burlington, New Jersey. 3. Transitional or Terminal Archaic (c. 1800 B.C. - c. 800 B.C.) Chronologically overlapping with the Archaic Tradition is another cultural manifestation of the northeastern woodlands, usually referred to as the-Tran- sitional, but sometimes referred to as Terminal Archaic. It is likely that the cultural changes evident in this tradition came about, at least in part, in response to the wann and dry naxh= noted above which occurred about 1000 B.C., or even perhaps a little earlier. It was at this time that the oak-hickory- chestnut forest so prevalent today in the northeastern woodlands first becaue wholly dcndxiant, and this, in turn, allowed for even more plentiful and diverse faunal and floral resources to become adapted to the environnent. Accordingly, even greater regional carrying capacities became established, providing abor- iginal inhabitants with a wider choice of subsistence strategies. The Transitional peoples appear to have become even more highly specialized and regionalized than their Archaic predecessors. They are recognized primarily by the prevalence of a series of highly distinctive broad spearpoints, and their manufacture and use of steatite (soapstone) bowls, the first appearance of pottery in the northeast woodlands. They apparently were quite selective regard- ing the kinds of stone utilized in their chipped stone technologies, for yellow jaspar and rhyolite were aloost always used. It is thought by some archeologists that the unusual broad spearpoints, some of which are quite asynretrical, were specialized projectile points for fishing. Most archeologists believe Transitional peoples had a mobility greatly in- creased over their Archaic predecessors, with this greater nubility a result of the availability of canoe or dugout for travel. Certainly there can be no doubt of a greater reliance on riverine resources during the Transitional period, for most sites are located along major waterways. Aside from their distinctive spearpoints, steatite cooking vessels, and an essentially riverine adaptation, however, Transitional peoples appear to have continued the general overall Archaic 20 way of life begun nearly 6,000 years before. Band territoriality still appears tobe the major form of social organization, although semi-permanent base camps of larger groups may have been prevalent. A truly sedentary lifestyle, how- ever, had not as yet been adopted. Transitional sites are known for all regions of the northeastern wood- lands but, as with earlier Archaic sites, most of our knowledge of Transitional peoples comes from nrulti-component floodplain sites, with materials often inter- mixed with earlier Archaic and later Woodland material. Stratigraphically well- defined Transitional horizons or conTponents are unfortunately quite rare in the Delaware River Valley, and none are known for the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone per se. The best known Transitional campsite in the Delaware Valley is on the Miller Field Site, in the Upper Delaware Valley, south of Flat-@_ brookville, New Jersey. Closer to the study area, Transitional components have been found at the Abbott Farm Site, near Trenton, New Jersey, the Raccoon Point Site, near Bridgeport, New Jersey,. the Florence Site, near Bridgeton, New Jersey, and the Byram. Site, near Stockton, New Jersey. Early-Middle Woodland.(c. 1,000 B.C. - c. A.D. 1,000) About 1,000 years before the advent of the Christian era, some profound changes in.the lifeways of aboriginal populations in the eastern woodlands began to take place. At this time, three in-portant new themes not evident before, were introduced into the indigenous cultural systems, including the development of incipient horticulture, the development of village life, and the introduction of ceramics. While the development of horticulture (and ultimately agriculture) and more sedentary village life appears to have come about quite slowly, the manufacture and use of ceramics was quick to materialize, and no doubt initiated one of the first truly significant industrial revolutions in North America. While Early and Middle Woodland. cultural expressions are. well-known and more spectacular in the Allegheny Plateau and Ohio Valley (the heart- land of the Adena mortuary complex), those in 'the northeastern woodlands are less well-known, although every bit as much in evidence@ For this reason, chronological and cultural differences have not as yet been isolated to the same precision as they have further west; and, accordingly, Early and Middle Woodland cultural traits are lumped together into an Early-Mddle Woodland continuum.. in fact, two of the three thematic hallmarks which signal the beginning of the Woodland Tradition, including the advent of horticulture and village life, appear to be considerably less developed in the northeast than in. western Pennsylvania and Ohio. . Similarly, the, well-known Adena burial mounds and earthworks known for the Ohio Valley are not in evidence in the northeast. During the Early-@4iddlelhibodland period, the prevailing climate was much as it is today. For,the most part, the wmrming trend begun c. 6,500 B.C. continued, and the oak-hickory-chestnut forest association reached its suc- cessional climax.. Resource carrying capacity, as a result, continued to be diverse and extensive, in turn allowing for a continuation of exTanded regional exploitation by human groups. Two minor fluctuations in the pre- vailing climate (a cool and dry trend c. A.D. 200 and a hot and dry trend c. A.D..1000) failed to greatly effect the regional carrying capacities in the northeast. 21 In the Delaware Valley area, the prevailing pattern of subsistence for Early-Middle Woodland groups appears tohave been small family groups exploiting the major river bottcxns and adjacent uplands. Few Early-Middle Woodland sites are known to be great distances frcin major riparian sources. most settlements probably consisted of only a few houses clustered in a limited area and, accordingly, probably did not represent true village or- ganization, as sites in the Ohio Valley do. Subsurface features at Early- Middle Woodland sites are not plentiful, and for the most part consist of small, shallow, saucer-shaped pits 'or basins of uncertain function. Very few deep storage pits are known for sites of this time period. While inci- pient horticulture most certainly was beginning to emerge in western Penn- sylvania and adjacent Ohio at this time, the relative lack of storage pits in the northeast suggests a considerable time lag in its development in that region. Since Early-Middle Vbodland subsistence patterns seem to focus on major riparian waterways, sites of this tire period are relatively plentiful in the Delaware Valley. However, the same stratigraphic intermixing which plagues Archaic and Transitional sites in the Delaware River floodplain also occurs with regard to components of the Early-Middle Vbodland; and, accord- ingly, satisfactory isolation of Early-Middle Woodland components has proved difficult. Most frequently, deep features of the succeeding late Wbodland have severely disturbed the earlier Woodland components. Neverthe- less, Early-middle Woodland components are known from most excavated sites in the Delaware Valley, although they probably are best defined at the Faucett Site, near Bushkill, Pennsylvania, the Byram Site, near Stockton, New Jersey, and the Harry's Farm Site, in Warren County, New Jersey. 5. Late Vbodland (c. A.D. 1000 - A.D. 1550) By about the tent.h millenium, A.D., horticulture had given way to'agri- culture and permanent, or. at least serni-permanent, village living had beccme a way of life for the northeastern woodland Indians. Archeologists refer to this time period as the late Woodland, and remains of late Tebodland peoples far outnumber those of previous inhabitants in the Delaware Valley. It is during this time that distinct tribal influences can be recognized in the archeological record, and the late Woodland in the louer Delaware Valley is generally seen as representing the remains of the ancestral Delaware or Ienape Indians. The climate during this tire, as expected, was about the same as at present. The warming trend begun about 6,500 B.C. had generally continued unabated in the region, and regional carrying capacities had maintained a maximum density similar to those present in Transitional and Early-Middle Woodland times. While the basic composition of the oak-hickory-chestnut forest has doubtless changed little in the succeeding 600 years or so, much-of the forest clearing evident in the Delaware Valley and elsewhere today is the result of later agricultural practices by Europeans and was not evident when the ancestral Lenape were inhabiting the valley. Not all of the forest clearing can be attributed to Europeans, however, since there is a considerable,body of historic evidence which suggest the Indians themselves.cleared substantial tracts of land in scme areas prior to the advent of Europeans. 22 In general, Late Woodland peoples in the Delaware Valley lived in rela- tively small farmtead-type villages. Unlike their contemporaries to the north and west, there-appears to have been little warfare, since villages do not show signs of defensive works of any kind, such as stockade lines, ditches, or earthen embankments. Houses were generally not tightly clustered, but distributed about the village -in such a way as to suggest individual plots or properties. The houses generally were relatively small longhouses, probably housing single or extended families, with rounded or oval ends rather than the squared ends of Iroquois longhouses. Doorways were always on one of the long sides, rather than on the end, and various hearths, storage racks and bunk-like affairs were distributed about the interior. Bark-lined storage pits were also common in the Late Woodland longhouse. The development of rudimentary agricultural technology was doubtless a significant factor contributing to the now more sedentary, seemingly idyllic, lifestyle of the Late Woodland Indians. In the Delaware Valley, as well as elsewhere in the eastern woodlands, there is ample evidence that staple cultigens included maize, beans, pumpkins, squash, and perhaps Sun- flowers. Many of these staples were ground into meal with nullers, pestles, and milling stones, and then stored in deep pits excavated into the ground. Although plant domestication was an important fact of life in Late T*x)d1and times, there is no evidence of widespread animal domestication, except for the dog. The latter wasapparently raised as a food source. In spite of a heavy reliance on agriculture durin g late Woodland times, more traditional patterns of subsistence wy--re not wimlly superceded. Hunting, gathering, and fishing still provided major portions of the Indians' diet, as did shellfish, especially the fresh water mussel. The bow and arrow, representing a significant technological advancement over the spear, was used for most hunting, with small triangular projectile Points, rather. than stemmed or notched, tipping the arrows. Bola stones were apparently used in some aspects of hunting, perhaps for marsh birds or some species of small game, and fish were usually netted. Pottery styles were generally much mre sophisticated and refined, and usually had simple, everted lips or high, decorative collars. All were round-bottcnied, which required the use of rock or sand supports while in use. A number of Late Woodland sites an the northeast have yielded the remains of human burials. Mortuary practices of the late Woodland people appear to have been fairly simple, with tightly flexed burials sin-ply being placed in'shallow pits just large enough to accept the body. No elaborate mortuary structures, such as are found at the Adena and Hopewell sites in Ohio, were constructed, nor were elaborate grave goods buried with the dead. Although perishable material, such as clothing, could have been entombed with the dead, only an occasional tobacco pipe or Pottery vessel has been found in Delaware Valley late Woodland burials. Most Iate Woodland sites in the northeast, and in particular the Dela- ware Valley region, are found on floodplains of the major river systesm. Very few sites of thistime period are known for upland interior settings. They generally occur as the latest prehistoric component on deep, mixed al- luvial soils which also witnessed habitation or utilization by earlier aboriginal peroples. Accordingly, the Iate Woodland components on such flood- plain sites are generally much easier to recognize than the earlier components 23 and, hence, better understood. Delaware Valley sites which have yielded ,significant late Woodland canponents include the Abbott Farm Site, near Trenton, the Faucett Site, near Bushkill, Pennsylvania, the Byram and Iam- bertville Sites, near Lanbertville, New Jersey, and the Harry's Farm Site in Warren County, New Jersey, and the Overpeck Site, near Kintnersville, Pennsylvania. 6. Historic Contact (c. A.D. 1550 - A.D. 1750) The Historic Contact period is the historically documented time when aboriginal populations in the northeast came into contact with Europeans who were beginning to colonize the New World. It was a time of turbulence, mistrust, and violence, all of which are typical by-products of situations when cultural groups of widely dissimilar habits and custams come into forced contact. It was also a time when the indigenous Indian populations, by most accounts all too willing to peacefully coexist with the Europeans, found themselves quickly acculturated into a new cultural system -- one.predicated on materialism, individual omership and, to some extent, greed. As such, the latter stages of the 200 year span comprising the Historic Contact Period signaled the complete demise of the Indian way of life which began nearly 12,000 years before in the northeastern woodlands. The Indians indigenous to the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone at the time ofEuropean contact referred to themselves as the lenape (the realt or-oriq=ial,.-PeoPl&)-. Because of their association with the Delaware River (named after the English lord De La Warr), the Europeans began refer- ring to them.in their journals and documents as the Delawares. While sm-e scholars ccntinue to refer to them as the Delaware Indians, it is probably most appropriate to refer.to them with the original Lenape designation. Most historical, ethnological, and ethnohistorical literature on the Lenape suggest thatt at the time of European contact, they were loosely organized into three geo-political sub-groupings, including the Munsee in the upper Delaware Valley and northern New Jersey, the Unami in the middle Delaware Valley and central New Jersey, and the Unalachtigo in the, lower Delaware Valley and southern New Jersey. Recent research, however, has indi- cated that those designations bear little relationship to actual Lenape ,social and political organization at the time of contact. In fact, there was no comprehensive geo-political organization among the Ienape but, rather, there existed a loose-knit clan system (including the Wolf, Turtle, and Tur- key clans) which served as a unifying factor throughout the entire geographic region occupied by the Lenape. The blunsee, Unam, and Unalachtigo misncmier is probably a more recent classificaticn system applied to the Lenape by eighteenth century European observers after the Lanape were forcibly removed fran their lands. Profound changes wie-re wrought in the Lenape way of life as a result of their contact with Europeans. The Europeans, for example, provided a ready and lucrative market for furs and other products of the forest which the Indians had traditionally utilized. Beaver pelts in particular were highly prized by the-Europeans and, in exchange, the Lenape were provided with guns, liquor, brass and iron tools, clothing, and other item of European origin. As a result, Historic Contact sites usually produce numerous artifacts of European manufacture in addition to more traditional Lenape or pre-Lenape 24 artifacts of stcne, bone, shell, and clay. interestingly although the Dutch and English were both very much in evidence an the northeastern wood- lands at this tine, most trade items found in Historic Contact sites exca- vated so far are English. Since historic docurents indicate the Dutch were as active in trading with the Lenape as the English, it seems likely that the reason for this disparity is that Dutch contact sites have not received as much archeological attention as English contact sites. That the Lenape were a relatively peaceful lot is attested by the fact that no remains of defensive stockades have been found surrounding their villages in the Delaware Valley. most of the Lenape contemporaries to the north and west were fortifying their villages even before the ccuung of the Europeans. At least me scholar believes the reason for the apparent paci- fism of the Lenape is their subjugation by the Iroquois prior to the coming of the Europeans, at which time the Lenape were "forbidden" by the Iroquois to engage in w-arfare. In any event, hostilities between the Lenape and the European seem to have been considerably less.frequent than among the Iro- quois and the European. By about 1660, the Lenape of the lower Delaware Valley had become almost totally acculturated into the.European cultural- system. Very little tribal integrity remained and traditional habits, custcms, and values were hardly distinguishable. The Europeans had gradually "purchased" most of the land from the Indims and were forcing them out of their traditional hcmeland. The so-called "Walking Purchase of 1737", involving a tract of land near Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, represented the last piece of land sold by the Lenape to the Europeans and effectively brought to a close the period of Inchan-European contact in the Delaware Valley. Shortly thereafter, there were virtually no lenape left in the area, most of them having been forcibly moved to reservations in Oklahoma and Canada. Because of the widespread nineteenth and twentieth century developments in the lower Delaware Valley, known Historic Contact sites in the study area are scmewhat rare. Those that are known, such as Sipaessing (nearPennsbury Manor), Menakakonk (near Fallsington), Sanckahickan (at the site of present day Morrisville), or Tschichocke (at Brist6l), are known only from rather in- complete historical records,and not fram archeological excavations.. It is quite unlikely that much remains of the sites noted above which has not been severely disturbed or totally destroyed by subsequent development. Most of our archeological knowledge about the Lenape comes from sites wtuch have been excavated an the upper Delaware Valley where developa-ent and disturbance has been considerably less. These sites include the Davenport Site near Milford, Pennsylvania, the Miller Field and Pahaquarra Sites in Warren County, New Jersey, and most inportantly, the numerous Minisink sites on and near Minisink Island, Sussex County, New Jersey- Historic and Historic Archeological Study Units Introduction Historic@Study Units were designed to provide a conceptual framework for (historic and historic archeological resources) the Coastal Zone's 25 developmental history. Eight thematic units were developed that relate principally to the way these resources were used. These "Study Units" were then subdivided into 25 chronological sub-units that identify signifi- cant periods within each historic theme. The eight Study Unit themes are: (1) MercantilimVCommerce, (2) Agriculture, (3) Private Institutions, _ (4) Public Institutions, (5) Public Accommodations, (6) Transportation, (7) Industry, and (8) Residences. Since the Coastal Zone represents a well-defined and relatively homogeneous limit to the study area, the geo- graphical camponent, normally associated with and variable within a study unit is, in this case, not a factor. Simply put, the eight Historic Study Units represent man's use of the Coastal Zone for domestic, economic (work), political, and social activi- ties. The Mrcantilism/Conrwrce, Agriculture, and Industry Study Units represent the economic use of the Coastal- Zone and the historic transition from agriculture and commerce to manufacturing; while the Transportation Study Unit represents the ports, turnpikes, canals, and railroads that facilitated these activities. The Public Institutions and Private Insti- tutions Study Units address the social and political activities and their associated churches, meeting houses,,town h4lls,and schools. The unique function of the various inns, taverns, and hotels in providing a public meeting place for the exchange of news and ideas, and accommodations for the traveler is represented by the Public Accommodations Study Unit. The Residences Study Unit was included to document the domestic lifestyles of the Coastal Zone inhabitant. Although historic residential resources are frequently associated with the work place, such as the Craftsman's Worksbop, the farmstead or the company town; the more recent residential history of the Coastal Zone also reflects the desire to live away fran the workplace. A discussion of the historic study units follows. Chronological sub- units are presented and described relative to their particular importance and relationship to other thematic concepts within the overall development and continuity of a given study unit. The information presented may address historical development more far-reaching in scope than the geographical limits of the study area, in order to provide contextual identity to the particular events and resources identified for the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. Thus, not all chronological sub-units may be represented by resources in the study a a; however, whenever possible study area ex- amples have been used to illustrate study unit phenomena. 1. MercantilistrVCommerce Cbmmerce in the Coastal Zone has grown steadily since the days of the Swedish and Dutch trading posts on the lower Delaware River. While this commercial development can be divided roughly into four chronological periods, it must be remembered that Pennsylvania's commerce has been char- acterized by continuity more than by cataclysmic change. Although commerce has undergone noticeable change in a particular historical period, it has retained most features of an earlier time, thus making historical description of Pennsylvania commerce an additive process. General stores, for example, have been an important part of the state's mercantile system since the earliest trading posts. 26 Camierce was the dominant force in the econarry during the first period, c. 1640 to c. 1790. Business ventures were generally small-scale enter- prises under single ownership or a partnership. More so.than in later periods merchants engaged in a wide variety of cam-ercial activity: foreign trade (often in one's own vessel), coastal trade, local trade, and/or interior trade. Stores and shops were usually stocked with a wide variety of merchandise acquired by auction, exchange, or purchase. In large towns and cities open-air markets, stocked by nearby farmers, were a major source of foodstuffs. The social deference of the colonial era made the wealth and worldliness of early merchants appear very inposing. Merchants stood in the front ranks of colonial leadership; they determined cultural tastes, articulated political issw s, and dominated econoniic life. Wholesale and retail stores featuring specialized merchandise and enclosed market houses characterized the second period, c. 1790 to c. 1880. Businesses operated on a larger scale than in the colonial days, but business ownership and organization remained essentially the same. Similarly general merchandise shops and market sheds survived, because they required little capital in a capital-starved economy. ne-flective of Pennsylvania's growing economic specializaticn and scale, merchants outgrew the informality of coffee houses and began to organize formal. exchange companies with their am headquarters structures. At the same time they found themselves sharing their economic and social prominence with the new industrialists, who were partly responsible for the growing specialization and affluence. Department stores and five-and-dime.chain stores emerged during the third period, c. 1880 to c. 1930. organized by ingenious merchants like John Wana,maker of Philadelphia and Frank W. Woolworth of Lancaster, many of these enterprises became corporations after World War I. Identified by many cultural historians as uniquely An-e-rican for their scale and methods of merchandising, these stores spawned a surfeit of emulators afterthe 1880's. Food markets also were organized into large chains like A&P, and many small independent grocers joined associations in order to reduce pur- chasing and advertis ing costs. The automobile had the single greatest impact on camierce in the final period, c. 1930 to the present. Forced to follow consumers fran the cities to the rapidly spreading auto-based suburbs, merchants after World War II moved into large shopping centers with sprawling parking lots. At least one department store served as the visual and fiscal center of these shopping malls; a number of smaller specialty shops (some of local single ownership, others outlets for national or regional operations) and often a large food market (called a supermarket) filled the other stores. The Main Street of earlier times was transformed into one corporately owned area or sometimes, especially after 1970, a mall under a single roof. The autombile was also responsible for what became known as commercial strips. These a as along main roads on the edges of towns and cities became hives of service stations, eating places, and a variety of stores, competing for attention with the colorful signs and distinctive structures. This struggle to catch the moving eye has led to the rise of roadside architecture, a material expres- sion of Amrica's-obbile, entrepreneurial culture. Meanwhile Main Street merchants, in spite of their local charities and national organizations, are facing a crisis as shoppers patronize suburban malls with easy parking. The wealth and power of merchants in general is diffused and greatly diluted from that of their predecessors at the beginning of the 20th century. 27 Powerful personalities like John Wanamaker have been replaced by faceless boards of directors, and many merchants have became more accurately managers of corporate outlets and franchises. 2. Agriculture Azerican agriculture has changed radically over the past 350 years, but because of the steady urbanization of the Coastal Zone, agriculture in the area has been economically tied to Philadelphia for more than two centuries. For that reason, area agriculture has not undergone all of the drastic changes to be seen nationally. Extant agricultural structures, however, are increasingly rare' Yet, like agriculture elsewhere, local agriculture has been vitally affected by technological change, the major factor in determining the four historical periods of agriculture in the Coastal Zone. Self-sufficient family farms characterized the earliest period, c. 1650 to c. 1850. Animals and people provided most of the motive power, and machines were limited to tools, most of which were locally made by farmers and blacksmiths, Surpluses were traded locally with Philadelphia, the most expansive market for the farm products. Because farmers consti- tuted the majority of the local population, their status was secure, their influence pervasive, and their calling generally enviable and often praised. Thomas Jefferson called-them "the most valuable citizens, ... the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous." The second period, c. 1850 to c. 1900, saw increased agricultural specialization, as local farmers began to develop dairy herds or raise produce for canneries and urban consumption. Tools and animal power re- mained central to farm uurk but the effort was relieved by a number of tech- nological innovations ranging from specialized steel plows and seed drills to reapers and threshers. Local farmers,generally benefitted from, urban and industrial expansion, yet some grew increasingly conscious of their unique position and after the Civil War joined farm organizations for both technological information and social contacts. Agriculture became even more specialized and technology more sophis- ticated during the third period, c. 1900 to c. 1945. The gasoline-powered tractor replaced horses as the motive power. The tractor greatly reduced the farmer's labor; it could be hooked up to a host ofmachines like rakes, reapers, elevators, and threshers. Of course, this increased mechanization of agriculture required more capital, but it promised greater production from less labor. Such sophistication and specialization of farming made over-production and reduced prices a real danger, which transformed many farm organizations into political pressure groups. One result was more systematic aid and information to farmers from. both state and federal gov- exnments. In the final period, since the end of World War II in 1945, the number of farms and farmers in the Coastal zone has dwindled to nil as urbaniza- tion has taken over. In the nearby area, however, agricultural specializa- tion, merchanization, and producticn have continued to increase. 28 3. Private Instituticns Private institutions have existed in Pennsylvania from the time of the first European settlement. The first and yet today the most numerous of these were religious groups, beginning with a Swedish Lutheran congre- gaticn in South Philadelphia in 1638. other institutions soon followed; the first school in the Coastal Zone, for example, was established on Tinicum Island in 1642. As in the case of commercial and mercantile acti- vities, there has been a remarkable. ccntinuity among private institutions. Cnce established, they often have,survived for long periods, sometimes outgrowing their early quarters. That survival has often been a result of adaptation to broad cultural changes, which can be divided into three historical periods. For the approximately 70 years between c. 1740 and c. 1810 churches were the most numerous and active of private instituticns in the Phila- delphia area. Dbt only were the churches important for their houses of wor- ship in a God-fearing society butalso they were responsible for nearly all educational and social-service institutions. Because of the religious and ethnic diversity in the Philadelphia area; however, the influence of particular religious groups was. generalized. 'By the mid-18th century this pluralism and the trend of thought anmg intellectuals, called the Enlightenment, contributed to the emergence of secular institutions. In Philadelphia-Benjamin Franklin is deservedly identified with many of these institutions, such as the city's first volunteer fire company, the American Philosophical Society, Pennsylvania Hospital, and the College of Phila- delphia (now the University of Pennsylvania). Concern for maintenance of social order and the plight of the afflicted and disadvantaged inaugurated a reform movement that set the second period, c. 1810 to c. 1930:, apart frcni the 17th and l8th centU.ries. Great hope was invested in new secular institutions to rehabilitate the deviant and rescue the dependent, or to offer a ccnnunal retreat for the like-minded. Penitentiaries, almshouses, insane asylums, schools for the blind and the deaf and dumb were erected. Libraries, art academies, scientific societies, horticultural groups, and.fraternal lodges sprang-up. Public schools were built after thelegislature in 1818 created the state's first*school dis- trict in Philadelphia. Religious congregations, of course, continued to grow in size and numbers, and some churches formed their own benevolent associations to help such needy as orphans and widows. Much of this reform zeal was exhausted by the end of the Civil War, but the institutions already in place ccntinued. their work and some, like public schools and settlement houses, expanded steadily into the 20th century-. The Great Depression wrought havoc on private America and largely de- termined the inception of-the third period for'private inst-ituticns, from c. 1930 to the present. When the 'economy collapsed it crushed the dreams of millions of citizens and destroyed or damaged many of their private in- stitutions. Same groups could not meet their mortgage payments and had to sell their buildings to pay their debts; others saw their membership slip away and simply folded. Social ills outstripped the limited means of benevolent associations, and government agencies were created to absorb many of their earlier functions. Cn the other hand, new organizations, like the Crime, Prevention Association and the Legal Aid Society, were 29 formed to combat econcmically related problems. Also, some institutions proved quite durable. Religious groups continued their spiritual, educa- ticnal, and charitable roles, and once prosperity returned after Tbrld War II they expanded their activities. Well-heeled urban institutions like the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, the Franklin Institute, and the Athenaeum of Philadelphia survived the hard times to thrive in the war's aftermath. Post-war suburbanization and altered life styles undermined some fraternal organizations, but at the same tine and for the same reasons yacht clubs, country clubs, and volunteer fire companies grew in importance. 4. Public Institutions since 1681 fundamental governmental responsibilities in Pennsylvania have been divided ammg townships (or boroughs or cities), counties, and the province or, after 1776, the commonwealth. During.the colonial period, of course, the Crown played an important supervisory role, and since Amer- ican independence, power and other duties have also been divided between the state and national govenmients. Because of these historical facts, one can usually predict the types of public institutions to be found in Penn- sylvania., Court houses,, for example, have stood nearly as long as the present county seats have existed, even though the buildings may have been replaced from time to tune over the centuries. As governmental responsi- bilities have expanded, however., new public institutions have-arisen next to the old ones, their number usually growing with the size and complexity of Pennsylvania's economy and society. Basic govenunental responsibilities, like making and enforcing laws for the orderly functioning of society, adjudicating disputes among citi- zens, and providing for common defense, have not changed since the forma- tim of government in Pennsylvania. These essential functions fom the foun- dation for the first historical period, c. 1640 to c. 1810. A. few specific duties, such as dealing with native Americans (Indians), set this*era apart from later ones, but they did not require any specialized structures beyond those for the government's aforementioned general responsibilities. Humanitarian reformers at the beginning of the 19th century began groping toward the idea that since people were products of their environ- ment, society had a responsibility to correct or alleviate their unaccep- table behavior and conditions. As this position was increasingly articu- lated, all institutions, public as well as private, were challenged, inaugurating the second period, c. 1810 to c. 1930. Pennsylvania's penal code was revamped; old punishments, lake the ducking stool for common scolds and imprisonment for debtors, were considered obsolete. For the purpose of improving morals the state in 1821 required that r ;)risoners be isolated fran anti-social influences, which included other prisoners as well, and later in that decade the state introduced special correctionalfacilities for juvenile offenders. That state also moved.into areas previously cared for by private charities. Poor relief was publicly institutionalized in the mid-18th century, but concern for rehabilitation in the 1820's and 30's led to the extension of the almshouse idea from warehouses for the impov- erished and denented to separate workhouses for the poor and public asylums for the insane. A logical extension of rehabilitation was education. Pennsylvania roved steadily from the idea of free elementary education for poor children to a state-wide system of education for all, which became 30 state law in 1834. This desire for education also canbined with civic pride to produce public libraries, and this pride, in turn stimulated by urbanization, contributed to such public utilities and auLenities as water and gas works and parks. Geography and defense', rather than reform, encouraged the foundation of other public institutions during this era. Both navigable rivers and local industries encouraged the construction of arsenals and a naval base along the Coastal Zone, and the outbreak of war in 1812 led to the expansion of the colonial-era Fort Mud (Flort Mifflin). Cnce established, most of the local public institutions grew with the population and economy (the fort was an e=eption), sometimes modifying their philosophies but not their fundamental functions. The Great Depression ruthlessly forged a historical watershed for America's public institutions to form the third phase :in the history of public institutions, the decades since c. 1930.. Beginning in 1930, jobs disappeared, banks failed, debts mounted, and optimism faded. Economic collapse.and social panic denanded bold public action. Government at all levels moved away from taissez faire and toward the welfare state. At first much of the welfare was a "take-care-of".type for the unemployed, elderly, and exploited, but some programs took root and slowly branched out in later years. In 1932 the State Emergency Relief Board was created to @uthorize county boards of assistance, which today have at least one office in every county of Pennsylvania. The federal government's presence was felt through such programs as the mortgage insurance plan of the Federal. Housing Administration, the scholarship and student work program of the National. Youth Administration, and the Social Security systein for certain retiredworkers. Except for the beginnings of some public housing projects and an increase in recreational centers, this expansion of governmental responsibilities did not produce new building types, because most of the new functions were administrative, initially carried out in existing office buildings. The greater size and responsibilities.of government, however, would require buildings, in part to handle the increased paperwork and in part to replace obsolete and overcrowded structures like schools. World War II stimulated construction at military installations during the 1940's, but much of this work proved tenporary. Sophisticated technology, Southern political clout in Congress, 'and the development of a symbiotic relationship between the military and the defense industry during the Cold War undermined the viability of such local military operations- as the Schuyl- kill and frankford. Arsenals. 5. Public Acconraodations Public acccnnodations have been.@ part of organized society in Pemsyl- vania from the time of early inns.. The nature of these accomTodations changed in Pennsylvania as technology and affluence advanced and new kinds of acconToodations emerged, to form three periods in the history of local public accommodations. As the new appeared, however, the old did not , necessarily disappear. Roadside inns, for exanple, ubiqutous during the 18th century, were pushed aside by the railroad-serviced hotels in the nineteenth century; yet inns clung to life in rural, less developed areas for decades after the rise of the hotel. 31 Taverns appeared with the beginnings of settlement and quickly became central to the social and ecmanic life of the early period, 'c. 1640 to c. 1820. The.Blue Anchor Tavern, for exa:mple, was nearing completion at the mouth of Dock Street wtien William Penn first disembarked at Philadel- phia in 1682. Philadelphians soon congregated in the growing number of taverns for relaxation and exchange of gossip and news. Some taverns catered to the well-to-do, others (especially along the waterfront) specialized as brothels, and at least one at any time served as the informal merchants' exchange. Penn recognized the taverns' crucial role, and in 1701 declared that the landing places at riverfront taverns be available fcr publicluse. Since taverns' rooms were limited in number, boarding houses emerged during the 18th century to fill the growing need for short- tem living facilities in the camTercial towns along the Delaware River. In more rural areas, inns and taverns offered necessary shelter and food for travelers, farmers, and traders (and their animals). Theater, a popular entexta=rent in England for centuries, was slow to develop in the Philadelphia area, largely because of Quaker opposition to- it. By 1766, however, the Southwark Theater was founded, and with the opening of the Chestnut Street Theater in 1794 theater was in the region to stay, if not precisely with the Czastal Zone. Hotels replaced taverns as the dcn-Linant public accommodation during the second period, c. 1820 to c. 1910. Beginning with Philadelphia's United. States Hotel in 1826, local hotels increased in popularity and opulence until they reached the zenithwith the Bellevue-Stratford in 1904. more mcdest hotels, some little more than remodeled taverns, were morenumerous, especially along the Coastal Zone. As the area's population swelled and business boomed,. a wide range of new public accommodations, developed. The small public park that emerged around the Fai rmo unt Waterworks after 1815, for example, steadily grew into the expansive Fairmount Park. PLestaurants, beer gardens, amusement parks, and playing fields for baseball and cricket also appeared in the area by the middle of the century, but no physical evidence of them is known to survive in the Coastal Zone. Automobiles and affluence appear to have been the, strongest determin- ants of change in public accammodations since c. 1910. The automobile directly fostered the erection of motels, roadside diners, and tourist hcues, and at least influenced the location and frequency of use of public gold courses, -swimming pools, amasement parks, and the like. Affluence and increased leisure time,however, lie at the root of the recreational craze, especially since World War II. They have helped to generate a growing denand for recreational facilities ranging from gargantuan stadiums to neighbor- hood playgrounds. 6. Transportation Transportation consitutes the mobility system for any society. Without it, society would remain fragmented and theeconomy primitive and self- sufficient. Transportation in concert with energy has greatly determined Pernsylvania Is historical eras, ranging from the sail ships of the colonial period to.the automobile of today. Although society may enthusiastically adopt new forms oftransportation and develop them into corrprehensive systems, the older forms do not immediately disappear. Boats and barges, for example, have been an important means of freight transportation since the inception 32 of civilized settlement in Pennsylvania. The size, design, materials and motive power of those vessels have changed over the past 300 years, of course, but their importance has not greatly dininished. Similarly, ferries became a primary,means of crossing Pennsylvania's many rivers in the colonial days and continued their role in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone into the 1970's. Flour chronological. periods reflect, new developments in transportation. The earliest period, c. 1640 to c. 1795, essentially coincides with the colonial era. It was a time when rivers were Pennsylvania's highways. Shipbuilding became a major industry along the Coastal Zone as a variety of vessels were developed. to, navigate both the high seas and inland waters. Overland transportation, on the other hand, whether by horseback or by oxen or harse-draon wagons, was slow and expensive. T urn pikes and canals characterize the second period, c. 1795 to c. 1850. Completion of the Lancaster Turnpike in.1794 set off a boom of road building in Pennsylvania until by 1830 over 3,000 miles of roads reached even remote corners of . the state. Rivers that had . been, highways in the 18th century became obstacles in.the early 19th century. Roads required bridges, so many, in' fact, that long before the Civil War, Pennsylvania was known, as the state of bridges, a reputation that it retains. Rivers, however, did not decline in importance. Successful development ofthe steamboat in 1807 by native Pennsylvanian Robert Fulton contributed greater power and regularity to river traffic and another activity to shipbuilding. Rivers also became in-t- portant feeders to canals. Beginning in the 1810's thenation went on a canal building binge. Pennsylvania's first major canal, operated by the SchuJlkill Navigation Cmipany, opened in 1824 between Philadelphia and Potts- town and a year later extended to Port Carbon. In conjunction with the Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal, which opened in 1832, and the Lehigh Canal and Delaware and Hudson Canal, it made possible the "coal rush" of the 1830's and 40's and created the need for the storage and export facil- ities of Philadelphia's Port Richmond. Railroads dominate the third period, c. 1845 to c. 1910. Although railroads operated in Pennsylvania as early as the 1830's, they primarily served as short overland links to canals and did not have a significant impact on.the state's economy.and society for another decade. With the charter of the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1846, the state's railroad age was determined. Men the Pennsy reached.across the state from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh six years later, the railroad fever was burning,'in Pennsylvania. Railroad construction grew all but steadily for the rest of the century, uhile canals and steamboats declined in importance. shipbuilding along the Coastal Zone, on the other hand, continued to expand into a major industry. Automobiles and airplanes nuke the great impact on transportation in the fourth period, c. 1910 to.the present. Railroads.reached their peak by 1915; after World War I their mileage of tracks actually shrank. Inven- tors had been tinkering with a variety of automobiles since the early 1890's, but it was not until after Henry Ebrd introduced his famous Model T in 1908 that the car came into its own. In less than a decade cam the self-starter, all-steel bodies, multiple-cyclinder engines, cord tires, steel-disc wheels, and the good road movement. By 1920 the future lay to 33 the automobile, not the railroad. Although it would not have as imTediate an impact on living and transportation patterns as the auto, the airplane also energed at this time. A novelty in the first years after its success- ful flight in 1903, the airplane wastaken more seriously after the federal government contracted for one in 1908. Yet it unuld not be until the 1930's that air transport had a measurable effect in the state. 7. Industry Industry includes both. mining and manufacturing. Because both have been tied to developments in transportatlon and energy technology, industry developed over four historical periods that closely parallel those of transportation. The expected cultural-technological lag in industry should not be aver-emphasized. Although craft shops not unlike those of colonial times can still be.found today, they neither form the foundation of the econany nor constitute the major means of production; they are relics of an earlier era. The perceived periods form a real pattern. Crafts made up the industrial economy of the first period, c. 1640 to c. 1790, wtien much of the region's industrial activity was concentrated in or near the Coastal Zone. Shipbuilding was.the largest manufacturing industry in the zone, although iron making was the primary heavy industry in the province as a whole. In addition, a host of light industries, like papermaking, glassmaking, tanning, cooperage, grist and. saw mills and ship stores could be found in the area, often in.the Coastal Zone itself. In many respects the second period, c. 1790 to c. 1840, forms a tran- sition between the craft industries of the colonial days and the steam-driven manufactories of the Industrial Revolution. It was a time when the proces- sing of manufactured goods dominated the state's industrial production. Flour mills, distilleries, tanneries, and cotton and woolen mills dotted Pennsylvania's countryside with many of them concentrated along Philadel- phia's waterways; Philadelphia, for example, stood as the nation's flour milling center for the first six decades of the 19th century. Iron planta- tions increased in numbers throughout the state, but the technology remained essentially unchanged, as did that of the shipyards that prospered in the study area from Chesterto Kensington. New technological and- industrial developments during this period, however, formed the foundation for the great boom after the middle of the century. Chief among them were two inauspicious developments during the 1790's, Oliver Evans' development of his compact, powerful high-pressure. -steam engine and the organization of the lehigh Coal Mine Ccapany. By 1840 steam and coal formed the motive power and fuel for the rest of the century. Iron and coal formed the foundation for l9th-century industrialism, and Pennsylvania had an abundance of both resources. As a great entrepren- eurial and exploitative spirit was unleasbedduring the third period, c. 1840 to c. 1900, the Coastal Zone enjoyed a major metamorphosis. Volumes of manufactured goods, based on cheap immigrant labor and steam power, led to personal fortunes for a few and changed ways of life for all. Creeping urbanism transformed much of the Coastal Zone's built environment, especially along its southern.reaches. Factories and forges like the I.P. Morris Iron Works, new industries like Atlantic Petroleum Storage Ccnpany at Point Breeze, booming shipyards of men like William Cramp.in Kensington and. John Roach in Chester, and the expansive storage and export complex of Port 34 Richmond brought prosperity and pollution to the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. Massive technological and financial.changes distinguish industry in the, 20th century, the fourth period, fran that of the 19th century. A fundamental shift was in energy, from steam to electricity. George West- inghouse's refinement of the alternating-current transformer in the 1890's and his successfulgeneration of hydroelectric power in 1900 demonstrated the viability of this new kind of clean, quiet energy. By the beginning of the 20th century, engineers,-had mastered the process of invention. New technologies produced new, materials, like the rayon of the Viscose Company and the linoleum of Congoleunr-Nairn, Inc. The 20th century also ushered in financial industrialism, in which bankers and industrialists would pull a number of manufacturing companies under a single corporate entity. One of the first and most famous of these was United States Steel, the creation of J.P. Morgan, but there were many smaller examples, such as the absorption of the Port Richmond. Iron Works by William Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Ctnipany. In the long run these rapid financial and technological changes contributed to a decline of the industry in the study area after World War II. For manifold reasons larger operations like Baldwin Locomotive Works, Irvington mills, and Viscose Ccmpany closed their doors after 1960. Nevertheless, while some stretches of the Coastal Zone resembled a burnt-out industrial,district by 1980, other portions like U. S. Steel's Fairless Hills plant in Bucks County showed signs of a new vitality. 8. Residences Three sweeping historical movements have vitally affected housing in the Pennsylvania/Delaware-River Coastal zone during the past 350 years: the medieval tradition, the Renaissance, and the Industrial Revolution. Although a broad chronological development in housing is perceivable, local factors, such as living patterns, occupations, economic status, social fashion, and transportation, make it difficult to establish rigid time limits for the three periods. The challenge in defining periods for residences is to strike a balance between the initial appearance of a house type and the time when -it becomes an ac1mowledged part of the area's,mi-iced living pattern. Because historical forces flow together, it could be argued that some house types appear prematurely while others linger long* after their time. Plany of the basic types of residences, for example, existed in the Coastal Zone by the early 18th century, but'some dwelling types would not become characteristic of the local way of life -for another half-century or more. By common contemporary definition, residences have a self-defining Amction, to provide living space and shelter where people eat, sleep, raise families, and spend time away from work places.., This has not always been the case, however. Colonial Americans continued the medieval practice of treating residences as family work centers as well as family shelters. Farm. houses doubled as work areas for a host of essential tasks that ranged from spinning yarn to repairing harnesses. in towns and cities residences would include a.craftsnan's work shop, a shopkeeper's store, or a merchant's counting room as well as his family's eating and sleeping quarters. The mixed use of residences and the small size of towns, villages, and even cities like Phila- delphia contributed to a residential economic heterogeneity; rich and poor never lived far apart. Stephen Girard, for examplel-one of the wealthiest men, in the land, had his residence-office built in the 1790's next to his warehouse 35 on Philadelphia's Water Sreet, in the midst of the fetid bustle of the city' s in the middle of the 18th century, however, a generation before Girard's Water Street house rose, the medieval tradition began to fade as the driving force in the nature of Coastal Zone residences. A second phase in the historical development of Coastal Zone residences, c. 1750 to c. 1850, grew out of the Renaissance trend to separate the home from the workplace. This physical separation of family and work had profound social repercussions-as the home became the woman's domain and the workplace the man's sphere, but it also led to a new housing type, the town house. Spatially separated,fran any visible economic pursuit that supported the family, the middle-class tam house was erected among sin-Lilar houses until .they formed rows of symmetrical facades embodying the classical balance that Renaissance standards dictated. The same affluence and desire for comfort that underlay the town house contributed to its.rural counterpart, the country house. These isolated summer residences for an elite few often became the personal arclutectural statements that would have been socially unconven- tional in the more conformist urban environment. There is admittedly a great deal of,chronological overlapping in this period of coastal Zone residences. As seen in the case of Stephen Girard's dwelling (or any farm house) the medieval tradition reached beyond the colonial era and well into the 19th century. Similarly the new Renaissance housing pattern grew slowly; it filtered down fran the fasionable merchant class to the n-dddle-class shop- keepers and craftsmen over at least a half-century span. Well rooted in. the study area by the middle of the 19th century, In- dustrialism produced significant changes in housing during the third period, the decades since c. 1850. Despite the technological underpinnings of industrialism, it depended on a large and expanding labor force. As indus- tries grew so did cities and their slums, which were effectively isolated from the more affluent neighborhoods. By the end of the 19th century housing for workers and their families was recognized as a serious urban problem. Old single-family dwellings were altered multiple-family quarters; poorly planned tenement houses were constructed; reform-minded projects were tried; and company housing was built in the shadows of factories. Some examples of company housing, like that of the Eddystone Printworks, were little more than mundane rows of cramped cubes; others, like Viscose Village, were enlightened attempts to provide attractive and comfortable residences for employees. Brick remained a popular building material in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, but in the early decades of this period balloon frame construc- tion was developed to offer a cheap, quick, and increasingly popular mans of building houses for both the working and managenent classes. The same crowded conditions that cantributed to tenements and company housing encouraged developers to build steel-frame apartment hotels. Practical because of its efficient use of land, this housing type was designed for affluent urban dwellers when it was introduced in the 18901s. Since the 1940's, however, the apa rtment building has been adapted to all classes. Before the apartment house could transform the pattern of family housing, the advent of the automobile unleashed a new building boom of individual family hcms surrounded by grassy lots that swept out from the cities' edges across farmland and villages. Called suburbia in the 20th century, these dormitory conmmities had their roots early in the third period with the coming of commuter railways. Beginning in the 1850's, families of means moved into these suburban villas, which stood as picturesque resolutions of the town 36 house/country house dichotcmy of the earlier period. The high cost of trans- portation, houever, restricted the growth of these well-to-do neighborhoods until the automobile simply democratized them into tract developments. Farms also could not escape the pervasive technology, and during the third period farmhoiises too became solely residences, functionally separated from the farmers' chores, much as town houses had begun being removed frcxn urban %urkplaces nearly a century earlier. The town house meanwhile remained a part of the urban streetscape during the third period. For the first sixty years or so it grew in size and pretensions to reflect the acquisitive values of the Victorian nouveau riche, while their wan enulators, actually middle-class row developments, were :more nrdest in scale and ornament. After World War II, however, the term was devalued as every row development in city or suburb was couposed of clusters of townbouses. 37 Mdat7ang, Rwamrcs Data VE RAM, 248 historic and.prehistoric resources were inventoried in the Coastal Zone. Historic resources are rrDst numerous, with 161 extant structures. There wram. 68 historic archeological resources and 19 -I--- 'c archeological sites inventoried. Among the historic resources, 71 were campiled frcrn existing local, state, and national surveys and registers; while 90 were recorded as part of a "windshield survey",conducted of the. study area. Although no historic archeological resources were discovered as a result of field testing, many sites recorded in earlier historic resource surveys were found.to have been demolished. Among the 19 prehistoric sites inventoried, two were discovered in the process of field testing. The total number of sites ccirpiled were fairly evenly distributed among the three counties: 79 in Delaware County, 76 in Bucks County, and 93 in Philadelphia County. Among the prehistoric sites, however, only one is in Phi-ladelphia, while 13 are in Bucks County, 'and five are in Delaware County. This is directly associated with the amount of natural ground disturbance associated with the mre intense Coastal Zone developirent in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties. Of the 68 historic archeological resources recorded, 24 are in Delaware, 19 in Bucks and 25 in Philadelphia Counties. Ninety- three of the historic resources coupiled are in Philadelphia County, 76 a in Bucks County, and 79 are in Delaware County. These sites a discussed below by resource type: prehistoric archeolog- ical, historic archeological, and historic. The various sources fran which the data were obtained a identified and their relationship to the study units is discussed. PREHISTORIC AFX@=AL RMOUR= Reported prehistoric sites within the Coastal Zone are scarce, with most reported in Bucks County, a few in Delaware County, and none in Philadelphia County. (See Figures Al-A3 in Appendix A.) A direct relationship between the intensity of modern developTent within the Coastal Zone and a lack of prehistoric evidence can be reliably inferred. The Coastal Zone quite simply has not lent itself to prehistoric site survey, discovery, and excavation because of the later development. The site information that is available is often incamplete, sometimes referring to a general area, such as the "north branch of Common Creek," or reports sites that, due to twentieth century development, cannot be confirmed by archeological testing. However, because so little is known, all resources were assumed to have some validity and site locational information has been plotted as accurately as possible on the rnaps. At this time, assigning known sites to study units is very difficult. Scn-e sites, such as "Sipaessing" or "Sanckahickan" which are given names, can be assumed to belong to Late Woodland or Historic Contact period study units. Other sites, especially those reported by Shoen-aker for Bucks County, cannot be assigned unless the "relics" she writes of can be examined or diagnostic artifacts are uncovered by extensive excavation. Most of these sites probably 38 belong to Woodland occupations, as do many of the known sites outside of the Coastal Zone in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Some may also have one or more earlier components, but even this general statement cannot be verified without empirical evidence fran the sites themselves. Sources of information on prehistoric archeological sites and investiga- tions are relatively elusive. Ingeneral, local archeological societies or other organizations sometimes maintain files on archeological sites and activities for a local area, as well as have in association knowledgeable avocational and professional archeologists. Iocal museums (such as the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania Museizn, Atwater-Kent museum, both in Philadelphia, or the Mercer Museum in Doylestown) and historical societies and/or commis- sions also frequently can provide information on prehistoric archeological sites. Local or regional planning commissions (i.e., Delaware County Planning Commission, Bucks County Conservancy, and the Delaware Valley Regional Plan- ning Commission) also frequently-address prehistoric archeological sites in the course of their work. Most information pertaining to prehistoric arche- ological sites comes fran three sourcesincluding the statewide Pennsylvania Archeological Site Survey system on file at the Pennsylvania Historical and ItLseum Cbmmission in Harrisburg, the secondary archeological literature for the region, and local informants. The bulk of the information comprising the prehistoric archeological data base for this report came.from the latter two sources, that is, fr<xn secondary archeological literature and local infor- mants. Two possible prehistoric archeological sites were also recorded for the Coastal Zone by archeological subsurface testing. Based upon our knowledge of prehistoric settlement patterning, it is highly likely that the Pennsylvania/Delaw-are River Coastal Zone was once supportive of vast numbers of prehistoric archeological sites. The Delaware River Valley was simply too appealing frcn an environmental viewpoint for the Coastal Zone to have been substantially ignored by aboriginal inhabitants. VLat is not precisely known, however, is how many prehistoric archeological sites have survived nineteenth and twentieth century development, and to what extent they have survived. The research conducted during the compilation of the document has not even attempted to answer these questions. What is now needed is a comprehensive survey of the Coastal Zone designed to locate and record as many prehistoric archeological sites as possible, as well as to document the nature and extent of subsequent development with regard to any prehistoric archeological resources so recorded. Mule the nature of devel- opment in the Coastal Zone is extensive, there still may be - a as, or pockets, which have escaped intensive development and serious disturbance whereprehis- toric archeological sites may remain substantially intact. The areas around Tinicum, Marsh in Delaware County and the Great Bend (U. S. Steel, Penn-Warner, and Pennsbury) in Bucks County are viewed as two areas of the Coastal Zone which might afford such potential, and there my be others. Until a compre- hensive archeological survey has been conducted, however, such potential will go unrecognized. HISTORIC A1KHEO1=CAL RESOURMS Information about historic archeological sites is more readily available than information about their prehistoric counterparts. Written records, maps, atlases, and the testimony of older people within a community (oral tradition) 39 oftentimes make it pos sible to document an historic archeological site without extensive field excavation. The fact that numerous historic structures are still extant in the Coastal Zone, as well as elsewhere, also lends itself to the general availability of information on historic archeological sites. This is because nearly all extant historic structures, especially those associated with a large plot of undeveloped land, will c:ontain me or more archeological cariponents. Exceptions to this will arise only if the original structure has been moved to a new location, or if total block developuent, such as occurs in sm-e areas of Philadelphia and elsewhere, has destroyed all original stratigraphic, and hence archeological., integrity. Aside from these exceptions, nearly all historic sites within the Coastal Zone can be considered historic archeological sites as well. The most frequent known historic archeological sites in the Coastal Zone belong to the Residence study unit. Many of the sites within this category represent the remains of large estates or manor houses, such as the mansion "Sordbla" on. the old Logan Estate. Others, however, such as the Morton Mortonson House in Delaware County,.are considerably smaller and earlier residences. 'A number of eighteenth century dwellings in Philadelphia, no longer extant because of the construction of interstate 95, would also have been included in the Residence, study unit. Although they are no longer extant, the demlition of these dwellings to make way for the interstate highway nevertheless afforded archeologists an opportunity to salvage a con- siderable body of data by excavation prior to demolition. Another type of site which occurs relatively frequently in the Coastal Zone belongs to the Public Institution study unit. military facilities, such as the 1812 Militia Camp, Sandeland..'s Double House (primarily a tavern, but- also served as the first Delaware County Courthouse), Crewcorne (allegedly the first settl ementimBucks County), and various cemeteries throughout the Coastal Zone, represent former public institutions or facilities which are now potential archeological sites. In-some cases, such as Sandeland's Double House and the well-known Lazaretto in Delaware County, multiple func- tions fwthe property have been documented from historical records. Such resoL=es which witnessed multiple uses throughout their functional lives may be assigned to more than one study unit, depending upon which historical or a=-heologicad component is under investigation. Other study units represented by historic archeological sites include Mercantilism/Czm-erce, including mill and other sites; Agriculture, including barn and stable ruins; Private Institutions, such as The State in Schuylkill men's club (which is unique because through history it has had several loca- tions); Transportation, such as the site of the former Leiper Canal and Railroad system; and Manufacturing, including sites of factories or shipbuilding operations, such as Hog Island Shipyard. Scme historic archeological sites, such as shipwrecks or historic trash dumps, at first glance may not readily lend themselves to study unit affiliation. However, if the context of the resource can be determined (i.e., an historic shipwrecked freighter would probably be included in the Transportation or MercantilismVCommerce study unit while a domestic trash dump lends itself to the Residence study unit), its study unit affiliation should be relatively easy to determine as well. Continuous demolition of historic structures and properties during renewal and.other developmental projects in the study area makes it nearly impossible 40 to keep the., data base current_ _All known - site& within. the Coastal Zone have been plotted on the maps (Figures Al-A3) and are also briefly described in Appendix A. in areas of intense demolition, such as the 1-95 corridor, it was invos- sible to plot and describe each building or property and interested readers are referred to the numerous reports and other literature (see the Historic Archeology bibliography in Appendix C) pertaining to those former resources. Sources of information on historic archeological sites and investigations, particularly as they pertain to Philadelphia, are numerous. City and county planning agencies, local state historic resource survey directors, and local historical ocnTnissicns and societies all can, and do, provide useful infor- mation on historic archeological resources inthe Coastal Zone. In addition, state historical agencies, such as the Historical Society of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Historical and Musem Commission in. Harrisburg, house state-wide archives which also contain historic archeological informtion. Many of the historians and archeologists who have been involved in historic archeological investigations in the Coastal Zone are still locally active and maintain offices and files at various private and public agencies-, institutions, or firms in the Delaware Valley. Finally, me of the most in- valuable sources of historic archeological information is the wealth of his- toric maps and atlases which exist for the Delaware Valley vicinity. The locations of former historic structures and properties would likely never be known in many cases were such sources of information not available in the various archives and agencies noted above. Historic archeological resources are known to be relatively numerous in the-Coastal Zone., Many historic bui-Idings or structures, in fact, have significant archeological camp.onents in association with theIm; and others, such as Printzhof in Delaware'County, are known to be archeologically sig- nificant, even though no above-grade evidence is still extant. Sane of the known historic archeological sites iti the study area have been T)rofessionally excavated, including Printzhof and the john @brton Homestead in Delaware Count% s y, Pennsbury in Buck county, and numerous urban archeological sites in the Colonial City of Philadelphia, irl particular those excavated in associa- t-ion with the construction of Interstate 95. Many additional sites of his- toric archeological significance, however, doubtless still await discovery and recordation. Because of this, it is of extreme importance that the archeological potential of historic sites and structures not be overlooked in any future corruprehensive surveys undertaken in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal zone. All too often only standingstructures,are assessed in surveys of this type, with little or no attention paid to the archeological potential of the resource. Accordingly, wtdle accurate assessments of a resource's historical and-architectual significance are forthcoming, archeo- logical significance or potential is rarely addressed. Until provisions for this type of assessment are accounted for in future comprehensive surveys, an accurate picture of the historic archeological potential of the.Pennsyl- vania/Delaviare River Coastal Zone will reniain elusive. HISTORIC RESOURCES More than 70 historic sites and districts were compiled frcrn existing registers and surveys. These include 25 on the National Register, four National Historic landmarks and one National Engineering Landmark (Fairmount 41 Waterworks, 1812-1822). Many of these-sites and others have also been listed in the Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places and recorded in the His- toric-American Buildings Survey-(HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Records (HAER). Nineteen sites had been recorded by local survey directors for the partially completed Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey, sponsored by the Pennsylvania Historicaland Museum Commission (P194C). Still other siteswere listed in the L@@to @ of Historic Sites (1969) ccupiled and published by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Carmission and updated (unpublished) in 1975. other sites were listed in the-Bucks County Conser- vancy Register of Historic Places or certified by the Philadelphia, Historic Commission. Although no official register is kept in Delaware County, the Delaware County Planning Department maintains files on numerous sites throughout the County, scoe of which are in the Coastal Zone. In additionf transcripts of a 1936 survey sponsored by the Xbrks Project Administration (WPA) 'recorded numerous sites and structures in Delaware Countv. Over 50 of these sites are in the Coastal Zone and 20 are still standing. A field reconnaissance and "windshield survey" of. the Coastal Zone was conducted to note site conditions and potential additional historic resources. As a result of this exercise, more than 90 sites were identified, mapped,, . and photographed.. Of these, 56 were classified as "potentially eligible" for the National Register and further documented on Pennsylvania Historic Register Survey Forms. Both these and the sites compiled fran-previous sur- veys and inventories are.depicted on Figures Al-A3, Prehistoric/11iistoric Qdtural Resources, and documented in Appendix A. Of all the Coastal Zone historic resources, the historic districts in or adjacent to the study area are particularly noteworthy. Although three of these districts - Old City, Society Hill, and South Front Street - are adjacent'to the western boundary of the Coastal Zone in Center City Phila- delphia, they are included since they reflect the pre-I-95 character of the Coastal Zone in this area and, in fact, extended into the Coastal Zone before the expressway was completed. The Southwark District extends into the Coastal Zone between Queen..Stree.t and Washington Avenue, and, although many vrinci@- pallY*residential resourc eswere-lost to the expressway, the Gloria Dei (Old Swedes Church) and a few camercial. buildings remain. All four of these Historic Districts and Gloria Dei.are on the National Register. In Bristol Borough, Bucks County, Historic Radcliff Street has been designated a mmi- cipal historic district under Pennsylvania Act 167, the only such district in the Coastal Zone. Six other areas have been inventoried as potential historic districts. These include a Delaware River Waterfront District in South Philadelphia, the Tulleytown District in Tulleytown Borough, the Mill Street Business District in Bristol Borough, the Eddystone District in Eddystone Borough, and Viscose Village and Old Market Square in Marcus Hook Borough. The South Philadelphia Historic Resource Survey proposed that the piers and associated warehouse and connercial facilities along the river between South Street and Washington Avenue be included as a Delaware River waterfront District. Moreover, five other potentialdistricts were recorded during the windshield survey: The Viscose Village, Eddystone, Tulleytown, Market Square and Mill Street Historic Districts. The Viscose Vill-age and Fddystcne Districts are two examples of turn-of-the-century workers housing built in ccn31-mction with adjacent indus- trial complexes. Eddystone consists of rather austere bridc row housing for. 42 workers at the Eddystone Print Works, wiaile Viscose Village, with more elabor- ate brick quadraple-mes along streets radiating from a central park, is an early atterapt to provide a more pleasant residential "village" for workers at the Amrican Viscose Company, which was at that time the largest synthetic fiber (rayon and nylon) iranufacturer.-in the world. Tulleytown is a small- tam community of mostly nineteenth century frame houses and commercial buildings along the old Bristol Pike. The Market Square District in Marcus Hook, with a few structures that probably date fran the seventeenth century, is the site of the former town market, while the Mill Street Business District in Bristol Borough is representative of a late nineteenth century "main street. Development and redevelogrent activity within the Delaware Valley over the years has left an exceptional variety of extant historic resources, in- cluding industrial, commercial, transportation, and residential structures. ATmng the residential sites, Pennsbury Manor, owned and operated by the PHTVU, is significant both as the site of William Penn Is riverfront estate (origin- ally built in 1682) and as a state reconstruction project begun in 1932, and completed in 1939. The John Bartram House and Gardens (1684 and 1751), owned by the City of Philadelphia and the 1,1orton Hiomestead (1654), owned by the PHMC, are other early.Coastal Zone residences under public ownership. All are on the National.Register and the John Bartram. House and Gardens is also a National. Historic Landmark. Another early residence, the Morton Mortonson House. (1750), is.owned by Norwood Borough'. There are three historic ships docked at Penn's Landing in Philadelphia, the U.S.S. Becuna, the U.S.S. Olympia, and the Moshulu. The Barneget Light Ship, which guided vessels through Delaware Bay to.the Ports of Phi-ladelphia,. is docked just south of Pen n's-Landing at Pier 30. In Bucks County, the Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal (completed in 1837) is a remaining example of the State's once elaborate canal transport network. It is now a National Historic Landmark. The huge Baldwin Locomotive Works in Eddystone Borough, bunt in the early twentieth century when Baldwin Locamotive moved from Philadelphia, contains numerous large assembly buildings and an interesting Beaux Arts office.building. The site is neither officially registered nor documented. Other noteworthy re- sources of the Pennsylvania/belaware River Coastal Zone include early elec- tric utility and generating facilities, nine bridges spanning both the Dela- w-are and Schuylkill Rivers, public waterworks faci-lities and 19 country houses or riverfront estates in Bucks County and northeast Philadelphia. It should be noted that the resource data inventory was compiled to provide reference data for the preparation of the Resource Protection Plan and is not intended to represent a detailed survey of the Coastal Zone, such as the Historic Resource Survey currently undexway in Bucks,Philadelphia, and Delaware Counties on behalf of. the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. As of this writing, this "Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey" has only been completed for the Coastal Zone in Falls Township, Bucks County, and South Philadelphia (east of Broad Street). Any future consideration of historic resources.will likely be concerned with two principal activities * First is the need to address the inadequate nature of the resource inventory presented as part.of this study, as it is based on an incomplete survey of the study area, and often utilized sources, 43 which in themselves, lacked sufficient informational content. TnIeed no claims are made with regard to its carprehensiveness as that was neither an objective of the study, nor would it have been possible given the time and resources allocated. Second,, t1-ye-passage of time will inevitably bring con- temporary.resources into an historical perspective. Thus, the process of identifying historic resources will be a continuous one. These issues, form- ing upon future resource inventory activity, are briefly discussed below. Of paramount importance with regard to the future consideration of his- toric resources is the need to improve the documentation associated with ex- isting known resources, and the completion of a carprehensive survey of his- toric resources in the Pennsylvania./Delaware River Coastal Zone. As discussed in the previous section, , the resource information contained in this study was compiled from a variety of sources including such diverse materials as National Register Nomination Forms and a 1936 Works Project Administration Survey. While such sources are very useful in developing inventories of historic resources, their inconsistant levels of documentation are not con- dusive to a meaningful evaluation of historic, architectural, and contextual significance. The Pennsylvania./belaware River Coastal Zone is currently experiencing a period-of extreme instability. -M:@t residential uses and many industrial. uses have either ceased to exist or may be characterized by an accelerated rate of decline. There are an airazing number of vacant properties and aban- doned buildings and facilities.. The Coastal Zone Program Technical Record found over 40% of the area to be either vacant or undeveloped in 1976. Although some of this land included agricultural uses and the Tinicmn Marsh, the Technical Record also reported an extremely small number of industrial workers relative to the amount of industrial land, which led to the conclu- sion that much of the industrially classified land included many abandoned or marginally utilized facilities. Similar conditions exist among the residential uses, particularly in Chester City. Over tine, resources in these areas may continue to suffer from neglect or eventually.succmnb to demolition and/or redevelopment. While it may well be impractical to expect the physical preservation of many of these resources, their proper documentation is essen- tial to an accurate record of the history of the built environment in the Coastal Zone. Beyond these considerations one may only speculate as to what future generations may regard as significant representations of the more recent and current trends in land use development along the Delaware River. Among the existing historic resources inventoried for this report, the Coastal Zone's industrial, utility, and transportation facilities are of par- ticular interest. The Disston Saw Works, the Sun Ship Yards and the defunct Baldwin Iocomotive Works and Viscose Company are (were) nationally renowned faci-lities and important local employers. The Sun Ship Yards, representing one of the study area's most historically:significant industries, is the areals last remaining private ship building facility...During the First World War. it was also one of the world Is largest. The Port Richmond Terminal in Philadelphia played an extremely significant role in the development of Pennsylvania's coal industry as an iny-ortant. rail to ship transfer facility during the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century. None of these facilities have been adequately surveyed or documented for the historic resources they surely contain. Thenumerous Philadelphia Electric generating ings substation.and transmission facilities and the Phi-ladelphia Waterworks build: and structures may similarly embody an important record of the develognent 44 of these important utilities. The Fairmount Waterworks is the only such facility to have been addressed and documented by the preservation community. Although a comprehensive survey of historic resources in the Coastal Zone has not been conducted, the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey, under the sponsorship of the Bureau for Historic Preservation, is an on-going com- prehensive survey project with long-range goals to address the entire state. As mentioned, to date (September, 1981) this survey has only been completed for the Falls Twonship (bucks County) and South Philadelphia (east of Broad Street) areas of the Coastal Zone. Until this or similar surveys have been conducted, the inventory of historic resources in the Pensylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone must be regarded as incomplete. The recent history of the Coastal Zone is one of dramatic technological change. Oil refineries now dominate the landscapes along the lower Schuyl- kill River as it reaches the Delaware and literally surround the residential enclaves in Marcus Hook Borough. Rohm and Haas has similar steel tubing and "tank farm" facilities in Bridesburg (Philadelphia) and Bristol Township (Bucks County). The containerization of the shipping industry has changed the appearance of riverfront pier facilities and the I-95 and other highway systems have become dominant features throughout the Coastal Zone. What aspects of these developments will be regarded by future preservationists as signigicant components of the historic landscape remains to be seen. 45 Resource Protection Planning Process introduction 1 T BE--.Resource Protection Planning Process, presented herein, is an @ adaptation of a procesg developed by the fonrer Heritage- Conservation 1. and Recreation Service of the U.S. DepartTent of the Interior. It has been designed to allow the user to associate cultural resources with the Study Units described earlier in this report for the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, and to evaluate the extent to wtdch they provide a mater- ial documentation of key descriptions, characteristics, or conponents of the Study Units. Vftther these cultural resources exist in the built environ- nnnt or as subtx=face resourcer.,.- -, this Study Unit analysis will enable the user to readily detenTdne their historic or-prehistoric context, what fea- tures of the resources are nost significant, and whether or not they should be protected. The Study Units are, therefore, an essential =rponent of the Planning Process., They provide the local, regional or state historic/pre- historic (on Coastal Zone) perspective to the Process. The Planning Process is carried out in three steps - Identification, Evaluation, and Protection. Identification seeks to inventory all information considered essential to carry out the Process. Evaluation 'enables the user to place the resources in their proper conceptual context (the Study Unit) and detennine the significance of a particular resource and its ccniponents. Protection is concerned with the selection of preservation objectives and' the identification of preservation/planning techniques which nay be used to achieve-: them.4- for those cultural resources evaluated. as significant (Ideal Plan). It includes further an analysis of site conditions that may affect (even prohibit) the in-plenentation of the desired objectives (Achiev- ability Assessment); and the development of an Operating Plan that n-Dre realistically correlates the preservation objectives with techniques which seek to elin@te any obstacles to their iniplenentation which rught otherwise be huposed by the prevailing site conditions, or 'real world' considerations. The Resource Protection Planning Process is presented separately for archeological and historic resources. Since these resources differ in their physical Tnanifestations (i.e., below ground/above ground), they present unique Identification, Evaluation and Protection problens. Following the general discussion of'the Resource Protection Planning Process in this section, the Process is discussed relative to its application to the inven- toried resources of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone in Section III -."Resource Protection Planning in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. 47 Archeological Resources 0 PROBLEMS INHEF= IN THE IDENTIFICATICN OF AR1=10GICAL SITES U NLIKE historic sites, which are generally highly visible buildings or mnuments and wtiich a usually easily recognized if not as a "historic site" at least as "an old buil-ding," archeological sites are much more icult to identify. with archeological sites, rmre preliminary research is normally required to ensure the more effective use of time spent surveying and testing in the field. In addition, professional archeological expertise is usually mandatory in order to avoid overlooking evidence of significant prehistoric and historic human activity. Three problems inherent in the nature of most: prehistoric and historic archeological sites make then diffi- cult to identify, including: (1) lack of visibility, (2) lack of accessibil- ity,,and (3) lack of familiarity. lack of visibility refers to the fact that archeological sites are usually forgotten places, seldom mentioned. in historic documents, and with no above-ground component. lbst archeological sites, in fact, are buried by varying amounts of soil and vegetation. Frequently, this requires that the first step in identification of such resources is the removal of enough plant cover to see if anything is visible above-ground. This can be nore easily accarplished during the fall and spring n-onths, when vegetational cover is at a minimm. If nothing is visible above-ground, exploratory testing by digging a few excavation units with a shbVel or auger can be help- ful in detennining.if archeological resources are-present below the surface. This type of archeological investigation is generally referred to as sub- surface testing, and the goal of such an endeavor is primarily to determine presence-absence of buried subsurface archeological resources. Another factor which contributes to problerm in the identification of archeological sites is lack of accessibility. This can especially be a prob- lem in areas of intense developnent, such as the Coastal Zone, where the extent of land engineering and development has had a major impact, on the con- U LpOrary character of the topography. In areas such as the Coastal Zone, tl-je extent of fill is usually deeper than can be excavated with a shovel or auger, normal tools of the archeologist. Accordingly, test borings by a drill rig or excavation by backhoe or other mechanical equipoent, may be necessary to determine the extent and type of fill present and to ascertain if any archeological resources are present. This information is necessary so that decisions relating to the impact of a planned project on a possible subsurface archeological resource can be made. It is important to note that in certain areas of the Coastal Zone, especially where shorelines have been extended into the river or back channels have been infilled, all of the land is made or urban land which, an prehistoric or historic times, may have been underwater. (See Figures A4 through A6 in Appendix A.) Gaining access to underwater archeological sites is an even greater problem for the archeolo- gist, and in most cases requires the specialized services of an underwater archeologist. 49 The third problem in identifying prehistoric and @ historic archeological sites is a general lack of familiarity with the nature of the evidence. Mule archeologists are sufficiently trained to recognize and identify archeo- logical resources, most laymen are not. It is normally easier for the layman, for example, to recognize a log cabin or old building as a possible historic site than it is to recognize brick rubble or a broken piece of crude pottery as evidence of a possible historic or prehistoric archeological site. Initial evidence of a significant archeological site, however, frequently is little more than a seemingly insignificant discovery of broken or scattered artifacts.on the surface or in test excavations. EVIDENCE OF PIMISTORIC AIUMLOGICAL SITES The first step in identifying the location of a prehistoric archeological site in Pennsylvania is to consult the Pennsylvania Archeological Site survey files at the Bureau of Historic Preservation in Harrisburg. These records are filed on standardized form and each recorded site is given a formal alphanumeric designation, such as 36-DE-5. In this case, the 36 indicates Pennsylvania (alphabetically the 36th state in the nation), DE is the designa- tion for Delaware County, and the 5 indicates the site was the fifth site recorded in the county. Each recorded site is also plotted on the appropriate 7 1/2 min ute United States Geological Survey quadrangle map. Frequently, secondary archeological or historical literature is useful in documenting the location of a prehistoric archeological site. Most of the prehistoric sites noted in this report for the Coastal Zone, in fact, were located in this manner. In most.cases, however, this method is less satisfactory than actual archeological investigation, since information gathered in this fashion frequently is incomplete, erroneous, or lacking in sufficient detail regarding the state of contemporary preservation. In highly developed areas such as the Coastal Zone, for example, the likelihood that sites known to have existed from older documents or literature are still intact.is usually remote. Local infonTants also are frequently helpful in locating and identifying prehistoric archeological sites. Most areas ofthe country have numerous avocational archeologists and historians who know their particular territory as no one else can. Some even maintain accurate records of their endeavors, which generally prove to be of particular value during archeological survey. . Cnce research into the known prehistoric archeological resources of an area is completed, physical examination of the area is the next endeavor in identifying a prehistoric archeological site. The presence of artifacts on the surface of the ground or. in shovel-excavated test pits provides evidence that an archeological site may be present. (An artifact is anything made, moved, modified, or used by man.) On prehistoric sites artifacts are such things as projectile points (arrowheads), waste flakes (the chips removed from a stone in the process of making a stone tool such as an arrow-head), stone axes, stone netsinkers, broken pieces of pottery, and shell tools. The pre- sence of archeological features provides further evidence of an archeological site. An archeological feature is a special category of artifact, and can best be described as a non-portable artifact. Cn prehistoric archeological 50 sites, features include burials, cooking hearths (a circle or pile of cobbles with charcoal inclusions), garbage pits (usually appearing as dark stains in the soil with bits of charcoal, shell, pottery, and waste flakes included), and post holes (suall circular stains, sorretines with the remains of charred posts inside), to name a few. The most difficult physical attribute of a site for a non-professional to identify is stratigraphy. Stratigrkphy refers to the layers of soil which can only be exposed by excavation or erosion. Examination of a stream bank or the side of a test excavation unit may reveal dark horizontal bands with bits of charcoal or artifacts within. These represent buried ground sur- faces frcxn the times of occupation by prehistoric peoples. In most cases, professional archeologists can readily recognize the presence of artifacts, features and stratigraphy and should be consulted whenever possible when such evidence is suspected. STATEMENT FOR PBEHISTORIC AR=LOGICAL SITE IO=CN Predictive modeling is often viewed as an efficient way in which to identify prehistoric archeological sites. Such modeling usually entails the construction of a set of hypotheses, based on prior knowledge of settlement patterning, regarding where prehistoric archeological sites my or may not be expected to be located. The model then can be tested for site validity by archeological fieldwork. It is the purpose of the following section to present and discuss such a model for the Pennsylvania/belaware River Coastal Zone. While the treatment is necessarily speculative, it is nevertheless thought that scme utility may arise out of an attempt to explain the poten- tial occurrence and location of prehistoric archeological resources in a highly developed urban and suburban envimrmvant. Th this end, this section briefly discusses four factors which bear on the location and patterning of prehistoric archeological sites, including local geomorphological features, prehistoric cultural- preferences, post-Pleistoceme sea level.rise, and' post-depositional factors of disturbance. The discussion is followed by a preliminary set of hypotheses which address where prehistoric sites might be reliably expected or not expected to occur, in an attempt to alert planners, engineers, and other users to potentially sensitive areas within the Coastal Zone. local Gecniorphological Features The Pemsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone is defined as that a a of the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River which comes under the influence of tidal fluctuations. As such, the Coastal Zone ccuprises a homogeneous gecmorphological unit, and can be considered to represent in its entirety a single ecological stratLun. Cn a macroenvirorrnental level, proximity to water and relative elevation above sea level (generally between 10 and 20 feet) are both constant within the Coastal. Zone. On a microenvironmental level, more localized econiches which way have been preferred by-'aboriqj*hal.inhabi-:: tants, such as sources of nut or fruit-bearing trees, backwater lakes or ponds, or particularly fertile soils, cannot be reliably reconstructed be- cause of the long and intense history of development in the lower Delaware Valley. It can beassumed, however, that a variety of localized econiches 51 supporting various riparian and other resources did exist in the Delaware Valley in prehistoric times, and that prehistoric sites may have clustered in those areas. Geomorphological features which arereadily identifiable in the study area comprise primarily the secondary tributary streams or rivers of the Delaware. These tributaries include Marcus Hook Creek, Stoney.Creek, Chester Creek, Ridley Creek, CrLun Creek, Darby Creek, the Schuylkill River, Mingo Creek, Frankford Creek, Pennypack Creek, Neshaminy Creek, Poquessing Creek., Caamn or Martin's Creek, Adam's Creek, Scot's Brook, Biles Creek, and Otter or Mill Creek. Historically, there were other tributary streams feeding the lithe Dor lower Delaware River from the Pennsylvania side, including _:k,11 I Pegg Run, and Gunners Run in Philadelphia, and Lamokin Run and Harwick Ran in Delaware County. These tributaries, however, have.silted in naturally or have infilled and covered in the course of urban development, and are no longer surficially extant. While the floodplain of the Delaware River itself doubtless provided a major impetus for prehistoric settlement, the tributary confluences provided more localized areas on the floodplain which appear to have been favored habitation loci for aboriginal populations. Prehistoric Cultural Preferences The importance of major river valleys and stream confluences in prehis- toric site patterning has long been recognized by archeologists in the north- east, although cultural groups of the various chronological periods seem to have utilized them differently. In general-, archeologists have associated Archaic and Transitional sites with secondary streams and uplands, Early/ Middle Woodland sites with terraces in major river valleys and secondary stream confluences, and Late Woodland sites with floodplains and terraces in major river valleys. Paleo-Indian materials axe usually isolated and seem not to be strongly associated with any specific environmental zone, while Historic Contact sites appear to be located in floodplain zones similar to those occupied by Iate Woodland Indians. Many of their sites occurring in large clearings along the river were later also settled by Europeans. In point of fact, it is not really known why stream confluences seem to be favored habitational loci for aboriginal populations. Whether the reasons lie in factors of resource procurement, transportation ease, defense, or a combination of all three, most archeologists in the northeast intuitively recognize that it is a rare stream confluence at which evidence of prehistoric utilization is not found. These general statements regarding perceived prehistoric settlement patterning do not take into account the fact that many prehistoric archeo- logical sites represent specialty sites or are seasonal in nature. In addi- tion to permanent villages, such specialized sites as base camps, fishing and hunting camps, tool processing sites, quarry sites, ceremonial and burial sites also were cariponents of the aboriginal settlement system. In concept, it stands to reason that a fishing camp would have to be located near known spawning grounds, while a flint or steatite (soapstone) quarry site would have to be at a known outcrop of such materials, neither of which may coin- cide with a stream confluence. For this reason, whi-le a reliable correlation exists between stream confluences and prehistoric archeological sites, not all such sites a located at stream confluences. Indeed, many Prehistoric sites are known for loci in the Delaware Valley which are not -at stream con- 52 fluences. Moreover, the primary factors serving as selection criteria in these areas are not known in many cases. In summary, a major river valley such as the Delaware can be expected to yield abundant evidence of prehistoric utilization and habitation. Whi-le strewn confluences are known to be a reliable indicator of prehistoric sites, floodplain areas between strewn confluences also frequently yield prehistoric remains. The latter areas, however, are not as predictably reliable as yet because archeologists have not discovered the causal factors for site loca- tion in such areas. Post-Pleistocene Sea Level Rise The gradual rise of sea level on a world-wide scale due to the melting of the polar ice caps during the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) has long been recognized, and its potential significance for archeological interpre- tation in the northeast has not been overlooked. Since the lower Delaware Valley does come under the influence of tidaJ fluctuations, there can be little doubt that it has been affected by an increasingly higher sea level during the Holocene. Recent paleogeomorpinlogical studies have indicated that sea level may have been as muchas 100 meters lower than it is today at the beginning of the Holocene, or about 10,000 years ago, a time when man was first affecting his presence in the New World. This would suggest that the lower Delaware River would have been experiencing considerable downcutting at this time, rather than being subjected to deposition or "silting in" as it is today. The river channel would have been considerably narrower and shallower than it is today, and prehistoric archeological sites at its edge and on land at the time may, accordingly, be under water today. Below the Coastal Zone, in the Delaware Bay area, it is known that Coastal environments have migrated over 100 kilometers landward, and it is suspected that some prehistoric archeological sites which were coastal at the time of their occupation may be submerged a considerable distance out on the Continental Shelf. Unfortmately, there is no definitive information available on the specific effects that sea level rise had on the river above the bay, but the resulting 'drowned river' system has certainly been the primary cause of the silting-in of streams, the deposition of shifting point bars, the buildup of natural levees, and the burial of prehistoric sites under al- luvium. It appears that the geomorphological "threshold" may have been reached. This is especially obvious in the area at the mouth of the Schuyl- kill River and the marshy lowlands south of it, as almost all of the creeks recorded there when the first Europeans arrived'have become inactive. Some of this, however, has been due to more recent post-depositional factors, as the following section indicates. Post-Depositional Factors of Disturbance Since most of the Permsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone is heavily developed, surficial deposits over a large percentage of the area consist of what is known as made or urban land. (See Figures A4 through A6 in Appendix A.) Deposits such as these exist in areas where development has been so intense that natural soil profiles are no longer recognizable. In other words, the natural stratigraphic integrity of such areas has been either severely disturbed or wholly destroyed, and natural stratigraphic layering is no longer present to any appreciable degree. 53 While it is possible to depict areas which are characterized as made or urban land (as shown in Figures A4 through A6), it is not possible to ascertain the precise nature of the made or urban land. Certainly areas along the original shoreline which have been extended into the river have witnessed the deposition of great quantities of landfill, but landfill may also have been deposited in more landward areas as well, an occurrence which, without detailed field investigation, is iqpossible to detect or portray in detai-1. Other areas may have had natural deposits removed to be used as fill elsewhere, and still other areas, instead of being subjected to either the removal or deposition of materials, may simply have had them substan- tially altered, as might take place in a regrading operation. The only statement which can reliably be made with regard to made or urban land is that surficial (and probably subsurface) disturbance of one sort or another has taken place, with the resultant implication that archeological sites of prehistoric origin are highly unlikely to remain in an undisturbed.state in such areas. Reference to the acccuipanying maps.3-ndicates.that large areas of the southeastern Coastal Zone fall into this category. .-There are:three more specific-Ainds-of post-depositional disturbances which,can be discussed somm7hat more precisely than the more generalized made or urban land, including changes in shoreline, hydraulic fill resulting from dredging activities, and the channelization of streams. Each is @brieflydiscussed below. Shoreline changes have been considerable and widespread throughout the recorded history of the lower Delaware Valley. As noted earlier., post- Pleistocene sea level rise may have exerted influence on the shoreline thousands of years ago. In recent years, however, no such influence caused by sea level-rise has occurred, since sea level has remained relatively con- over the past few hundred years. As the accompanying maps indicate, however, and as.noted previously, the original and contemporary shorelines of the study area do not coincide in many areas, most notably in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties. In these areas, the shoreline has been extended into the river for up to a few hundred feet in some places, and most of this is the result of intensive infilling and land engineering, primarily in th6 nineteenth and twentieth centuries, to expand the space available for port and other industrial facilities. These areas have doubtless all been severely disturbed, and no undisturbed prehistoric archeological site can be expected to be contained in such landfill materials. Hydraulic fill is another type of land modification wtuch has had wide- spread occurrence in the lower Delaware Valley. The rapid rate of deposition in the river and floodplains, especially during the twentieth century, has required massive dredging operations to allow clear passage for large tankers and freighters. Since-the late nineteenth century, when the Board of Engineers reported to the Secretary of War on the feasibility and desirability of re- moving Smith's, Windmill and Petty's Islands from the channel of the Delaware River, this type of maintenance has been under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Windmill and Maiden Islands weere, in fact, later removed, and certainly any prehistoric sites on or near them have been.lost, as were any submerged sites that may have been in the path of the dredging equipment. 54 Routine dredging not only affects the river bed, but the materials re- Mved froln the channel are subseq Uently deposited on river-edge sites or disposal areas. Most of these disposal areas are in New Jersey, but some hydraulic fill has been deposited on the Pennsylvania side of the river. In areas where in situ soils are still present (as opposed to made or urban land), such as on Biles Island, this hydraulic fill may actually preserve an archeological site by capping it so it cannot be further eroded or dis- turbed. In-areas of made land, such as portions of Tinicum. Island, the depo- sition of hydraulic fill will make little difference, since no archeolog- ical sites are likely to be preserved there under any circumstances. The effects of hydraulic fill deposition in areas previously under water, such as near the great bend in the river at Falls Township, are unknown. However, it is possible that hydraulic fill would serve to protect sites in areas such as these which became inundated as a result of sea level rise. The channelization of streams doubtless has been quite destructive to prehistoric archeological sites in the Coastal Zone largely because of the tendency of sites to cluster along streams, especially at their confluences. Mule numerous streams in the Coastal Zone, particularly in Philadelphia, have been subject to channelization, Frankford Creek is an extreme example. This creek has, in fact, not only been channelized, but its original course has been entirely altered, and its original confluence with the Delaware no longer is extant. Any archeological sites which may have once existed along this creek, and others which have undergone smilar.modifications, a surely no longer extant. Preliminary Locational Hypotheses for Prehistoric Archeological Sites Based on the foregoing discussion, a number of hypotheses,can be pre sented regarding the location and preservation potential for prehistoric archeological sties in the study area. Such hypotheses, however, must be presented in two discrete subsets, one which would be likely to prevail in a pristine environ- ment which had not been subject. to intense develogremt, and another which takes into account factors of disturbance and development, such as has occurred in the Coastal Zone. If the Coastal Zone represented a pristine, undeveloped environment, it could be hypothesized that: a.) Early sites of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods will not be found to any appreciable degree in the present terrestrial portions of the Coastal Zone. b.) Early sites of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods a more likely to be found in subuerged or sub-landfill loci. c..) Iater sites of the Woodland and Historic Contact periods are more likely to be found at the confluences of extant and former streams along the former natural shoreline of the Delaware River. d.) later sites of the Woodland and Historic Contact periods are less likely to, but nevertheless may, be found in areas between extant and former stream confluences along the former natural shoreline of the Delaware River. 55 Taking into account the considerable extent of developnent in the study area, it can further be hypothesized that: a.) The possibility of prehistoric archeological sites of any tam period surviving undistrubed in areas characterized by made or urban land is remote. b.) The possibility of prehistoric archeological sites of any time period surviving undisturbed along any strearn which has subsequently been channelized or otherwise altered is remote. c.) The possibility of prehistoric archeological sites of any time period being preserved by hydraulic fill or other types of fill is only likely in areas where such fill has been deposited directly on natural land surfaces or in areas formerly under water. In sunnary, although the nature of the urban and suburban environnient precludes the possibility of presenting a more accurate assessment of the potential prehistoric-archeological resources it might contain, it is never- theless intended that this presentation will be of some benefit to planners and other officials wtD are responsible for future development efforts in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. while the intent of this assess- nent is not to suggest prim locations for archeological investigations, it is nevertheless intended to alert the user to the potential for the pre- sence of prehistoric archeological resources, and attempts to pinpoint as accurately as possible where they nught be expected to occur. In truth, it is unlikely that any such prehistoric archeological resources wrill be un- covered during the course of land-altering projects. If such resources are discovered, however, it is strongly recommended that such discoveries im- madiately be brought to the attention of the Bureau for Historic Preserva- tion of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. EVIDENCE OF HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES As with prehistoric sites, the first step in the identification of historic archeological sites is to ascertain if any known sites are reported for the Area under consideration. The Pennsylvania Archeological Site Survey files and the Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places on file an Harrisburg both have listings of significant historic archeological sites in the Ccomonwealth, and should be consulted. The most complete information an possible historic archeological resources, hoviiever, is to be found in prinaxy and secondary historic documentaticn. Such documents as historical atlases, deeds, insurance surveys, tax assessments, census data, street dir- ectories and secondary histories of the area under consideration can provide a wealth of locational and contextual data pertaining to potential historic archeological sites. In scme cases, nearly all of the information necessary to make an accurate archeological assessment prior to actual excavation can be gathered from the documents. Flor this reason, it is quite useful if the archeologist is adequately trained in historical methods and techniques in addition to his archeological training. As in the case of prehistoric archeological sites, local informants and oral traditions are mst helpful in evaluat-ing an area for potential 56 historic archeological sites. Because historic sites are frequently more visible than prehistoric sites and most people tend to be more familiar with history than prehistory, such informants are generally more numerous than those knowledgeable of prehistoric sites. Most of the knowledge about sites comes from what is known as oral tradition, that is, the transmittal of historic locational and factual knowledge from one generation to the next. Oral tradition is frequently an exceptionally accurate source of historical information and the most significant source of historic archeological data frequently is an elderly life-long resident who remembers what his ancestors related to him. Once documentary, archival, and informant research is completed, physi- cal examination of the area in question can add immeasurable to an archeo- logical assessment of the historic archeological potential of a site. Surface reconnaissance or subsurface testing often will yield a wide variety of historic artifacts, including such items as broken ceramics, bottles, spoons, nails, windowglass, bullets, cannonballs, buttons, slate shingles, bricks, or other building material. Some artifacts may easily be recognized, others may require further analysis, but if significant quantities of them are found, an historic archeological site is usually evidenced. In addition to artifactual evidence, the presence of structural features is usually compelling evidence that a historic archeological site is present. The remains of a stone foundation or brick-lined well often are found in the course of archeological reconnaissance or subsurface testing, and such fea- tures occur as square or round surface anomalies which may appear sunken due to the settling of rubble. In the absence of extant primary structures, such features as solitary gateposts, stairways, or outbuildings often provide evidence that an historic archeological site is present. Abandoned railroad tracks, overgrown cemeteries, military earthworks, and stone-lined mill races are some other obvious examples of historic archeological evidence. Stratigraphy is usually considerably more complex at an historic arche- ological site than at a prehistoric site. Throughout the life of an his- toric property, numerous structural and landscaping modifications are general- ly made. Unlike a prehistoric archeological site where natural stratigraphic layering usually prevails, historic sites frequently yield a stratigraphic sequence of non-homogenous fills and disturbances. Quite often, however, a buried humic level corresponding to an historic ground surface is revealed by excavation at an historic site. Such levels generally yield a rich arti- factual record of the occupants of the property when the humic level is exposed through archeological excavation. It should be remembered that any demonstrably historic structure still extant is likely to possess a significant archeological record associated with that structure, especially if the property surrounding the structure has not been developed. Often ther is a tendency to overlook the fact that an historic building is only one component of an historic property, albeit the most visible. Oftentimes there exists a failure to realize that the archeological record associated with a building is an equally significant component of the historic property, significant in that the below-ground record can, and often does, provide information on the property and its past occupants which neither the structural elements nor historic research can provide. Any preservation effort which takes into account only the standing 57 structures of an historic property at the expense of the associated archeo- logical record is really only.preserving a part of the story the site has to offer. PREDICTIVE STATEMENT FOR HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE LCCATICN As with the identification of prehistoric archeological sites, predictive modeling is also frequently an efficient way in which to aid in the identifi- cation of historic archeological sites. Accordingly, the following discus- sion is directed toward same predictive statements in the Coastal zone. Three factors which bear on the location and patterning of historic archeo- logical sites are discussed, including general historic settlement patterns, urban historic archeological sites, and non-urban historic archeological sites. In an attempt to alert planners, engineers, and other users to potentially sensitive-areas within the study area, this discussion is followed by a pre- liminary set of hypotheses regarding the likely location and survival poten- tial of historic archeological resources in the Coastal Zone. General Historic Settlenent Patterns General settlement patterns must beconsidered as a background to the historic development of the Coastal Zone. The earliest Swedish and Dutch settlers gravitated towa-rd the most accessible land, preferring areas al- ready partially cleared by the Indians and traversed by Indian trails or navigable streams. By 1650, Dutch and Swedish settlements were scattered along the Delaware River and the major creeks throughout the Coastal Zone. A few English settlers appeared in the area after 1660, with the major thrust of English settlement taking place after 1682. The Swedesand the Dutch tended to settle on scattered farmsteads with little population clustering in hamlets, villages, or towns. Chester, in Delaware County, was the only commmity to develop during the period before the Quaker settlement of Penn- sylvania. The remins of dwellings, farm buildings, landings, trading posts, and fortified positions are the :most. common types of archeological resources to be expected fran this period in the historic developrent. of the Pennsyl- vania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. These early settlers also began to alter the configuration of the topography as they ditched and drained marshland to create arable fields and pastures. The Quaker settlement of Pennsylvania under William Penn involved both planned and unplanned commuruty development. Penn's proprietorship of the land gave him the authority to lay out cities, towns, manors, and counties. Perm's grid plan for Philadelphia stands among the most successful of colonial planned communities. Also included in Penn's plan were other semi-planned cornummities, such as Gemantown and the Welsh Tract, granted to various ethnic groups as commmity settlements. Alongside the city and planned ccxn- munities, the English settlers brought with them a long tradition of English town life structured in the context of counties, shire towns, villages, and hamlets. Early county seats such as Bristol, in Bucks County, developed rapidly into towns resembling English shire towns,. and were granted borough charters that pennitted.rvarket days and fairs, and established court houses and prisons, which, in turn, attracted various commercial and professional enter- prises. 58 Other camiunities developed more informally as settlements clustered about a focal point such as a mill, tavern, forge, mine, bridge, ferry landing, crossroads, turnpike, canal, tollgate, church or meeting house. Many unincorporated hamlets and villages were assigned post office status around 1800. In some instances, success or failure in obtaining a post office was an indication of whether a small eighteenth century community flourished or declined in the early nineteenth century. As cam-mmities flourished, they encroached on the surrounding countryside, generating a cultural dichotomy with social, political, economic, as wll as demographic ramifications. In general, the colonial township pattern with its clusters of villages and hamlets can still be discerned in the rural and suburban areas of Delaware and Bucks Counties. However, urban sprawl, which led to city-county consoli- dation in 1854, has all but destroyed the original village pattern in Phila- delphia County where eighteenth and early nineteenth century touns and villages such as Germantoun, Frankford, Bustleton, Fishtown, Nicetown, Powellton, and Kensington exist today as, popularly-defined neighborhoods of the City of Philadelphia. Urban Historic Archeological Sites A sinple approach to the discussion of the kinds of historic remains that might be left.as part of the archeological record of the study area is a division of possible sites into urban and non-urban categories. Urban sites a generally of tuo types: (1) those which were initially occupied developed as urban sites, and (2) those which were initially occupied as non-urban sites and subsequently subsumed by urban expansion.: Obviously the non-urban site which, has been subsumed by urban expansion is more likely to be disturbed than the urban site where ongoing development has taken place in a context defined by existing streets and property lines. Urban environments generate relatively specific kinds of archeological resources. Urban sites commonly include the remains of privy pits or cess- pools which frequently contain large quantities of.artifacts. Privies gen- erally cluster along rear property lines behind urban dwellings and a more often than not associated with a single property. Privies shared over property lines were generally protected in deed records and can be verified. Other features commonly found (x@ urban sites include water wells, drainage systems, storage vaults, ash pits, cisterns and, in some instances, ice houses. Stratigraphically-defined occupation surfaces, such as backyard deposits, are a fragile resource that rarely survives in the urban environment. Mm found, these stratified deposits can provide important,in situ evidence of land use. Building foundations are less significant urban resources, since the reuse of w-all ccoponents is a ccmmon urban phenomenon. However, structural remains can, in specific instances, provide evidence of construction techniques, floor plan and renovation, or repair sequences. Since historic urban neighborhoods were usually characterized by patterns of mixed land use and single properties were frequently used as both a place of residence and a place of business, industrial.features and deposits a ?ften interspersed with residential features and deposits. Most historic industries produced highly specific kinds of refuse which are easily identi- fied, such as pottery wastersard kiln debris, slag, scrap leather, or wood shavings and unfinished scraps of wood. As a rule, most urban industrial or craft sites can be verified by documentary research. Specialized structures 59 such as machinery.bases or footings, raceways, kilns, forges, and furnaces are readily identifiable. The remains of urban transportation system may survive as trolley and railroad tracks subsequently paved over, or old wharves and piers encased in modern facades. Another major category of archeological resources in the urban environimnt is the evidence related to land fill and reclamaticn. Early land fill naterial often contains artifacts and successive land fill deposits, and can usually be identified and seriated chronologically by its artifactual content. This reconstruction of fill sequences can be a potentially useful research tool throughout the Coastal Zone, especially where urban development has encroached on non-urban areas. Non-Urban Historical Archeological Sites Non-urban sites include residential sites in towns or villages that Tmy not differ fran urban sites except, perhaps, in scale and intensity of land use. Privies, water wells, cisterns, ice houses, and structural remains a often ccmponents of these sites. In general, the greater space available in the.less-crowded towns and villages permitted a greater elaboration of the residential ccnplex, with outbuildings and dependencies erected to serve highly specialized functions such as wash houses, smoke houses, fences, gates, carriage houses, stables, spring houses, root cellars, and chicken coops. Kitchen and ornamental gardens as well as small orchards may also be associ- ated with town or village house sites. Ncn-residential sites in towns, vil- lages, and hanilets such as stores, craft shops, public buildings, wharves, warehouses, and churches or meeting houses may also share rany comnon char- acteristics with their urban counterparts, differing only in space and scale. Non-urban sites in the open countryside include independent farmsteads, crossroads, taverns, forges, mills, isolated wheelwright or blacksmith shops, and occasicnal schoolhouses or churches. The residential aspects of the farm, mill, or forge site are usually consistent with the patterns described for towns and villages, with dwellings ranging in size and splendor fran large manor houses with many dependencies, such as those at Pennsbury, to small log houses, such as the Morton Hiomestead. The Pennsylvania Colonial farmhouse of stone or brick is still a cammon sight in the rural sections of southeastern Pennsylvania, with franie fanribouses more =awn in the nineteenth century. Archeological resources left by agricultural activities include barns, sheds, fence lines, gates, field divisions, drainage ditches, windmills, and fire pands. Subsurface structural remains are more likely to survive intact in the rural setting, as are stratified deposits in backyard areas, barnyards and durp sites. Mill sites are generally marked by the presence of dams, raceways, and used mill stones. Isolated conmrcial, craft, and institutional sites generally produce the same kinds of archeological rennins associated with town and urban sites of the same type. A few sites defy classification as urban or non-urban. For exaniple, rail- roads, turnpikes and canals may be physically located in a non-urban or rural setting, but were intended solely to link urban centers or serve the interests of the urban community. Military sites are also a special function category which defies classifi caticn as urban or non-urban despite their physical locale. 60 Preliminary Locational Hypotheses for Historic Archeological Sites Given the particular characteristics of historic settlement and develop- ment in the study area, it is possible to present a few preliminary hypotheses regarding the likely locations and preservation potential of historic archeolog- ical sites. Unlike prehistoric sites, however, paleoenvirormental factors, such as documented sea level rise,play no role in the ccnstruction of hypothe- ses pertaining to historic archeological site location. Instead, such pre- liminary hypotheses must, of necessity, be based primarily on,a consideration of historic resources representing surviving elements in a continually evolving urban and suburban envircnn-ent. In one sense, the city (Philadelphia, Chester, or Bristol, for example) and surrounding suburbs must be ccnsidered as an archeological site or series of sites which have evolved through tiTm. In another sense, there are individual clusters of solitary historic archeological sites, or potential historic archeologica-1 sites, within the urbanized environ- ment which mist not be overlooked in the shuffle of such evolving development. Accordingly, the following preliminary hypotheses regarding historic archeo- logical site location and preservation potential are presented in two different groups or subsets, the first enconpassing statements regarding such sites . within a chrcnological framework, the second pertaining to historic archeologi- cal sites.-in general'. In the pre-Anglo Historic CDntact Period (c. 1550 - 1638), it can be hy- pothesized that, for the Coastal Zone: ,a.) The likelihood of sites of this time period surviving later development is remte. b.) Surviving sites of this time period will largely consist of relict farmstead sites (as opposed to hamlet, town, or village sites) which have been significantly encroached upm by later development. c.) Any surviving sites of this tim period are likely to be found at the confluences, of extant and former streams along the natural shoreline of the Delaware River or tributary streams, thereby conforming with the hypothesized settlement patterning of the later prehistoric and historic contact inhabitants. In the Colonial Period (c. 1638-1775), it can be hypothesized that: a.) The likelihood of early sites (c. 1638-1682) of this tine period sur- viving later development is rermte. b.) Except for Chester, where tam development was taking.place, early sites (c. 1638-1682) of this time period will conform to the farmstead pattern of development. c.) Early sites (c. 1638-1682) of this tine period are more likely to be found at the cmfluences of extant and former stream along the natural shoreline of the Delaware River or tributary stream. d.) Later sites (c. 1682-1775) of this tu ne period are mre likely to sur- vive, and will take one of three forms: (1) the rural site, (2) the urban site, and (3) the rural site which subsequently became'urbanized. 61 e.) In areas other than Philadelphia, later sites (c. 1682-1775) of this time period will likely conform to the unplanned development pattern of either a hamlet, village, or town. f.) Unplanned hamlets? villages, and towns will tend to be associated with major transportation arteries and transhipumt points. g.) Military sites of this time period will be found in strategically located positions along the former (as opposed to contemporary) shoreline of the Delaware River. In the period c. 1783-present, it can be hypothesized that: a.) Sites and landfill of this time period are likely to have destroyed or, at least, partially disturbed earlier sites. b.) Sites of this time period are more likely to have survived, and in many instances will be visible and recognizable. c.) No one geographic or topographic situation in the study area is more likely to be associated with sites of this time period than any other. d.) Hamlet, village, and town identities tend to break down in this period, and are subsumed by urban and.suburban development. e.) later settlement patterns of this tine period are no longer necessarily oriented toward the Delaware River, early roads, or canals, but rather toward superhighways, railroads, and air transportation systems. With regard to historic archeological sites or features, in general, it can be hypothesized that: a.) Any historic archeological feature, such as a privy or well, which exceeds in depth the extent of subsequent development, can be expected to partially survive such develolmmt. b.) Any historic archeological site or feature protected by associated historic structural elements (such as a building) can be expected to have substantially survived subsequent development. c.) Any demonstrably historic landfill, even though it may have destroyed ea lier archeological components, may itself be an archeological resource. d.) There will be no historic archeological sites of a terre strial nature between the original and contemporary Delaware River shorelines which predate the development of the latter. e.) The prcbability of river-oriented maritime- features, such as wharves, piers, or shipwrecks, surviving undisturbed in landfill deposits between the original and conternporary shorelines, and which predate the latter, is high. In summary, it can readily be seen that historic archeological resource survival and preservation potential in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal 62 Zone is considerably better than such potential pertaining to prehistoric archeological resources. This is due primarily to the fact that most historic archeological resources represent synchronic components of the evolutionary developmental process which has been ongoing an the Coastal Zone for the past three centuries. Not all sites have survived the widespread development in the Coastal Zone but, whether urban or non-urban in nature, historic archeo- logical sites will only prove informative to archeologists if they have sub- stantially survived such development. Fortunately, the widespread development and land use changes in the Coastal Zone can usually be.traced through the historic documentation by trained historians and historic archeologists. Unfortunately, not all historic archeological sites can be identified by documentary research and, in fact, it is inescapable that some significant sites will continue to be discovered by accident. Even more unfortunately, others will be unrecognized, unprotected and destroyed by subsequent develop- ment. 63 ROFESSIONAL evaluation of any ar cheological site, whether prehistoric or historic in origin, involves a determination of significance of the site within a broader prehistoric or historic context. According to the criteria outlined for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, any archeological site can be deemed significant if it has "yielded, or may be likely to yield, - information important in prehistory or history. " It must be rementered that most archeological sites, unlike extant historic structures, are not highly visible. Consequently, any information important in prehistory which archeoloqical sites might - contain can usually only be realized by careful excavation and analysis by professionals, rather than by any aesthetic quality the site way offer. In other words, the signifi- cance of most archeological sites lies almost solely in the materials they contain or are likely to contain, rather than in the sites themselves. Accordingly, significance evaluation of archeological sites should, in most cases, be a task for the professional archeologist who is familiar with the current state of the art and/or research questions operative in archeology, rather than the interested layman. Only the archeologist has.information at his command sufficient to make objective significance evaluations of archeo- logical sites. There are four basic factors which should be taken into account in a significance evaluation of any archeological site, all of which together point toward answering the question of whether or not the site has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. These four factors or elements include: (1) a determination of study unit affilia- tion so that appropriate research questions may be addressed vis-a-vis the site in question, (2) a.detennination of physical integrity, (3) a determin- ation of contextual integrity, and (4) a determination of the current status or disposition of the resource. These factors are discussed below with respect to prehistoric and historic archeological sites respectively. PREHISTORIC ARCBEOIK)GICAL SITES Evaluation of a prehistoric site begins by determining which, study unit it represents. This detemnination may not always be possible with only the evidence discovered in the identification process at hand, and may have to be postponed until more intensive investigation is possible. A tentative deter- mination can be Trade on the basis of artifacts found on the surface or in test excavations if they include such diagnostic artifacts as projectile points (arrowheads) or decorated pieces of pottery. A museum or archeologist familiar with local prehistory should be able to compare types of tool manu- facture and/or ceramic decoration and construction withother known artifacts associated with the Paleoindian, Archaic, Transitional and @bodland traditions (or study units). If the artifacts known to originate at the site are suf- ficiently diagnostic, then there should be little trouble in assigning the site to one or more study units on that basis alone. 64 Next, the physical condition of the resource should be evaluated. if it is a shall site, it may have been disturbed by agrIcultural.aictivity such as plowing. A site near a stream may have been subjected to erosion, or may have been buried under alluvial deposits during times of,flooding., A site in a developed area might have a road, building, or other modern feature dis- turbing a portion of it or, more than likelyextensiv.e fill or other dis- turbances. Any possible damage to the integrity of:the prehistoric resource should be noted. Also, the vertical and horizontal @ limits of the site, that is, the depth and areal extent of the site, should ned, if possible. Such a determination also contributes to-an assessment of the overall integrity of the site in question. The context of a site, or how it relates to known prehistoric and settlement patterns and land u'@se patterns, is also inTportant for.evaluation purposes. Do appropriate elenents of the site correspond to known or hypothe- sized settlement and locational models, or is it in some way unique, thereby affording the opportunity for new contributions to archeological knowledge? Because of the paucity of known prehistoric resources in the southeastern Pennsylvania Coastal Zone, virtually any prehistoric site found to retain stratigraphic and contextual- iritegrity is likely to add considerably to present knowledge of prehistoric lifeways in the louer Delaware Valley. Finally, it is important to make a determination of the current status of the site.- Has the site previously been recorded@in the Pennsylvania Archeo- logical Site Survey system, or has it been found to'be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because of its unique research potential? Has the site been officially nominated to the National-Register and, if so, is the site in the public or private sector? It is also of critical importance to determine if the site has previously been investigated by an archeologist, either by limited subsurfacete.sting or full-scale excavation. If the site has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, it is highly likely that some professional investigation has been conducted previously. HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Historic archeological sites should first be assigned to the appropriate study unit to facilitate evaluation. This can usually be done with the most elementary research to determine what kind of property is represented - a railroad station, farmhouse, corner store, etc. -- and its appropriate chron- ological affiliation. The accumulation of such information can usually be obtained through historic documents pertaining to the property, such as his- toric maps and atlases, deed records, or insurance surveys. Occasionally, houever, more detailed research is required, especially in cases where there has been a complex sequence of land use changes through time. Fortunately, such cases a relatively infrequent except, perhaps, in the heavily urban- ized environment, and minimal research is usually sufficient to assign an historic archeological site to an appropriate study unit. It should be noted that an historic archeological site will usually fall into the same study unit as the standing structures (if any) on a property, simply by association. 65 Once study unit affiliation has been detennined, the next step is to evaluate the physical condition of the resource. Any structural remnants visible above-ground should be noted, and any natural or man-mde distur- bances, such as erosional gullies, intrusive roads or later buildings which ndght destroy or severely infringe upon the integrity of the site, must also be assessed. The areal extent of the site should also be considered, if possible, as well as its complexity, including such factors as the number of structures or functional areas represented by the archeological remains. Any unique or unusual aspects of the site which may aid in the understanding of the la,nd-use changes through time should also be noted and assessed. Context can also be a factor in evaluation. If the remains of a country manor house are situated in the middle of a twentieth century industrial com- plex, for example, most, if not all, historic context has been lost and its aesthetic qualities severely compromised. Research potential of the site, however, has not necessarily been lost nor compromised by such a later in- trusion, and should be assessed independently of context whenever possible. Finally, the present status of the site must be considered in the evalua- tion. Is it eligible for nomination to the National Register or Pennsylvania Register of Historic Places, or is it already listed in either register? If it has not, should it be? Have steps been taken to excavate, document, or preserve the resource? In most cases, any future steps taken to protect or prese=Ve the site will depend in large part on the status of all prior evalua- tions and determinations. 66 CN OBJECTMS HERE are four possible methods of treating archeological sites of pre- .historic and/or historic origin. Three of these methods or objectives comprise a subset of possibilities, at least one of which should result'. from, a determination that. the site in question is significant, including: (1) in situ physical/contextual preservation, (2) excavation/documentation, and (3) preservation promotion. The fourth possibility, which would normally result frcm a determination that the site in question is not significant, embodies a "no action" approach. These objectives and methods a briefly discussed below with respect to thefindings of the evaluation conponent of the process. Physical/Contextual Preservation In concert with an archeological preservaticn ethic which has evolved during the last decade, the ideal disposition for a significant archeological resource is to preserve it in situ in perpetuity. The philosophy behind this objective essentially realizes that archeological excavation, even though capable of providing a wealth of information pertaining to prehistoric or historic peoples, is basically a destructive process, since archeological sites are non-renewable resources. It is further realized that archeological methods and techniques are currently not as sophisticated as they n-Light be in the future, and that, as a result, more information may be forthcoming from future excavations than from contemporary excavations. Accordingly, son-ve archeological sites would best benefit from preservation for the future, wtien more meaningful information might be extracted by excavation. In taking this approach, all physical attributes of an archeological site, including its artifactaal content, structural- features, and stratigraphic integrity, would remain undisturbed, unexcavatedf and protected. Such an approach might, in same instances, require unusual preservation procedures, such as covering the site with fill or providing bulwark shoring for a site which may be susceptible to erosive processes. Numerous archeological sites have been preserved by way of these or similar methods throughout the United States, particularly in the western and southeastern states where large-scale reservoir projects have, threatened thousands of known archeological sites. Excavatian/Documentation Ft,equently, the recovery of information fran an archeological site by way of professional excavation is an appropriate procedure. Normally, such an approach will take place when wholesale destruction of the site is imninent or irreversible, such as may be caused by the construction of a highway, reser- voir, or other development. Thcases,such as this, the goal with regard to the archeological resource is not preservation per se,_ but rather therecovery .of- archeological -information which otherwise would be lost because of the activity which will destroy the site. Such excavation is usually referred to as mitiga- tive excavation, and is designed to alleviate or lessen a destructive impact on an archeological resource by a priori recovery of information. Excavation 67 conducted in the late 1960's in association with the construction of Inter- state 95 through Philadelphia represents an example of mitigative excavation in the Coastal Zone. Occasionally, however, archeological excavation is undertaken in its own right, without the threat of destruction providing the catalyst. Normally such excavation takes place when there is every reasm to believe the site contains highly significant information which may prove useful in solving research problem currently being addressed by the archeological community. W1-ale this approach does not conform strictly to a preservation ethic, the goal nevertheless is to extract as much meaningful information from the site as possible. The philosophy behind this approach is that, while preservation for the future may-be a worthwhile goal with regard to some archeological - sites, other sites are capable of providing significant information immediately, and should be so exploited. Excavations at Pennsbury Manor in Bucks County and Printzhof in Delaware County represent examples of such archeological investigation in the Coastal Zone. Preservation Promotion In some cases, archeological sites may contain elements so spectacular or educational that they should be made available for public education and enjoyment. Normally, such an approach will materialize after a site has been excavated, and may involve a permanent housing with museum or other educational display erected at the site. Prime examples of such preservation promotional efforts are the Cahokia Mounds State Park, near East St. Louis, Illinois, the Island Field Prehistoric Burial Site near South Bowers, Delaware and, adjacent to the Coastal Zone, the archeological display at Franklin Court near Third and Market Streets in Philadelphia. No Acticn As noted in a previous section, not all prehistoric or historic archeo- logical sites are determined to be significant, nor should they be. In cases where such a determination is made, neither preservation, excavation/documen- tatian nor preservation prmotion is warranted, and a "no action" posture is the most appropriate-objective. This means that any proposed development need not take into account the archeological resource or resources which may be in the area. However, it must be enphasized that in-depth documentation fre- quently will be necessary to provide information necessary for the significance evaluation, even if the resource ultimately is determined insignificant. While a negative significance determination frequently is made largely on the basis of the physical condition of the site (i.e., it may already be irreversibly disturbed), sites which retain their contextual integrity some- times can also be determined to be riot significant, as the following example illustrates. An historic schoolhouse site is known to be in an area proposed- for contemporary developmnt. No standing buildings remain, and the site is valuable only for information it may yield about. mid-nineteenth century rural school construction and school-related artifacts. Subsequent study of the district, historical records, and other source material. reveals that any re- search question could be better answered by study of several other nearby existing sites. Accordingly, the information contained in this particular schoolhouse is not significant, and a "no action" approach can prevail. 68 IDEAL STRA= Preservation Techniques Techniques to preserve and protect archeological resources are generally limited by the inflexible nature of archeological sites. Such resources can- not be reused or revitalized in the sense that historic structures can (al- though they can serve to initiate restorations, such as at Pennsbury Manor), but they are frequently significant for the information that can only be re- covered by their destruction. However, certain techniques can be utalized to ensure the preservation or responsible excavation of archeological sites, and these can be categorized as (1) Registratim/Recognition, (2) Preservation by Deed, (3) Impact Assessment/Review Process, and (4) Mitigative Excavation (Salvage Archeology). Registration/Pecognition techniques include national, state or local registration and survey documentation, as discussed earlier. Preservation by Deedincludes those techniques wfuch involve the partial or complete acquisition of property rights to a resource, either through purchase, deed, restriction, or the use of easements. Impact.Assessment/Review Process consists of public and agency review processes required for state and federal perinits, that include consideration of culQ2 resources when land-altering development is proposed. Mitigative Excavation, or Salvage Archeology, takes place in order to ameliorate a destructive impact on an archeological resource by recovery of information which will otherwise be lost because of property develoFamt. Preservation Objectives/Preservation Techniques The Ideal Strategy consists of a set of preservation techniques which may be used to accomplish the preservation objective. It is "ideal" because it cannot account for particularcircumstances affecting specific resources which may make certain preservation techniques in-practical or ineffective. The purpose of presenting these relationships is to identify the total range of implementation tools which may be employed to achieve. a given objective. Physical/Contextual Preser%naticn Registration/Pecognition techniques are useful in the promotion of physical/contextual preservation because the significance of archeological resources, which are not highly visible by nature, can otherwise be overlooked by individual laymen, planners, or officials. Although this technique does not ensure physical preservation, it does provide an archeological site with some status. which, in turn, requires that it be considered in a conscientious manner in the event that it is threatened by proposed development. Preservation by Deed is perhaps the most effective set of techniques that can be used to achieve physical/contextual preservation, but can also be the most costly. Public or conservancy ownership of an archeological resource has become not only acceptable, but feasible. For example, a conservancy-type organization called The Mimbres Foundation has begun to acquire resources nationally,to ensure their protection, and many archeological resources are currently owned and maintained by federal, state or local agencies. Cn a local level, this technique has been quite successful in the purchase of Governor Printz Park (Printzhof ) , the John Morton Homestead, and Pennsbury Manor by the the Pennsyl- vania Historical and Museum Commission. The inipact Assessment/Review Process 69 techniques provide limited protection, since they only become operative prior to state and federally-funded land-altering projects. Nevertheless, they can and do provide considerable protection for significant sites threatened by such projects. Physical preservation of an a logical resource can be recommended as the outcome of such evaluatidns, and may in- clude relocation of the proposed project or other protective measures to avoid disturbance by the project. Mitigative excavation, or salvage archeol- ogy, by its very nature precludes the physical preservation of an archeolog- ical resource. Excavation/Documentaticn Documentation of archeological sites can be directly achieved through Registration/Fecognition techniques and'test excavations may be utilized to augment the information needed for registration. This technique, however, has little direct influence on extensive excavation or documentation for research purposes. Preservation by deed may be a useful technique if exca- vation/documentation is the preservation objective, since not only rights to the physical property, but time sufficient to carefully excavate and thoroughly document the resource can be "bought." Public or conservancy ownership ensures proper management of archeological data recovery. Impact Assessment/Ileview Process techniques often result in excavation and/or documentation. State and federal agencies frequently opt for these types of mitigative actions when a proposed project threatens an archeological resource, rather than redesigning the project for an alternate location or implementing other preservation measures. mitigative excavation techniques a often "last resort" efforts to recover data fram. archeological resources, although they can achieve the preservation objective of excavation/documenta- tion. Problems with this technique arise when limited funds and inflexible construction schedules for the planned project do not allow enough tim and money for adequate data recovery in-the impacted area. This results in severely handicapped research designs, and the use of less sophisticated methods of data recovery. Nevertheless, significant archeological data can generally be recovered by mitigative excavation. Preservation Promotion Successful employment of any of the preservation techniques and adver- tisenent of that success results in preservation promotion. In many instances educational benefits can be provided by such promotion, whereby provisions can be made for the observation of excavations bythe public, or can even in- clude direct public participation. In some cases, museums and displays for public educational enjoyment can be erected at the site (sometimes requiring Preservation by Deed techniques). It should be noted, however, that because of their inherent nature, most archeological sites are not amenable to Preservation Promotion. AOLIEVABMITY ASSESSMENT The Achievability Assessnent takes into consideration "real world" con- ditions which may affect the future status of archeological resources and the opportunity for effective utilization of the various preservation tec1miques 70 described above. bbny of the site conditicns associated with a given resource can be considered part of the context or "setting" of the resource, and although these conditions niay require that special excavation or preservation techniques be enployed, the Achievability Assessment is only concerned with the degree to which "real world" site conditions may inhibit the attainuent of preservation objectives. These site conditions include: a.) Proposed Public Projects and Improvements, such as highway or public building projects, that may in-pact an archeological resource; b.) Proposed Private Development Projects at the site or in the vicinity of an archeological resource; and, c.) Property Ownership, be it individual, corporate or public agency- Perfonrance of the Achievability Assessment leads to basic conclusions re- garding the inplEmmtation of the Ideal Strategy. The absence of any adverse site conditions indicates that the Ideal Strategy,can achieve the Preservation objective. However, niany tinies certain site conditions mist first be over- come by use of other preservation techniques or more general planning tools before the Ideal Strategy can be inplemented. Finally, the Achievability Assessment may find that the ideal Strategy and specific Preservation Cbjec- tives are not achievable. In this case, a new Preservation Objective will usually be adopted. Site Conditicns/Ideal Strategy Conflicts Relationships among various site conditions and preservation planning techniques and objectives are discussed below according to the three categor- ies of "real world" site cmditions described for the Achievabi-lity Assess- ment. These are not the only "real world" site conditions affecting the Ideal Strategy, but'they do represent the rnost ccmnm conflicts threatening the preservation of archeological resources. Proposed Public Project Conflicts This group of site conditions includes all development projects proposed or actually undertaken by the public sector, including municipalities, school districts, authorities, counties, state and federal agencies. They include new construction, such as highways, municipal buildings, and recreation facil- ities; alteraticns, such as school building additions, or public park inprove- nients; and demolition, such as occurs.before redevelopment. These activities can interfere WIth physical and contextual preservation, which is the overall goal of archeological resource managen-ent, by disturbing or destroying pre- historic and historic archeological sites. When Public Projects involve the use of federal and state funds they are subject to review processes which will automatically include the Inpact Assessment/Review Process preservation technique, usually through the prepar- ation of Environmental Impact Statements. If an archeological resource is found to be threatened by the proposed project, Mitigative Excavation, or Salvage Archeology, another preservation technique, is often reccmTended, although physical/contextual preservation can occasionally be achieved by erecting a neutral barrier, such as a protective layer of fill, between the 71 resource and destructive forces, or by relocating the proposed project. Preservation by Deed is generally minimally effective when state and federal agencies are involved, since they probably will already retain rights-of- way for the project area, but this technique may be effective when local municipalities are directly involved. Up-to-date Pegistraticn/Recognitim of archeological resources can avert future conflicts by serving to inform officials at all levels of archeologically sensitive areas. Proposed Private Development Project Conflicts Private Develolpment Conflicts include proposed new buildings, such as office buildings or shopping centers, alterations and additions to existing buildings, proposed land use changes and proposed demolition, and are usually conceived without the impetus of federal funding. Like federally- funded projects, these activities can interfere with physical/contextual preservation, as %ell, or disregard the importance of excavation/documentation. Registration/Via-cognition techniques have limited effect in commmicating prehistoric and historic archeological awareness, although certainly such registration may, in some cases, impart a status to an archeological resource which will lend itself to preservation. Preservation by Deed can be very effective through acquisition of sensitive archeological areas to prohibit further private development. Mitigative Excavation, or Salvage Archeology, can usually only be undertaken in cases such as those when the developer is sensitive to archeological and historic preservation needs. Preservation Prcmoticn can afford a public relations benefit when private ccr(panies adver- tise their interest in saving irreplacable archeological resources. Ownership/Accessibility Conflicts The Achievability Assessnent. must consider whether a resource is pri- vately or publicly owned, as this significantly effects the ability to iniple- ment various preservation techniques. Although ownership itself is not a conflict in achieving preservation objectives, private property owners who may not be preservatian-minded have no obligation to c=ply with preservation legislation. Preservation by Deed is the most direct approach to this situa- tion, since it changes ownership status. Registraticn/Recognition techniques are applicable to all situations, as they create an awareness of the value of the archeological resource. Public properties can be nominated to the National Register without-consent. Private properties, an the other hand, can only be nominated with the owner's permission. Other means of registra- tion or recognition do not require permission. Resources located in the public secbc >r can sometimes be salvaged by public petiticaN paving the way for mitigative e=avaticns if the resource is endangered by imminent destruction. 72 AO' Historic Resources HE identification of historic resources may occur as part of a compre- hensive-planning study, in a review of a proposed development or demolition project, or as a corprehensive historic resource survey, such as the on-,going survey sponsored by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. It may likely consist of a preliminary field reconnais- sance. or "wixidshield survey, " to be. followed by a more detailed inventory. Th proceed with the proper evaluation of the significance of historic re- sources, it is important that basic.historical, architectural and site information be assembled about each structure,:site or district. Since many resources nay have been previously recorded as part of other surveys or planning projects, prior knowledge of this, documentation, in conjunction with an understanding of the Study Units (and the types of resources associ- ated with them), will give the user an initial idea of what to expect in the field. INITIAL 17-SEARCH Virtually all.official lists of historic structures in the Coastal Zone compiled by various public agencies were consulted during the prepara- tion of the cultural resource inventory for this study (Figures Al-A3, and the accompanying resource lists are contained in Appendix A). Up-to- date lists of sites and districts on the National Register, Pennsylvania Inventory and local registers are available at the Bucks County Conservancy, the Philadelphia Historical Commission and the Delaware County Planning Department. In addition to these, municipal, regional and county compre- hensive planning documents frequently contain inventories of historic re- sources for consideration in making land use recommendations. The identifi- cation phase should include a visit to such previously inventoried resources to note their condition and existing site conditions, and to supplement incomplete architectural documentation. In Delaware County, the WPA Survey conducted in the 1930's proved very useful for identifying many sites for this inventory. (However, subsequent site visits revealed that more than half had been demolished.) Historical atlases are also useful to locate and date historic structures, and provide valuabl e historical geographic information. The 1871 E.P. Noll & Co. Illustrated Atlas for Bucks County, for example, recorded parcel boundaries, place names, roads and railroads, in addition to property owners and extant structures. T%%@entieth century insurance maps, such as the Sanborn Maps, are generally available in more urban areas. They provide even more detailed information about land use, building types, and building materials. Tax parcel maps are also useful when available, particularly for use in the field. FIEM SURVEY The extent of field documentation will depend on the type of survey being conducted. A "windshield survey" is usually conducted to selectively photograph potential resources, note the principal building materials used, 73 the resource's condition and to briefly describe its context. More extensive field documentation, including photography, will be necessary to proceed with a proper evaluation to determine significance. This supplementary information wi-11 also be necessary if the resource is to be nominated to the National Register, included in the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey or submitted for local recognition (Bucks County Conservancy or Philadelphia Historical Cmm-Lission). Examples of survey/hcmination forms for these and.other regis- ters are included in.Appendix B of this report. While these forms identify information that should be noted in the -field, much of the historical infor- mation will require research among tax records, deeds, local histories and other historical documents. The following lists represent the types of information that may be collected during the field survey of a structure site or historic district. Some information, such as the date of constiuction or the historic use(s), may often not be.obvious from field observations and may require additional research. Current tenants, property owners or neighbors may be able to pro- vide this and other information, and suggest possible sources or contacts for additional information. @In the lists, an asterisk is used to identify the types of information that are usually included as part of an abbreviated "windshield survey. Identification:, Field Survey 1. Name of site, historic name -note owner, it-possible 2. Property type (residence, store, bridge, etc.) - -current/historid us6(s) 3., Date of construction (and how determined) -also major additions 4. Location -municipality -street address -on map (quad, tax map) 5. General characteristics -shape/plan of building, style/period -size/scale (bays, stories, depth) -materials (roof, walls, foundation) -roof shape 6. Specific features -windows (type, number of pains/lights and their configuration) -porches -doors -chirmeys -dormers; -decorative elenmts 7. Major interior features -stairs -trim, wall covering -fireplaces, mantels -floors -roOms -hardware/lighting 74 Identificatiai: Field Survey (cont'd.) 8. site plan (sketch with north arrow) -outbuildings -landscaping -other man-made elements 9. Moved/Original Site -date moved -reason -original location -effect of move *10. Context/setting -adjacent buildings/uses -density -views of/frcin the property -streets/roads -general condition of area *11. Photograph (note compass direction of views) -windshield survey (1 or 2 views of exterior) -comprehensive (architectural details, outbuildings, context) Historic/Architectural District 1. Name of district 2. Type of district (residential, mixed uses, commercial/main street, rural, etc.) 3. Date(s) Ntien achieved significance) 4. Iocation -frunicipality -boundaries of district 5. Key elements of district -land/building uses -key structures,'buildings, sites, objects -geographic features -density, number of buildings 6.1 Architecture represented -styles/periods -materials/workmanship 7. District plan (map/sketch with north areas) -streets -parks, squares, open spaces, etc. 8. General conditions -state of repair -alterations -restoratim/rehabilitaticn activity -intrusions (type, approximate number) 9. Inventory --contributing buildings -detracting buildings (intrusions) *10. Context/setting -adjacent land uses/buildings -density 75 Historic/Architectural District (cont1d.) -views of/from the d3-StrICt -general conditions 1hclude the following for Industrial Districts: 11. Industrial activities -products 12. Poxoer sources 13. Machinery/technologies -remaining machinery (in use?) 14. Physical description -buildings (functions) -transport systems -geographic features Site information gernaine to preservation planning (but not necessarily to an evaluation of historic significance) may also be collected during the field survey. This 'site condition' information includes zoning, planning, land use, utility and development data that define both official public policies, regulations and services, and private sector activities that may affect,the preservation of historic resources. Since this data will be used during the 'Achievability Assessment', it may be desirable (and more effi- cient) to delay the collection of this data until after the Evaluation, and only assemble site condition information for resources evaluated as signi- ficant. Site conditions are discussed in detail.within the context of the Achievability Assessment. The following list identifies site condition in- formation that may be collected in the field. Identification: Site Conditions (Field Work) 1. Public services/facilities -maintenance -sanitation/trash collection -parking -Streets/sidewalks -parks/recreation facilities 2. Private property/neighborhood conditions -naintenance/upkeep -vacancies/abandonment -property class type/land uses -new construction 3. General -drainage problems -noise/pollution-, -vandalism 76 ADDrMCML DCCUvUM=CN Research may be necessary to supply supplementary historical and archi- tectural information. Previous surveys, when available, may provide much .of this data. Deeds rray supply information about previous owners, property subdivisions and the approximate date of original construction, or major additicns. (Determination of either the tax parcel number or the current property owner is essential to conduct a deed search of a property.) Early maps and atla s provide historic names and'landmarks, and often help to date the structures. Local histories, old newspapers and scholarly works may help to identify architects, engineers or builders, and associate resources with local, state or national historic events and/or personalities. The following list outlines topics that may.need to be researched before pro- ceeding with the Evaluation and identifies probable sources to be referenced. Also included are site condition items that way need to be researched prior to the performance of the Achievability Assessment. Historic Rescurces/Additicnal Documentation Research Thpics 1. Current and previous owners 2. Date of construction -date of major additions -original/subsequent uses 3. Association with important persons/events 4. Local development history 5. Architectural style, building/engineering techniques Potential Sources* tax assessment records deeds historical societies old newspapers local histories !-arly maps/atlases insurance maps style guidebooks local historic guidebooks/surveys *The enlistment of a trained professional(s) to assist in the research effort may be necessary for many resources, particularly as a greater degree of detail may be desired. Site Conditions 1. Planning and zoning -zoning -conprehensive plan -subdivision regulations 77 Site Conditions (cont'd.) -building codes -sign ordinances 2. Public services/facilities -fire/police protection -sanitation/trash collection -recreation facilities -tax base, fiscal information 3. Proposed public project/improvments -streets/highways -redevelopment (new construction/demolition) -public buildings 4. Private property/neighborhood conditions -land use conflicts -real estate values, trends 5- Proposed private development -buildings (scale, design, uses) -demolition -alterations, additions Potential Sources Municipal/County Comprehensive Plans Municipal Ordinances County Planning Commission Municipal Planning Commission County/Municipal Planning Commission Municipal Manager/Administration Municipal Budget 78 0 HE.Historic Resource Evaluation examines the significant historic, architectural, and- contextual qualities of a resource within the broader context of the Study Unit. Although a resource may typically have been identified because,. of an obvious architectural or historical qual- ity, it is important that the evaluation include all aspects of the resource - -its setting, -condition, building materials, historic uses, etc. The first component of the evaluation, the Historic Evaluation, establishes the important thematic Study Unit relationships which serve as a baseline in determining the relationship among all. the various evaluation criteria. In cm junction with a Physical/Architectural Evaluation and a Contextual Eval- uation, the Historic Evaluation discusses the types of information that should be considered and provides a list of Evaluation Items to investigate as part of the significance determination. Mien ccaplete, the Evaluation will allow the user to determine overall significance as a function of the individual resource components which contribute , to it. This enables protection to not only address t116 resource as, a whole, but also take action to ensure the appropriate preservation of its critical carr-onents. In essense, the historic evaluation determines whether or not, and the degree to which, a given resource may be regarded,as significant and, therefore, worthy of preservation.. HISTORIC EVALUATION The Historic Evaluation examines.the association of an historic resource with significant local, state, or national events, persons, organizations, or periods within a Study Unit context. It considers how a resource is related to me or more Study Units, and why it is significant in providing further material evidence and documentation of the history of the Study Unit(s). Basically, it strives to answer the following questions: 1. Tb what extent does. the resource contribute. to an under- standing of the history of the Study Unit" .>- 2. Wlmt historic activities, events, personst organizations and/or periods associated with the Study Unit are repre- sented by the resource? Vd-ien establishing a relationship with historic events and personalities, it is necessary to consider how important that relationship is. William Penn may have been the guest of Robert Wade at his riverfront hare in Chester City, but it is even more significant that his first night in his new colony was spent there. Likewise, not only was the Baldwin Locomotive Works used to produce rifles during World War I, but it was also reportedly the largest such rifle manufacturing facility in the world at that tine. When such rela- tionships are established, similar relationships and associations in the Study Unit should be considered. Shipbuilding, for example, has been an extremely important industry in the Coastal Zone since the Colonial Period. But when the Industrial Study Unit is examined it becones apparent that the 79 Sun Ship yards may be the only renaining shipbuilding facility in the Coastal Zone. Similarly, the Evaluation may examine whether the Eddystone District or the Viscose Village District is a more significant exanple of the histor- ical developnLent of uvrkers housing schenes, or, perhaps if they might repre- sent distinctive or unique approaches which my be equally significant. The Evaluation Items listed below are examples of possible resource associations that should be investigated as part of the significance determination. Historic -Evaluation Items 1 . Association with historic person, group, organization 2. Association with historic events (cultural, economic, military, political, etc.) 3. Association with traditional events/celebrations in the community, region, state 4. Association with local public, political, private institutions 5. Extent.to which resource retains a sense of the historic association(s) 6. Relationship of industrial functions, processes, products, and organ- ization to broader industrial or technological developmnt in the region, state, ornation 7. Association with the develolmmt of the ccnmmity, region, or state 8. Relationship with similar resources in the Study Unit (s) PHYSICAL/A=TECTUPAL EVM=ON The Physical/Architectural Evaluation examines the design elements and the overall integrity of an historic resource. It considers the architec- tural styles, design/engineering elements and construction techniques repre- sented by a resource, and evaluates their integrity relative to a resource's condition. In effect, this analysis examines the primary public interest in n-ast preservation efforts - the visual appearance of historic buildings and structures and their settings. As with the other aspects of the Evalua- tion, the resources are addressed within the Study Unit context and examined relative to other similar resources within the Study Unit. bbst basic to this evaluation is the determination of integrity. Basically integrity is determined by the extent that an original design has been altered, interferred with or has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. The original design of a log structure that has been completely obscured with later addi- tions, such as the 14acBeth Tog House (Delaware County), has little visable integrity. On the other hand, a restored log house which ac cur ately reflects the original design, such as the. Morton Hoirestead (Delawmare County) , may be evaluated as having a high level of integrity. Additions and alterations may not always be regarded as detracting fran integrity, however. Altera- tions may contribute to a building's character by providing a.visual docmnen- tation of its owners' attempts to adapt the latest styles or acconnodate new uses. These alterations ray also reflect important changes in lifestyles, construction technology or economic conditions. The fact that the Victorian "gingerbread" trim may postdate many of the fraue houses.on which it is found in the Tulleytown District (Bucks County) does not mean that these. buildings lack integrity. The saue trim, however, if poorly applied, out of scale, or of inappropriate rraterials my nonetheless detract from integrity. Similar to addressing these subsequent stylistic changes, the evaluation of integrity 80 should include an exam inaticn of t1le existing/historic use compatibility and the presence of 'intrusions"An multiple resource,histOric districts. It- is also important to note whether or not any lost integrity can be restored.. The design evaluation looks at the architectural-, engineering and con- struction techniques evidenced in a particular resource. Evaluated with Sim- ilar resources in the Study Unit, the evaluator seeks to determine if a resource is unique, typical, or one of the few remaining examples of a style, technique, or building type. In districts this would include an examination of architectural thems or patterns and how they may interrelate. An analy@ sis of bridges, industries, or pier structures mightfocus on the structural engineering and technologies represented. Although these observations and evaluations are more readily made by me with a trained eye or professional experience, there are nurerousguides and'.manuals that can be used. (See Bibliography, Appendix C.) The following are some of the Physical/Architec- tural Evaluation Items that should be investigated to adequately assess Physi- cal/Architectural significance. Physical/Architectural Evaluation Items 1. Cne of a few/humerous remaining examples of style, type, use, period, etc. inStudy Unit 2. A unique example of style, etc. in Study Unit 3. Associated with a famous/significant architect, engineer, builder, craftsman 4. Visible evidence of original materials/workrranship 5. Key architectural elements are unaltered 6. Integrity can/cannot be restored 7. Contemporary use compatibility with regard to original design 8. Alteration/additions contribute/detract from architectural value 9. Cohesiveness and continuity of architecture/scale in a district 10. Cmtribution of buildings and architectural elements to the feeling of an historic -period 11. Presence of particularly noteworthy architectural design element(s) despite overall integrity CWTEXTUAL EVALUATIM The Contextual Evaluation looks at the setting in which historic resources are found. A definition of the setting depends on the scale of the rescurce. The setting of an historic residence my encompass a few adjacent properties or a small a a within a neighborhood, while the setting for an historic district may include a portion of a borough or township (probably as defined by the area that can be seen from@ within the district;. or conversely, is characterized by views of the district). The setting or context of the Rad- cliffe Street District (Bucks County) is among the brick and frame residential and commercial buildings in the Borough of Bristol and includes views ofthe Delaware River, while the setting for Viscose Village is among the oil refin- eries.and a few,old industrial buildings in the northeast quadrant of the Borough of M.-Lrcus Hook.. The context of Pennsbury blanor (Bucks County) - an historic residence is within a relatively stark landscape of gravel quarries 81 and U.S. Steel's Fairless Hills plant along-a bend in the Delaware River, while that of another large former residence, Lyn Del Hall in East Thrres- dale (Philadelphia County) , is amcng similar large late-nineteenth-century residences.. The Contextual Evaluation examines these settings to determine if they degrade or enhance the historic resource they contain. The historical cmtext is most likely to have been considerably differ- ent fram the contemporary context of a resource, a'result of extensive devel- opment or land use transitions since the resource's original construction. 'Ihe resource may also have been uoved from its original setting, such as with the Bleakley or "Cannonball," Farnbouse which has been moved to a site near Fort Mifflin (Philadelphia County). A former carriage house currently used as a recreation center for the Bakers Bay Condcminium ccaplex in East Thrresdale is another case of a radical change in the historical. ccntext of a resource. The Contextual. Evaluaticn should determine how such changes have affected the architectural and historical. significance of the resource. The following list of Contextual Evaluation Item provides exanples of topics that sbould be investigated in addressing the issue of contextual significance. Contextual Evaluation Item 1. Visibility of the property to the public 2. Identity of the property as an important cmipment in the character of the neighborhood, or a cmtributicn to the continuity of the street/area 3. Inportance of the property's association with the location 4. Kbether or not the contemporary setting is historically/architecturally appropriate (street, sidewalk, yard) 5. District boundaries as delimitors of historic themes 6. District boundaries reflect natural/nian-vade barriers, change in charac- ter of the area, or decline in concentration of significant proper-ties 82 PLM OBJECrMS *crPir0Pt1aenZJecf0tives are selected to ensure an a _7 pr@@Xe 1:eza@ f c r those historic resources or re- source components previously evaluated as significant-. The selection these Objectives should carefully consider the intrinsic historical, architectural,, and contextual value:of each resource and its components This judgment must not be affected by non-historic contextual site condi- tions. These 'real world' site conditions include such items as local land use regulations (zoning), development proposals and/or local real estate values wiuch may effect the ability to achieve preservation objectives. Ratherl'the selection of Preservation Plan objectives should proceed assLuning an ideal preservation environment within which one need only be concerned with the selection of objectives directly responsive to the protection of significant resources. Protection may therefore be concerned with five distinctly different courses of action:- a.) physical preservation of a resource b.) preservation of the context in which a resource is located c.) preservation -of the information embodied in a resource only d.) use of the resource as an exemplary exanple-to further preservation causes e.) taking no additional action These address the conceptual basis for all preservation actions, and thus describe five basic preservation plan objectives: Physical Preservation Contextual Preservation Documentation Presexvation Promotion No Action The decision to select one or more of these objectives will depend on the nature of each resource's intrinsic value; i.e.. what makes a resource significant. For many historic resources that may be the sense of time and place conveyed by a resource's architectural qualities -- its style, scale and use of materials. Such may be the-case for the Tulleytown District in Bucks County, a village whose continuity and architectural integrity impar't the feeling of nineteenth-century small-town Pennsylvania, although the District,Iper se, may-not be of particular historical notoriety. The es- sence of such significance is contained in the architectural integrity of the.buildings, and their setting - a case for Physical Preservation. The 83 Viscose Village District may also present an architectural case for Physical Preservation, although its overwhelming historical significance as an in- novative planned village of industrial workers housing presents an even stronger historical argument for Physical Preservation. The No Acticn Objective may be selected forhistoric resources evaluated as not significant or later found to be adequately protected. Documentaticn may be the most appropriate objective when the integrity of significant resources has been lost or if the resource is adequately protected but incampletely documented. Similarly, the Preservation Prcrotion/Enhance- ment Objective may be pursued for exceptionally well-preserved and protected resources. The following discussion relates the significant evaluation to each of the five preservaticn objectives. Physical Preservation Historic preservation, in general, is most frequently associated with Physical Preservation, which, in turn, is most typically associated with such meticulous restorations as Pennsbury Manor or the Morton Homestead. Physical Preservation is most often appropriate as a Preservation Objective when the physical presence of a resource and/or its components are evaluated to be paramount in its determination of significance or.its historical association or study unit context is of great inr-ortance. It is principally associated with the outcome of* the Historic. and the Physical/Architectural Evaluation. If the evaluation of the Irvington Mills (Delaware County) revealed that the Mills' appearance (its scale, stone walls, and prominence along the banks of Ridley Creek) was its.most significant characteristic, the Physical Pre- servation Objective would be pursued to protect the building's exterior ccniponents. The evaluation of a similar industrial resource, however, may find that the resource's significance is embodied in the machinery it con- tains or its interior construction and design elements, in which case the selection of the Physical Preservation Objective would be to protect these important interior elements. This is not to say that the less significant elements of a resource should be ignored; rather, it identifies a particular need for emphasis with regard to de facto physical preservation. In considering individual buildings or structures, Physical Preservation can address -the entire structure, its facade, its interior or any of its components. When addressing the protection of an historic district, the Physical Preservation Objective is pursued to protect the architectural themes, land uses, streetscapes or other aspects of the district evaluated as important components of the district's overall significance. Contextual Preservaticn Contextual Preservation is pursued when an historic resource's setting is an important factor in its determination of significance or greatly enhances its historic/architectural values. If a farmstead (house, barn, and associ- ated outbuildings) was- being evaluated, an agricultural setting amid fenced pastures and cultivated fields would certainly enhance the farmstead's signi- ficance. Even if such fields and pastures were no, longer included within the same property of the farmstead, Contextual Preservation Objectives migh be pursued since it is desirable that the setting be protected. The industrial 84 waterfront setting for Penn Treaty Park in the Kensington section of Phila- delphia presents a case which could be addressed by Contextual Preservation. Since this passive park was developed to allow the public to enjoy the his- toric significance associated with the site - William Penn's treaty with the Indians in 1682 - it is important that the setting is conducive to such en- joyment. Contextual Preservation, therefore, addresses the environmental elements of an historic resource which have been evaluated to be directly associated with its significance. Contextual Preservation Objectives pursue the pro- tectian of views, both from and of an historic resource, the scale and com-- patible.uses of adjacent buildings and properties, and the resource's general environmental quality. Documentation Documentation should certainly be undertaken for all significant historic resources. Indeed, saw level of documentation is associated with almost all historic preservation activity. In some instances, however, the Documenta- tion Objective need be the only preservation objective pursued. It is not always necessary that the resource be physically protected to preserve its significant message as long as it can be adequately documented. Similar to the selection of the Documentation Objective for archeological resources when excavation may pre-enipt a site's physical preservation, documentation of historic resources is pursued when it is determined that their significant historical/architectural features need only be recorded. Although the Documentation Objective is selected when the physical pre- sence of a resource is not essential to an understanding of its significance, it is also pursued when physical presence is subordinate to the achievement of a greater preservation objective. This ney be the case wtien an extremely significant Colonial residence is obscured by later Victorian alterations or additions also evaluated as significant. While such alterations and additions may have to be removed to restore the more significant Colonial building, they should be properly documented beforehand. Similarly, an industrial resource located within a residential historic district may be regarded as a visual "intrusion," but it may also be evaluated as historically significant for the technological innovations it represents. Its physical preservation may, there- fore, be. "sacrificed" to enhance the! quality of the more significant historic- district, but not before it has been documented. (This is not to advocate such sacrifice, but rather to provide rationale in the event of its necessity.) Preservation Promotion This objective may typically be associated with a physically restored resource: Pennsbury Manor, Andalusia, the Morton Mortonson House, or the Bartram House and Gardens. Although their physical preservation may have already been achieved (and should be enhanced), they have also been considered to be of such significance that they should be publicly.enjoyed.for their in- formaticnal/educaticnal value. Similarly, a well-executed neighborhood pre- servation program may provide an excellent real life illustration for use in promoting similar programs in other neighborhoods. Both objectives are herein referred to as Preservation Promtion. 85 Preservatiai Pramotion Objectives are, therefore, pursued to foster an interest in both history and historic preservation. The selection of this objective should be carefully considered to ensure that the preservation message a resource contains is fully understood. It is rrost important that this objective is only selected for resources which offer exmplary examples of preservation activities and practices. The potential negative impact of implementing Preservation Promticn plans, however, should also be considered. If a promotion program results in intensified real estate speculation or the excesses of tourism, the very same historically significant qualities one wishes to preserve may be jeopardized. No Action The No Action Objective is selected for resources evaluated as not signi- ficant or when significant resources are appropriately protected. This does not mean that these resources should be forgotten. Subsequent information concerning the Study Units may indicate that same of these resources should be re-evaluated for significance. The preservation dispositicn of 'protected' resources may change or, for unforeseen reasons, beccm threatened. No Action should, therefore, imply that the preservation policiesvAll be con- tinually reviewed and updated to reflect changing conditions. IDEAL CN STPATEGY The Ideal Preservation Strategy is comprised of the various preservation techniques which may be employed to achieve the chosen preservation objective. r1he Ideal Preservatim Strategy for historic resources will, therefore, con- sist of a selected Plan Objective(s) and an associated set of preservation techniques which a singularly or collectively (as groupings), in whole,.or in part, capable of acccuplishing implementaticn of the given objective. A discussion of the Ideal Strategy is presented in two parts: a a discussion of the Preservation Techniques themselves, which provides a brief background of the types (or major categories) of techniques and their applicability, and b.) a discussion.of the relationship between the techniques and the five Preservation Plan Objectives. Preservation Techniques Techniques to preserve and protect historic resources have been developed for virtually every conceivable preservation situation. They can be used at municipal, regional, county, state, and national levels of government; and by individual and corporate private property owners. Not all techniques, how- ever, are equally effective or applicable for all preservation needs. Since preservation techniques represent different approaches or methods to achieve preservation objectives, they are discussed below as they relate to the follow@ ing categories of preservation planning: a.) Registraticn/Recognition b.) Municipal Ordinances and Plans 86 c.) Preservation by Deed d.) Review Process/Impact Assessment e.) Reuse, and f.) Economic DeveloFment/Revitalization An additional category -- "other" is included to address those techniques not readily characterized by these groups of activities. Registration/ Recognition techniques include national, state or local registration and sur- vey documentation. Municipal ordinances include zoning, the establishment of Historic Districts, sub-division regulations, and other municipal. land use and building regulations. Preservation by Deed addresses techniques which involve the partial or complete acquisition of property rights to a resource, either tl=ugh fee simple purchase, deed restriction, or the use of easements. Review Process/Lipact Assessment identifies public review processes pursuant to the issuance of permits that include consideration of cultural resources. Reuse techniques address contenporary use alternatives for significant his- toric resources and Economic Development/Revitalization techniques are used to improve the economic viability of preservation. Preservation Plan Objectives/Preservation Techniques Relationship All preservation techniques are not equally effective in achi eving the various preservation objectives. The Ideal Strategy for historic resources associates the five Historic Resource Preservation Objectives with various preservation techniques according to their applicability and effectiveness; i.e._, the Ideal Strategy is cariprised.of one or more techniques which are deemed most applicable, or most likely to be effective, to achieve the rele- vant objective from aTmng the general list of applicable techniques. Th facilitate the discussion of this relationship a Preservation objectives/ Techniques Matrix (Figure 3) has been prepared which identifies the various techniques relative to the five Preservation Objectives. This matrix 'scores' each preservation technique relative to each Objective as "lin-Lited," "rodexate," or "high" with regard to effectiveness. If no relationship is shown, the technique is either not applicable or considered ineffective in achieving the particular objective. It should be emphasized that the matrix does not address applicability or effectiveness relative to site conditions that are unrelated to the detern-Lination of significance. Thus, it reflects an 'ideal' historic preservation planning situation. (These 'real world' site conditions are addressed in the Achievability Assessment which, in con- junction with the Ideal Preservation Strategy, allows the preservation planner to develop the historic resource Operating Plan.) The preservation techniques are discussed below as they relate to each plan objective. Physical Preservation The prospects for Physical Preservation can be enhanced through the use of virtually all types of preservation techniques. The most effective techniques, however, are those that secure the resource through acquisition, deed re-, strictions, or easements or those that develop sensitive contemporary uses. Registration and municipal regulatory techniques a considered only moderately effective. Registration/Recognition techniques can be used to promte physical preservation by making individual owners and local planners and officials aware 87 of the historic and architectural values embod ied in historically signi-, ficant resources. Registraticn/Recogrut-lon techniques provide only moderate assurance of physical preservation, although National Registration does as- sure that the inpacts of Federally@-funded projects on the resource will be addressed. National Registration also allows owners of ccmrvarcial proper- ties to realize additional income ta,.,, deductions and enhances the eligibility of all properties for preservation grants. Municipal Ordinances and Plans are also considered moderately effective with regard to physical preservation and protection. Zoning Ordinances can provide assurance that subsequent land development and construction respect historic development patterns through setbackf side yard, use, density, and building size regulations. Historic district and landmark ordinances can provide additional control by subjecting historic resources and new develop- ment to a design review by a local commission, such as a Board of Historical and Architectural Review. Inclusion of historic resources and preservation objectives in Municipal Comprehensive Plans provides important justification for their subsequent consideration in new ordinances and ordinance amend- ments, as well as establishing the physical preservation of histor ic proper- ties as official public policy. Perhaps the strongest and most effective physical preservation tech- niques are those listed wider Preservation by Deed, which, however, can also be the rrost costly. Ownership of an historic resource or of easements af- fecting its significant elements by a private or public preservation- minded entity is the best assurance that its historic-significance will be respected. The Review Process/Inipact Assessment techniques considered to pro- vide limited protection since they only address state and federally-finded projects. Nonetheless, these review processes do provide considerable pro- tection if such a project adversely impacts an historic resource evaluated to be significant enough to warrant physical preservation. Reuse preservation techniques provide strong physical preservation pro- tecticn by providing caripatible ccnten)orary uses for historic buildings. Protection is limited, however, to the extent that the new use is economically viable. It is important that Reuse techniques be carefully considered for their conpatibility with the physical preservation of a resource's signifi- cant historical qualities. + Ecmcmic Development/Revitalization techniques can also provide strong physical preservation protection, essentially by facilitating the continued use or reuse of historic buildings and structures. Although most of these techniques involve the use of economic incentives (tax breaks, low interest loans, grants, etc.) to effect changes, their success lies in their ability to allow the marketplace to sustain a physical preservation program which might not otherwise be possible. Economic Development/Revitalization techniques should be carefully considered to ensure they do not conflict with physical preservation objectives. 2. Contextual Preservation Contextual Preservation is achieved by preserving and promoting uses of adjacent properties which enhance the setting for a particular historic 88 m aim m m mmmmm m Vill gal -N 1. 7mmlm"N CWECTPIM Physical Preservaticn GIGIOMOO GIMMU00 NEGIN EGI 00 00 salaam 0 [a WOW 00 0 aontextual Preservation 0000000 QUO001A100 Noun so 00 00 000M o o (30QUO M 0 DocLumtation Mangum XF-F 10 CE130 00 11000 o o 0CMD (10 0 Preservation PrcutntAcn 1:111000M M 00 GO 00 MEMO 0 0 01301M no No Actim om 13 00 M E13 0 M 13 M Relaticnship rdentified Limited Effectiveness M:)derately Effective Highly Effective 40 Figure S. Preservation ObjectivealTechniques Matrix resource. Appropriate Qmtextuaa Preservation techniques are selected to protect the significant components of a resource's setting (context). Registration/Fecognition techniques are of limited use for contextual preservation. The registration of a resource may make property owners within the resource's setting aware of its historic significance, but registration ' does little to ensure these owners will respect its significance. If the setting for an historic resource includes other potential historic proper- ties, however, registration (particularly local recognition and historic 11plaque" programs) may encourage others to improve their properties and thereby enhance the resource's setting. Federally-funded projects subject'. to impact assessment review must address potential impacts on National Register properties, which is the strongest contextual preservation aspect of all recognition techniques. Municipal Ordinances and Plans have moderate influence on Contextual Preservation. They can protest the context of historic resources by recom- mending and regulating land use practices that are compatible with contextual Preservation objectives. The Historical and Architectural Review Board charged with reviewing proposed changes within an Historic District does not generally have similar authority to protect its context. The board may, how- ever, recommend that the district be expanded to include significant elements of the district's setting to protect its context. Techniques listed under Preservation by Deed have strong contextual preservation capabilities. As with physical preservation, partial or fall ownership is the most consistant, but also most costly, preservation tech- nique. Scenic easements are established and successful mechanisms for pro- tecting vistas and open areas, wtuch have useful contextual preservation applications.. Easements can be used to protect views from, and of, historic resources through both facade and open space applications. The Review Process/Impact Assessment techniques have limited ability to promote Cmtextual Preservation. As previously mentioned, resources listed on the National Register a protected from the adverse impacts of Federally or state-funded projects, which includes the resource's context. local impact statements can be required of developers by n-Lmicipal.ordin- ances-which could include historic resource contextual preservation objectives. Reuse and Economic Develognent./Pevitalization techniques have limited ability to promote Ochtextual Preservation. Cne extreme reuse technique - moving a resource to a new location - can, however, be very effective in im- proving context by removing a poorly-situated resource (due to subsequent development) to a more sensitive location. Although moving a resource may significantly improve an historic resource's aesthetic environment, it drastically alters its historic context. In an, urban setting, economic devel- opment techniques can be used to improve deteriorated or blighted a as that nay contain historic resources. 3. Documentation Documentation. can be directly achieved through use of Registration/ Recognition techniques, and, to a limited extent, by Municipal Ordinances and Plans. The National Register and Historic Landmark programs require 89 rather carplete documentation and are pezmanent and fairly accessible docu- mentation techniques. The Historic Awarican Buildings Survey (HABS) and the Historic Azerican Engineering Record (HAER) similarly require comprehensive documentation and these records are fairly accessible. State and local registers.are generally not as complete, but are usually very accessible at the local level. Historic resource documentation in local planning reports is usually,quite limited in terms of the amount of information reported, but it, at least, can provide locational information. 4. Preservation Promotion Preservation Promotion objectives my be achieved through the employ- ment of Registration/Recognition, Reuse and Econoa-Lic Development/Revital- ization preservation techniques. Local survey reports or tour guides to historic sites and buildings have been very successful as promotional de- vices. They not only raise community awareness of historic resources, but provide visitors with a useful introduction to a region. The National Register conveys a certain amimt of 'status' to a significant resource, which may also work to encourage others in an area to seek similar recogni- tion. Local historic plaques and markers provide similar pramtional value. Econonuc DeveloFnLent/Revitalization can also be a strong preservation promotion device. Nothing has more prcmtional value than successful pre- servation projects. Revitalized Imain streets' and shopping areas have been extremely successful in prompting preservation practices in other communities seeking to emulate such successes. Tourism promotions and brochures may also include local historic sites. ACEMABILITY ASSESR= The Achievability Assessment is performed to determine the feasibility associated with the implementation of the Ideal Strategy, and culminates with the adaptation of that strategy to 'real world' conditions. As discussed earlier the plan objectives and preservation techniques which ccrnprise the Ideal Strategy were established only in response to the evaluation of historic, architectural, and contextual significance, purposely ignoring any additional information not relevant to those specific evaluations. As a result, all of the preservation techniques identified for their potential applicability to each Plan Cbjective may not in fact be applicable in all 'real world' preser- vatian situations. The Achievability.Assessment is, therefore, necessary in order to determine the appropriatenessof the various preservation techniques and the extent to vAuch the Preservation Objectives can be achieved. It is accm-plished by taking into consideration the various site conditions which may affect inplementation of the Ideal Strategy. The 'real world' site conditions analyzed in this section include regula- tory, development, and neighborhood conditions which may affect the future status of cultural resources and the ability to utilize the various preserva- tion/planning techniques to address them. The types of site condition infor- mation that should be collected for use in the Achievability Assessment were listed in the Historic Resource Identification sect-Lon under 'planning con- text.' Site conditions generally include the following types of information: 90 a.) Municipal Regulations and Planning Documents, such as zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations, that reflect official public policies; b.) Public Services and Facilities, such as police protection and parking facilities, that service the site or area in which a historic resource is located; c.) Proposed Public Projects and Improvements, such as highway or public building projects, that may impact an historic resource; d.) Private Property and Neighborhood conditions, such as vacant structures and recent alterations, that characterize the social and economic environnmt of the area; e.) Proposed Private Development Projects at the site or in the vicinity of an historic resource; and, f.) Property Ownership, be it individual, corporate, or public. To be sure, many of the site conditions associated with a given resource may in fact be condusive to the preservation of historic resources (e.g., an existing historic district). However, the Achievability Assessment is only concerned with the degree to which site conditions may inhibit the attainment of preservation objectives or identify the need for specific or additional preservation/planning techniques to address them. A Site Conditions/preser- vation Techniques Matrix (Figure 4) is provided to supplement the discussion of this relationship. it is used to identify preservation techniques that are effective or appropriate for historic resources within the context of specific site conditions. Similar to the Preservation Objectives/Techniques Matrix (Figure 3), the Site Conditions/Vechniques relationship is described in terms of "limited," "moderate" or "high" effectiveness. Performance of the Achievability Assessment leads to basic conclusions regarding the implementation of the Ideal Strategy. A finding of achieva- bility can result when there are no adverse site conditions or when the preservation techniques selected in formulating the Ideal Strategy are appropriate t9 use within the context of the site conditions. On the other hand, the Achievability Assessment may find that certain site conditions must first be overcome before camponents of the Ideal strategy can be implemented. In such cases, alternative planning techniques may be employed to improve the preservation environment. In the extreme case, the Achievability Assessment may find the site conditions so adverse that the Ideal Strategy is not achievable. In this case, the Ideal Strategy.should be reassessed and con- sideration given to the selection of an alternative plan for preservation, including the adoption of another preservation objective. The Achievability Assessment is then used in conjunction with the Ideal Strategy to develop the Operating Plan, which, in effect, is a modified version of the original Ideal Strategy that includes the appropriate preservation techniques and alternative planning techniques most applicable to the attainment of historic resource Preservation Objective(s) within the context of the specific site conditions. The following'discussion first introduces the various site con- dition considerations and then analyzes the site condition/preservation techniques relationships depicted in the Matrix. 91 Site Conditions Site conditions can be defined to include all factors.that nay affect the current and future status of an historic resource and the ability to ensure its preservation. Since site condition observations ideally define all aspects of the interrelationship between historic resources and their environment, a definitive analysis of this rather complex relationship is not always practi- cal or indeed necessary. Each situation should be carefully considered to determine which conditions most directly affect the status of an historic re- source and which conditions can be effectively addressed within a preservation planning program. To facilitate discussion, site conditions have been organ- ized according to their relationship to the public and private sector and as existing or proposed conditions. These categories include Planning and Regu- lation Conflicts, reflecting problems that may occur with local ordinances; Public Service and.Facility Problems; Proposed Public Project and Improvement Conflicts, such as highway develogrents and urban redeveloFrnent; Existing Private Property and Neighborhood Conditions; Proposed Private Development Con- flicts; and Ownership Conflictsi, A comprehensive list of site conditions within these categories may be referenced in the Identification Section and within the Matrix. Site Conditions and the Ideal Strategy Relationships among the various site conditions and preservation planning techniques are discussed below according to the six categories of site condi- ticns identified above.- These relaticnships.are graphically depicted within the Site Conditicns/Preservaticn. Techniques Matrix. Municipal Planning and Regulation Conflicts The municipality - township, borough, or city - is the principal land use and building regulatory entity in Pennsylvania. As such, the municipality is responsible for developing local Comprehensive Plans and is empowered to enact zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, sign ordin- ances, and other regulations. Each of these may have specific implications for the achievement of preservation objectives. A zoning ordinance may conflict with the physical preservation of historic resources by allowing uses that are not compatible or by permitting more intensive (or higher density) develoFoent, which may encourage the redevelopnent of.historic properties. Similarly, municipal building codes may require changes and alterations that destroy the character and integrity of the historic resources or that are prohibitively expensive and thus discourage the appropriate use,. or reuse, of historic resources. Conflicts of this nature are best addressed through reviewing and up- dating municipal plans and ordinances to address historic preservation am- cerns. Since the municipal Comprehensive Plan provides the conceptual foun- dation for specific regulations, and subsequent amendments, it is i:mportant that it reflects preservation objectives. The Preservation by Deed tech- niques can work most effectively to negate the effects of planning and ordin- ance conflicts. While they are extremely effective on a.site-by-site basis, they are also very expensive and must be extended to include adjacent proper- ties if Contextual Preservation Objectives are to be pursued. Economic 92 KEY No Relationship Limited Effectiveness Moderately Effective Highly Effective SNE CMDM(M pl@ "2%6!222!atiM Conflicts smun -Omprehwusivss Plm -sign (kdb@a Public Taciu!x Prcksl@ m/mOWL-Pplitutectim -LI I I I -SmitaWn/Tkash -P-*hn -st-te/Siftall" GAlectlari -D.ClinfiV Tax Basse, of Esstesn&l Funds -Pas,k tjurs rwintiess -1-9 g.ed Public Pwject/hwro@tamfllcts -51,1:eew..g@ys -Wde-loprersk. New t1w -radt-,lop@ts D=slitlart 4"blic Building Ebdt" Pri"te H IM mom W -Doppmpriatiss FarodsslhqjAlttw;st1m -DMdizqAand Use (bnicts -DlsJnve9t.-tA)s,clinlng 10a Mate Valms t t lldhsq/l@,d We (rseii, Wb-s -Smle strwtusms) -Desigm (i-# Stnachu") -D-litim -Alte-tion O@rshlp Omflicts 'r._L. Fleolderce Q-M=1111/111m3t@t -Publics M.1cip.1 Sa-ty/Sch,01 pl@tct tate wm"M" OHM HS E ESM Fkx%ral 0 Technnquw MateRy, Erii= LL11:1= FiglUre 4. Site Condition8lTreservation Techniques Matrix Development/Revitalization techniques are effective only to the extent that they may encourage property owners to repair their properties or bring them 1up to code.' Planning and zoning ordinance updating should be regarded as an important component of any revitalization/preservation program. Building codes only present problems to the extent that they require historic and architecturally inappropriate alteratims. Tb this end, many standardized codes available now include special exceptions for lustorically significant structures. Overall, Municipal Regulation conflicts do not present insurmountable problems for historic:preservaticn. This is primarily because they can be changed. Since they are legal documents, amendments and changes require the approval of locally-elected officials in addition to the conduct of appro- priate public hearings. They may also require the expenditure of municipal funds to cover consultant and legal fees involved in the drafting of new plans and ordinances. Public Service and Facility Problem Problems associated with Public Services and Facilities and the preser- vation of historic resources are typically reflected by the extent to which private property owners are willing to invest in an area. If the local admin- istration is unwilling to provide adequate police protection or quality educational opportunities, it is difficult to attract private property owners to maintain or rehabilitate properties in an area where these services are lacking or insufficient. When the lack of public facilities and services begins to discourage such private concern, a conflict with certain preservation objectives will likely exist. Insufficient or inconvenient parking may threaten the viability of an historic (and commercially oriented) 'main street' just as inadequate educational facilities will discourage investment in residential properties. while there ishttle a specific preservation technique or Ideal Strategy can do to directly confront such problem, it is important that these relationships be recognized. When public service and faci-lity problems do exist, a preservation strategy will have to seek to utilize alternative planning techniques or develop a corresponding re- investTmt committment fram the public agencies responsible for the provision of specific services and facilities.. since many public services are supported with local real estate tax revenues, local agencies can have a final interest in preservation. If revitalization techniques are successful in encouraging reinvestment, real estate tax revenues will reflect the change. On the other hand, over-zealous reassessment of rebabilitated.properties may also act to discourage such activity - an economic disincentive for preservation. While an improved and revitalized historic area.will likely expand the local tax base and, thereby, improve a local agency's or municipality's ability to provide these services, they my have to forego same of these benefits to accommodate revitalization activity. Use veaue assessments and property tax abatements have been used to limit the tax disincentives for property owners to. improve and repair his- toric buildings and structures. Tax abatements simply delay increased taxa- tion unti-Ithe property owner(s) has made improvements or establishes his business and is then better able to afford tax expenses. other techniques to address specific Public Facility and Service prob- lems are not so directly related to preservation. These include alternative 93 funding sources such as. grants, bond. issues or new taxation mechanisms to finance service and facility improvements. There are numerous state and national recreation facility funding programs that can be used to in-prove the attractiveness of historic areas and districts. The most direct way to explore alternative solutions to Public Facility and Service problems is through municipal or county planning offices who are most familiar with the various funding and technical assistance programs. Most Public Facility and Service problems are addressed by what may be regarded as non-preservation planning techniques. Thus, an effective preser- vation strategy will have to also incorporate the use of such planning tools. IDcal nxmicipal, county, and regional planning offices are best equipped to provide information-and assistance in these matters. The Econcruc Develop- ment/Revitalization preservation techniques can help to address the fiscal problem associated with the provision of facilities and services, while the related tax abatement and use value.assessntent techniques can help to limit tax disincentives for preservation. Public Service and Facilities problems will, therefore, require the close coordination of the preservation and more traditional planning comrmmities. Proposed Public Projects/Inproven-ents Conflicts -include all. development projects -proposed @ to be These site'conditicna: undertaken by the public sector, including municipalities, school districts, authorities, countiesf state agencies, and federal agencies. Such projects can include the construction of new highways, mt=cipal buildings, and recre- ation facilities, or alterations and additions to school,buildings, court houses and libraries. They can also include demolition, such as the clearance of derelict buildings associated with-urban renewal or redevelopment. Pro-, posed public develop-nent.projects caninterfere with physical and contextual preservation of historic resources by either directly threatening the inte- grity or actual existance of historic resources or by impacting the integrity of their setting. Since most Public Projects involve the use of federal and state funds, they typically involve the conduct of -:m elaborate review process which may include the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. As a result, Registration and Recognition techniques are particularly effective in ensuring the consideration of historic preservation objectives. Although all cultural, resources are usually addressed in the review proceedings, National Regis- tration virtually ensures consideration. Since review agencies frequently consult local. organizations, other registration and recognition techniques provide sin-Lilar protection, albeit less definite. Municipal Ordinances and Plans are useful to the extent that many public projects are locally initiated and, therefore, usually respect local planning objectives. Although state or federal agency projects may not have similar respect for local concerns, preservation objectives embodied in municipal plans and ordinances will have added recognition value and make federal and state agencies aware of local preservation concerns. Preservation by Deed techniques are moderately effec- tive in addressing these site conditions. Although they do not assure a resource's consideration, public agencies are certainly less likely to-pursue condemation proceedings for.properties with historic easements or deed re- strictions. owners of these easements will also be more likely to make public agencies aware of their preservation concerns. 94 Most Review Process/Iftpact Assessment techniques are only effective when a project involves state and federal funds. Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, specifically directs public agencies to consider potential impacts of proposed projects on historic and cultural resources. Reuse and Econcmic Developnent./T@-_@vitalization techniques are moderately ef- fective in protecting historic resources frcm the adverse in-pacts of public projects. Public agencies are not likely to condemn, alter, or demolish a restored, rehabilitated, or otherwise upgraded historic resource. Generally, revitablized neighborhoods or commercial areas are not targets for redevelop- ment. projects. Overall, Public Project/Inprovement conflicts with preservation objec- tives are most effectively addressed by Registration/Recognition and Review/ Impact Assessment techniques, particularly for those projects using state or federal funds. Municipal Planning and Ordinance Techniques are most effec- tive in avoiding conflicts with locally conceived projects, however, federal or state agencies could be unaware of, or choose to ignore, local preservation concerns. - The "106 review" process is the most effective mechanism for insuring preservation consideration with respect to state and federally funded Projects. Reuse and Economic Development/Revitalization techniques are moderately effective. They virtually ensure areas will not be targeted for demolition-related redevelopment and the resultant increase in property values associated with the success of these techniques will likely increase condemnatim and acquisition costs. Overall, most preservation techniques a moderately effective in addressing Proposed Public Project/Inprovement conflicts. Existing Private Property/Neighborhood Conditions These site conditions reflect the general social and econanic charac- teristics of an area. They include observati(xis of general building main- tenance, abandonment, vacant lots and inappropriate land uses, along with rehabilitation and renovation activities. Preservation problems associated with these cmditions principally relate to the perceived economic viability of Physical and Contextual Preservation. Owners of historic buildings will generally not be persuaded to improve their properties unless they feel others will make similar efforts. Conversely, economic vitality and associ- ated misdirected or ill-conceived.ren-odeling and alteraticns may be eroding the historic and architectural integrity of the area. Generally, Private Property/Neighborhood Conditions include any aspect of private property practice that may effect the achievement of chosen preservation objectives. Since the private upkeep and maintenance of historic resources has been a long-standing goal of historic preservation programs, imny techniques have been developed to address private property issues. Reuse and Econcadc Devel- opment/Revitalization techniques have been employed to encourage sound reha- bilitation practices and to provide successful examples of the economic viability of preservaticn. Municipal Plans and Ordinances, and in particular historic district ordinances, are also effective preservation techniques, particularly in controlling the inappropriate renovation of historic proper- ties. Their effectiveness is limited, however, to the extent that they are accepted by the local ccm=ity. They should not be hastily adopted as a preservation cure-all. The cammnity should first be made aware of the advan- tages (and disadvantages) of such ordinances and of the restrictions they 95 impose. Preservation by Deed techniques can be very effective, particular- ly by securing the rights to improve properties and provide good examples of preservation practices. Facade easements have successfully been employed to improve or preserve all or selected key buildings along an urban street- scape. As in other applications, the Preservation by Deed techniques are typically the most costly. Registration/Recognitim preservation techniques offer only limited effectiveness in addressing private property conflicts. The principal value of these actions lies in their ability to communicate historic and architectural values. National Registration does, however, offer tax disincentives for demolition and tax incentives for the proper rehabilitation and reuse of historic properties. In sannary, Reuse and Econamic Development/Revitalization techniques must be regarded as the most effective techniques in addressing private property conflicts. Municipal Planning and Ordinances are also effective, but only in regulating appropriate rehabilitation activity and not in en- couraging it. Although costly, Preservation by Deed techniques are effec- tive on a site-by-site basis and when used to purchase facade easements to enhance local streetscapes. Registration/Recognition techniques can offer tax advantages to private owners of commercial historic buildings and help to ccmm=cate historic and architectural values. Proposed Private Development Conflicts Private develognent site conditions include proposed new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings, land use changes and demolition. They pose potential problem for Physical and Contextual Preser- vation Objectives. New buildings and alterations may not-be in keeping with the architectural integrity of an historic district of a particular building. New construction of conflicting materials, design or scale may particularly iripact, historic buildings. Ideally, private development should reflect official public policy tow-ard-land use developrent as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan and its associated zoning and subdivision ordinances. As a result, these documents should be equally 'effective techniques for implementing preservation objec- tives. Experience has shown this relationship to be basically true, and when assessing the potential effectiveness of Municipal Planning and Ordin ance Preservation techniques, one should consider how effective they have been in controlling previous land use developnent. The adoption of historic district ordinances enable the municipality to appoint a Board of Historical and Architectural Review, which can offer design assistance and other sug- gestions; regarding the appropriateness of new construction. Registration/ Recognition Preservation techniques can have a limited effect through the ccmninication of historic and architectural values. National Registration, however, provides tax disincentives for demolition and tax incentives for reuse of individual historic buildings or significant buildings within an historic district. Nationally Registered properties are also eligible for limited preservation and restoration/rehabilitaticn grants. Preservation by Deed techniquescan be extremely effective by acquiring significant historic buildings to prevent their demolition or to insure their eventual sale for appropriate reuse. Easements can be used to protect a number of building facades or limit visual intrusions and deed restrictions can insure the con- tinued compliance of future owners with preservation objectives. As in all 96 previous applicaticnsf Preservation by Deed Revitalization techniques can be effective in offering economically viable alternatives to new construc- tion, which ultimately can be the most effective mechanism for influencing new development. Overall, proposed Private Development conflicts are most effectively addressed with Municipal Planning and Ordinance preservation techniques. They allow local officials to review, comment on, and approve all new construction. Preservation by Deed techniques are costly, but provide extremely effective techniques for the protection of individual resources, and the protection of contextual and scenic elements via easements. Reuse and Economic Developrrent/ Revitalization techniques are useful to the extent that they provide viable alternatives to new architecturally inappropriate construction or additions. Registration/`Reco@nition techniques offer limited effectiveness by communi- cating architectural historic values, however National Registration may be of greater consequence by providing tax incentives for appropriate preservation. Ownership Conflicts The Achievability Assessment should also ccnsider.the'effect.resource owner- ship may have on achieving preservation objectives,.as ownership my signi- ficantly effect ability to implement various preservation techniques. As an example, regulatory techniques have little control ovex federal or state properties, but considerable control over privately owned property. Anala- gously, Review/Impact Assessment techniques are more likely to have greater control over publicly owned property. While ownership is usually not re- garded as a potential conflict in achieving preservation objectives, it significantly limits the applicability of specific preservation techniques. Private ownership should be distinguished as owner occupied or commercial (investment) properties and public properties by the level of goverm-ent associated with their control. Mile Registration/Recognition techniques a applicable in all ownership situations, the owner's permission must be secured to nominate private proper- ties to the National Register. Municipal Plans and Ordinances do not ordin- arily regulate land use on state or federal properties andtherefore, are not effective techniques for securing their preservation. Preservation by Deed techniques are unique because they use ownership as,a means of implementing preservation objective(s) by directly changing the ownership status. These. techniques, though, are limited by the ability to meet acquisition costs and to find willing sellers. Public agencies, however, can force sales through the use of eminent domain. For exaTrple, changing the ownership status of a resource may be desirable in order to permit the use or reuse of some preser- vation/planning technique(s) which would have been ineffective given a former ownership situation. Econcnuc Development/Revitalization techniques are designed specifically for privately owned properties, while Reuse techniques can be employed by both the public and private sectors. In some Revital- ization schemes, a local goverrmiental agency can become actively involved as a lessor of commercial properties or in the purchase, rehabilitation or resale of historic properties. Private owners of commercial properties on the National Register or part of Nationally Registered Historic District are eligible for special tax considerations and subject to certain tax disincen- tives for demolition. 97 Czapletion of the Achievability Assessment provides the user with a greater understanding of the requirements for implementation of the chosen Preservation objective(s); and, leads directly to the selection of the most appropriate and effective preservation techniques with which to implement them. Analysis of the Ideal Strategy and Achievability Assessment then serves to define a more precise set of preservation activities which reflect both the objectaves developed for the preservation of significant resources and environmental realities. in essence, me way conclude, as a result, that the Techniques which should be employed in the preservation program are a combination of those which a capable of addressing the plan objectives and overcoming any adverse site conditions; those which need only address the plan objectives, when no adverse site conditions prevail; or, those which can simultaneously address the plan objectives:and any prevailing adverse site canditicns. These scenarios for implementation are then used in the devel- opment of the Operating Plan presented in the following section. OPUZATIDrz PLAN The Ideal Preservation Strategy and the Achievability Assessment provide the information necessary for the development of the Operating Plan. The Operating Plan is ccmprised of a revised list of preservation and planning techniques which may be utilized in the implementaticn of 'achievable' historic resource Preservation Objectives. However, finding that the orig- inally established Preservation Objective is not achievable vis-a-vis the 'real world' site conditions, would necessitate a reevaluation of it and the selection of a revised objective with its coinciding alternative techniques- to define a revised Ideal Strategy which, itself, would be evaluated relative to its achievability before proceeding to develop an Operating Plan. Similar- ly, the 'No Action' and 'Preservation Promotion' objectives may be considered more appropriate goals when,the Achievability Assessment finds that the existing preservation status of a resource is adequate to assure its protec- tion. Since such resources are already protected, additional Protection action nLight be redundant and unnecessary. The combined use of Preservation Objectives/Preservation Techniques Matrix (Figure 3) from the Ideal Strategy and the Preservation Techniques/ Site Conditions Matrix (Figure 4) from the Achievability Assessment is likely to lead to one of the following conclusions regarding the formation of the Operating Plan: 1. The Ideal Strategy, consisting of the application of a selected subset of techniques fran anong those identified in Figure 3. can become the Operating Plan. (No adverse site conditions.) 2. A particular subset of,techniques identified to be applicable to the Ideal Strategy (Figure 3.) can became the Operating Plan because they are also considered to be means of overcoming adverse site conditions which are of consequence (Figure 4.). 3. A subset of techniques identified to be applicable to the Ideal Strategy (Figure 3.) plus a subset of techniques which are not considered feasible alternatives to implement the plan obejctive, in themselves (therefore were not identified within Figure 3.), but do address pre- 98 vailing site condition problems can become the Operating Plan. The Ideal Strategy can become the Operating Plan when it is found that all techniques associated with the preservation objectives, as depicted in the Preservation Objectives/Irechniques Matrix (Figure 3.), are effective and applicable given the 'real world' site conditions (i. e., the site condi- tions are not obstacles to preservation). This situation results in the most extensive choice of preservation technique options. The second premise, a selected list of preservation techniques from the Ideal- Strategy, is a more likely situation. In this case, only certain preservation techniques associ- ated with the preservation objectives were found to be applicable or effective under the prevailing site conditions. The Operating Plan may then be formu- lated from among these techniques in an effort to be efficient through the adoption of a plan which can simultaneously address the site conditions otherwise hindering preservation. The final premise, preservation/planning techniques, results when the Achievability Assessment finds that techniques nust be employed to address specific site conditions. In this situation, the Operating Plan must identify and include these alternative preservation/ planning techniques in. addition to the techniques identified to be applicable to the Ideal Strategy (Figure 3.). The Operating Plan will then consist of Preservation Objectives and a specific set of preservation/planning techniques. This is not meant to imply that all preservation and planning techniques so identified mst be employed to achieve proper protection or that all techniques are equally effective. what is implied is that one or more of the techniques considered applicable in Figures 3. and 4. may be effectively employed to achieve the chosen Preservation Objective.. 99 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4) 9 "4 V 9 -1 PO .,.4 I% lul (d e .I 9: Id 0 c: I 0 1 1 A c: % VM4 qw S: %vo 1: C: (d E +A Q 4) t 4) It-14 8 (a I Introduction @L VERALL, Resource Protection Planning, as described herein, in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone is at an early stage of developmmt. 'While specific areas or resources within the Coastal Zone-have developed local preservation ordinances, such as the Historic Redcliff Street. District in Bristol Borough, or achieved national recogni- tion, such as the.Southwark Historic District or the Printzhof archeolog- ical site, many areas, districts and individual resources have not yet been inventoried, evaluated or recognized for their historic or prehistoric values. This section presents an assessment of the state of preservation in the, Coastal Zone. As such, it: does not constitute a direct applicat-lon of the Rescu.rceiProtection Planning Process; but, rather, it discusses the resources inventoried in the study area within the context of their charac- teristics which relate to the process. Although over 240 prehistoric and historic resources were inventoried during the conduct of this study, these resources have not been consistently documented and even fewer have been evaluated for their significant prehis- toric or. historic value., Similarly, these resources are not equally pro- tected. Cultural resource preservat-lon in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone has been accomplished over time through individual, site- specific initiatives, Since the Coastal Zone has only recently been con- sidered for its unique planning attributes, its cultural resources have not been comprehensively addressed prior to this effort. The Windshield Survey, together with the inventory of historic resources compiled frm previous survey and doaLmLentation efforts, and archeological reconnaissance efforts conducted for this Project form the most comprehensive list of existing and potential cultural resources currently available for the Coastal Zone. It is the purpose of this secticn to discuss the current state of cultural re- source preservation in the study area and to generally outline a likely course for future preservation efforts. The extent to which the inventoried resources have been documented, evaluated and protected is discussed below for both archeological and historic resources. A Study Unit Analysis specifically examines the eight historic and six prehistoric Study Units and the inventoried resources associated with them. Conclusions are drawn wftich address possible strategies for the documentation, evaluation and protection of the existing resources and make summary suggestions relative to the direction in winch one should proceed in beginning to apply the Resource Protection Planning Process. 101 Archeological Resources m.,dating almeye-73 and Docim,mentatn'On PIMSTORIC AND HISTORIC ARCHEOI= the Coastal Zone has never been subjected to comprehensive survey for prehistoric and h3 _storic archeological resources, the available information is inccuplete or inconsistent. In some cases, arche-olog- ical-sites.known or alleged at the local level have not bee:n recorded at the state level. In fact, no prehistoric archeological sites had previously been recorded for the Coastal Zone in the Pennsylvania Archeological, Site Survey System (PASS) on.file at PHMC, and less than one dozen historic arche- ological sites for the Coastal Zone were on file at PMC. This project has added 19 known or possible prehistoric archeological site locations, and more than 60 known or possible historic archeological site locations to current knowledge of the Pennsylvania/belaware River Coastal Zone. Since the nature and type of information available varied from county to county, certain types of archeological resources may seem to be concentrated in one area or county of the Coastal Zone, while others appear to have a paucity of archeological resources:. For example, the WPA Survey of Delaware County conducted in the 1930's recorded many possible historic archeological resources such as schools, churches and taverns, but these types of resources have never comprehensively been recorded in Bucks and Philadelphia Counties. Other sources of information, such as exemplified by a report on.recreation lands for 19th century Philadel- phians,.represented source material for numerous site locations but-, in this case, such information was heavily weighted toward Philadelphia County. In a similar fashion, Bucks County was favored with prehistoric archeological sites at the expense of Philadelphia and Delaware Counties. Many archeological sites on the resource maps (Figures Al.through A3 in Appendix A) can only be considered potential resources, since they have not as yet been investigated archeologically, nor are their condition and integrity known. However, some historic archeological sites, such as Printzhof, the Morton Mortonson house, the John Morton Homestead, Pennsbury Manor, and eight residential lots at Front and Market Streets in Philadelphia have been in- vestigated, and consequently recorded in state files. In general-, most archeo- logical investigation in the Coastal Zone has taken place in concert with con- temporary develognent (such as Interstate Highway 95 construction) or with restoration efforts (such as Pennsbury Manor and the Morton Mortonson house) In some cases, archeological information is provided as part of Historic Structure Reports (such as at Fort Mifflin) and occasionally*a prehistoric site is reported at an historic site location (such as at Frankford Arsenal and Pennsbuzy Manor). However, it is accurate to state that no archeological investigations have previously been undertaken within a regional research de- sign, nor even within a regional framework, and that, as a result, an overall picture of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal. Zone's prehistoric and historic archeological potential has never been realized. 103 PMUSTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL FESOURCES HE six study units appropriate to prehistoric archeological- resources in the study area were developed fram. data generated from other pre- historic sites in the northeastexn United States. These study units are culturally specific and chronological in nature and, as such, require that at least minimal archeological. investigation be conducted before a site or resource can be assigned-to a particular study unit. Unfortunately, the study area lacks prehistoric sites which have been excavated or othexwise sufficiently investigated, so the only study unit assignments which can be made at present must rely on historical evidence or supposition alone. Accordingly, since no hard in situ prehistoric archeological evidence exists in the Coastal Zone, only the Historic Contact and possibly, the Iate Wood- land study units can tentatively be equated with knomoralleged resources. Since it is fully expected that resources representative of all six prehis- toric archeological study units do exist in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, discovery of such resources will be dependent upon future archeological survey and excavaticn endeavors. In the following sections, each study unit is presented briefly and, where possible, existing historic archeological resources associated with them. in addition and where possible, preservation status, general condition, and extent of documentation for known archeological sites are.also discussed. The Conclusions which follow address unassigned sites and future objectives for prehistoric and historic archeological resources. Paleoindian (c. 10,000 B. C. - c. 7,000 B.C.) The Paleoindian Study Unit represents the earliest well-documented cultural tradition in the western hemisphere and, accordingly, the earliest w1uch can be expected to be present in the study area. The following repre- sents a listing of the cultural characteristics of the Paleoindian Study Unit: Types of Sites: Base camps (open, cave, or rockshelter); hunting camps (open, cave, or rockshelter) Environment: Considerably cooler and wetter than present; under residual influence of receding glaciation; conifer- dcndnated forest, especially spruce, pine, and fir; tundra or taiga conditions, with open meadows, grass- lands, and bogs in lowland areas; quarry sites Social Organization: Band society Subsistence: Hunting and gathering; unrestricted foraging; presumed reliance on big game Structures: Nme known, but possibly sapling and skin structures or simple brush windbreaks 104 Artifacts: Fluted projectile points, end and side scrapers, gravers, spokeshaves, sparred end scrapers, knives, preforms, drills, -choppers Resources.T-nventcried No knom resources of Paleoindian association are inventoried for the Pennsylvania/t)elaware River Coastal Zone. While the possibility of such resources being present in the study area cannot be overlooked, their likely occurrence in an undisturbed state is considered to be extremely rare. Archaic (c. 7,000 B.C. - c. 1,000 B.C.) The Archaic Study Unit represents an elaboration of the earlier Paleo- indian way of life in response to changing environmental conditions, and chronologically succeeds the Paleoindian Tradition. Its cultural character- istics can be defined as follows: Types of Sites: Base camps 1cpen, cave, or rockshelter); hunting camps (open.. cave, or rockshelter); fishing camps (open, cave-1 or rockshelter); floral resource procurement camps,(nuts, berries, other edible wild foodstuffs - open, cave, or rockshelter); food processing camps (open, cave, or rockshelter); quarry sites Environment: Warming trend, but not as warm as present; reduction of open tundra or taiga; coniferous forests on mun- tains; mixed coniferous-diciduous forests on lower slopes; greater faunal and floral carrying capacities Social Organization: Band.society Subsistence: Hunting and gathering; fishing; restricted foraging; scheduled exploitation according to seasonal round Structures: Circular, made of saplings and bark or other vegetal matter Features: Rock hearths, storage pits, lithic workshops Artifacts: Stemmed, side-notched, and corner-notched projectile points; end and side scrapers, knives, preforms, drills, choppers, bannerstones (atlatl weights),. grooved axes, adzes, mullers, mortars, and pestles, netsinkers, teshoas Resources Inventoried No known resources of Archaic association are inventoried for the Penn- sylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. While the possibility of such resources being present in the study area cannot be overlooked, their likely occurrence in an undisturbed state is considered to be rare, 105 Transitional or Terminal Archaic (c. 1800 B.C. - c. 800 B.C.) As the name implies, the Transitional or Tenm-nal Archaic Study Unit refers to a time of transition between the earlier Archaic and the succeed- ing Woodland way of life. It is a tixne of relatively widespread tecbno- logical innovations and population increases. The following cultural char- acteristics are generally recognized as being representative of the Transi- tional Study Unit: Types of Sites: Base camps (open, cave, or rockshelter); hunting camps (open, cave, or rockshelter); fishing camps (open, cave, or rockshelter); floral resource procurement camps (nuts, berries, other edible wild foodstuffs - open, cave, or rockshelter); food processing camps (open, cave,. or rockshelter); quarry sites .Environment: WaxTn and dry maximm, not unlike present; oak-hickory- chestnut dcminant forest; maxinm faunal and floral carrying capacities Social Crganization: Band society Subsistence: Hunting and gathering; fishing; restricted foraging; scheduled exploitation according to seasonal round Structures: Circular, made of saplings and bark or other vegetal matter Features: Rock hearths; storage pits; lithic workshops; artifact caches; mortuary (burial) complexes Artifacts: Broad spearpoints, stenced, corner-notched, and side- notched; end and side scrapers, knives, preforms, drills, choppers, bannerstones (atlatl weights), grooved axes, adzes, mullers, mortars, and pestles, netsinkers, teshoas, steatite (soapstone) cooking vessels Resources-Inventoried No known resources of Transitional (Terminal Archaic) association a inventoried for the Pennsylvania/Delaw3re River Coastal Zone. While the pos- sibility of such resources being present in the study area cannot be over- looked, their likely occurrence in an undisturbed state is considered to be relatively rare. Early-Middle Woodland (c. 1,000 B.C. - c. A.D. 1000). The Early-Middle Woodland Study Unit signals the introduction of ceramic technology and at least a semi-sedentary way of life in the northeastern wood- lands. There is same evidence that agriculture, or at least incipient horti- culture, was also introduced at this time. The major cultural characteristics of the Early-Middle Woodland Study Unit are as follows: Types of Sites: Base camps (open, cave, or rockshelter); hunting camps (open, cave, or rockshelter); fishing camps (open, cave, 106 or. rociter); floral resource procurement camps (nuts, berries, other edible foodstuffs - open, cave, or rock- shelter); food processing camps (open, cave, or rock- shelter); quarry sites Environment: Continuation of warm. and dry maximum, not unlike present; oak-hickory-chestnut daninant forest; maximun faunal and floral carrying capacities Social Organization: Band society; introduction of Tribal society Subsistence: Hunting and gathering; fishing; restricted foraging; scheduled exploitation according to seasonal round; in- cipient horticulture Sturctures: Circular, probably made of saplings and bark or other vegetal matter; semi-subterranean Features: Small rock hearths; large rock hearths, perhaps for smoking or drying; shallow, saucer-shaped pits or basins; lithic unrkshops; sane storage pits; scue artifact caches Artifacts: Stemmed, side-notched, and corner-notched projectile points; end and-side scrapers, knives, preforms, drillsf choppers, adzes, mullers, mortars, and pestles, net- sinkers, teshoas, bola stones, gorgets, celts, crude grit or steatite-ten1pered flat-bottomed ceramic vessels Resources Inventoried No known. resources of Early-Middle Woodland association are inventoried for the Pemsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. While the possibility of such resources being present in the study area cannot be overlooked, their likely occurence in an undisturbed state is considered to be relatively rare. late Woodland (c. A.D. 1000 c. A.D. 1550)_ The late Woodland Study Unit represents the cultural fluorescence of prehistoric archeological cultural manifestaticns in the northeastern %oodlands. It is a time wtien a sedentary village way of life had taken hold, with agri- culture and tribal society as dominant cultural forces. The following repre- sent primary cultural characteristics of the late Woodland St udy Unit: Types of Sites: Small or large villages; mortuary'sites; quarry sites; hunting and fishing camps Environment: Continuation of warm and dry maximum, not unlike present; oak-hickory-chestnut. daninant.forest; maxinuzn faunal and floral carrying capacities; less vegetational clearing than today Social Organization: Tribal society Subsistence: Hunting and gathering; fishing; agriculture; dog domes- ticaticn 107 St.ructures: Round or oval-ended longhouses, constructed of bent and shaped saplings covered with bark Features: Small rock hearths; large rock hearths, perhaps for smoking or drying; deep, bark-lined storage pits; refuse pits; shallow pit burials Artifacts: Triangular projectile points, end and side scrapers, knives, preforms, drills, adzes, mullers, mortars, and pestles, netsinkers, teshoas, bola stone, gorgets, celts, bone awls and fishhoks, antler projectile points, hoes, clay tobacco pipes, well-made grit and shell- tempered round-bottamed ceramic vessels Resources Inventoried No known late Vbodland resources are inventoried for the Pennsylvania/ Delaware River Coastal Zone. However, Late Woodland occupation sites a often directly related to sites of the Historic Contact Period or Study Unit and, in fact, often directly underlie the latter occupations in a strati- graphic context. Accordingly, some sites -in the Coastal Zone which are known by a name from early historic sources (such as Sipaessing or Menahakonk) may have Late Woodland components associated with them. Since the precise loca- tions of these sites are unknown, houeverf attempts to empirically document their actual Study Unit affiliation may prove frustratingly elusive. The Historic Contact village, Sipaessing, reported for the vicinity of Pennsbury, however, may be an exception, since prehistoric archeological artifacts have been reported in relatively undisturbed contexts for the area. It is likely, although certainly not confirmed at present, that a Late Woodland component may be present in the Permsb.3ry vicinity stratigraphIcally underlying an Historic Ocntact component. Such conjecture can only be made =re meaningful, however, by comprehensive invest-igation of the area surrounding Pennsbury where prehistoric artifacts have been reported. Historic Contact (c. A.D. 1550 - A.C. 1750) The Historic Cantact-Study Unit is chronologically the last prehistoric or aboriginal study unit for which evidence should be present in the Pennsyl- vania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. The Historic Cmtact Period is a tine of cultural decline for the Native American inhabitants, brought an in large part by acculturative pressures induced by European colonization. Cultural charac- teristics of the Historic Contact Study Unit include the following: Types of Sites: Large villages; mortuary sites; quarry sites Environment: Climate similar to that of today; oak-hickory-chestnut dominant forest; ma=-um faunal and floral carrying capacities; less vegetational clearing than today Social Organization: Tribal society; limited chiefdom Subsistence: Hunting and gathering; fishing; agriculture; dog domes- ticatian; trade 108 Structures: Round or oval-shaped laighouses, constructed of bent and shaped saplings and covered with bark Features: Small rock hearths; large rock hearths, perhaps for smoking or drying; deep storage pits; deep refuse pits; lithic workshops; shallow pit burials Artifacts: Triangular stone projectile points, stone knives, scrapers, dri-11s, hoes, and teshoas; stone adzes, choppers, celts, and netsinkers; stone effigy faces; bone awls, carbs, and other utilitarian and decorative items; shell-beads and pendants; turtle carapace cups and other implements; brass kettles, projectile points, earrings, beads, sequins, and fishhooks; iron axes, adzes, hoes, and nails;-gunflints and clay trade pipes; glass trade beads and bottles; highly refined and decor- ated round-bottaned ceramic vessels. Resources Inventoried Indian names associated with archeological resources can scmetirres be gleaned from historic documentation and, in such cases, association with the Historic Contact Study Unit can be inferred. Known or alleged archeological resources in the Coastal Zone which can be assigned to the Historic Contact Study Unit on that basis include Tschichocke, Menahakcnk, Sanckahickan, and Kildorpy, The precise locations.0f these four sites, however, are unknown . Accordingly, sites have little status, no protection, and their conditions are unknown. Two other named sites, including Sipaessing, near Pennsbury Manor, and Kentkatck, on the northern part of Mom Island, are somewhat more precisely located. Neither a well-protected, however, nor were they widely recognized until documentaticn for this project was undertaken. Although historic docu- ments indicate Sipaessing is located in the Pennsbury vicinity, very little Pigz@re 5. ProbabZe eite @f Sipaessing, an Histor- ic Contact and possible Late WoodZand Indian viNage located partiaUy in contemporary agricuZ-. 7 turaZ fieZds in the vicinity of Pennsbury 4' Manor. evidence of its existence has been resourced in the field. During this project, pedestrian surface recainaissance of agricultural fields owned both by the Cmnonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Penn-Waxner Company recovered a 109 small quantity of stone artifacts and waste flakes, while the excavation of two test units on Pennsbury property also recovered slight evidence of abori- ginal occupation. This evidence suggests a widely scattered and ephemeral occupaticn, which may rem that the major portion of Sipaessing has still to be located. Mile the portion of the recorded site situated on Cmmanwealth property at Pennsbury is well-protected, that portion under Penn-Warner juris- diction is not. Some of the site may have been wholly destroyed during quarrying operations at what is now Van Sciver lake. The suspected location of Kentkatek (meaning "place of the dance"), on the northern end of Moon Island, has never been arche-ologically investigated. Accordingly, its condition is unknown and, since its location is not precisely known, it has not been protected nor even registered. Should the location and existence of the site be verified, it could make a significant addition to the Historic Contact Study Unit, since its name suggests that ceremonial activi- ties may have been a primary function of the site. HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 'Historic archeological-resources in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone can be categorized into the same eight Study Units defined for historic resources. This section discusses the relationship of historic archeological resources in the Coastal Zone to the Study Units,: the extent to which each Study Unit is represented by known or potential resources, and the registration status and overall candition of these resources. Mercantilism/Camerce The Mercantilism/Ccmrierce Study Unit can be expected to manifest it- self in a number of possible ways in the archeological reso=es throughout the study area. Some of the more prominent characteristics of archeological remains associated with the Study Unit in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone are as follows: Types of Sites: Retail n-erchandizing; wholesale merchandizing; manufacturing site with merchandizing carponent; dwelling site with merchandizing component; shipping - international/long distance; shipping - coastal/ short haul commercial services Cultural Contexts: Urban sites likely to be highly specialized with no residential cariponent; non-urban sites likely to be less specialized, smaller in scope and size, with residential component; content of camnercial/ mercantile trade varies over time as new goods and products are introduced; matrix of trade shifts as technology of transporting goods and products change Structures: See Historic Resources section; also, freight depots; freight yards; wharves; piers; landings 110 Featurs: Structural remains; shipwrecks Artifacts: Trade goods and cargo; shipping and packaging mat- erials; coins, seals stamps; refuse Site-specific Documents: Land records; account books; bills of lading; Port books; custom's books; newspaper advertising; estate inventories Resources Inventoried The Mercantilism/Commerce Study Unit is rather poorly represented by archeological sites in the Coastal Zone, although the Ice House site in Bucks County may qualify. This site is known only from and 1981 atlas, so it will require further investigation into its condition and integrity prior to registration. Archeological componets associated with existing historic structures assigned to this Study Unit are potentially significant (such as the Market Square District in Marcus Hook) and future discovery of warehouses, shops, grain elevators, stores, or their remains may indicate archeological resources belonging to the Mercantilism/Commerce Study Unit. Other archeolog- ical resources which may be associated with this Study Unit include Bloomdale, Slickville, and Ivin's Estate and Fishery, all in Bucks County. Agriculture Because of the intense ninteenth and twentieth century development in the Coastal Zone, archeological sites or components representative of the Agriculture Study Unit can be expected to be relatively rare and, where present, unique. Characteristics of the Agriculture Study Unit in an archeo- logical context can be expected to include the following: Types of Sites: Household (non-commercial) gardens and livestock husbandry; commercialstabling; subsistence farm; general farm; dairy or other livestock husbandry; produce markets; food processing and packaging; food storage Cultural Contexts: Commercial food production is generally a rural activity; agricultural activities in town and urban settings usually household-oriented; urban and town sites may overlie former farm sites; domestic residential sites may provide related data on diet and foodways Structures: See Historic Resources section. Features: Field plan;fences and fence lines; structural remains; plow zones; drainage systems; feral plants or orchards Artifacts: Farm tools and machinery; seeds and pollen samples; animal bones; refuse dumps 111 Site-specific Documents: land records; estate inventories; tax records; letters and journals; grange records; account .books; census records Resources Inventoried Three known archeological resources an the study area may be associated with agricultural activity and, accordingly, can be associated with the Agriculture Study Unit. The Springhouse site in Delaueum County may repre- sent an outbui-Iding of a very early farm, perhaps of Swedish origin, but it has yet to be archeologically investigated. It also may be representative of the Residence Study unit. "Bloomdale," on the old David Landreth Estate in Bucks County, is reported to be part of a seed company w7hich perhaps may Figure 6. Stone waZZ ruins at BZoomdaZe, a 540 acre estate and seed company owned by David Landreth. qualify it for both, the Mercantilism/Camierce and the Agriculture Study Unit. This site is visible above grade, since it includes partially collapsed struc- tural features, but it has not as yet been tested archeologically. Finally, a stable and barn ruins located in Philadelphia County and recorded during this project are probably another potential archeological resource which can be associated with the Agricul@ure Study Unit. This site has not been arcbeologi- cally investigated. Private Institutions and Public Institutions Because of the nature of archeological rerains, the Private and Public institutions study units are combined as one for the purpose of the following discussion. cultural characteristics of both Study Units which can be expected include the following: Types of Sites: See Historic Resources Section. Cultural Contexts: May be separable into sites still serving institu- tional function, sites when. reuse f or other pur- poses is a factor, or sites where no above-grade evidence of institutional land use rem'aims 112 Structures: See Historic Resources Section. Features: Structural remains; burials; fortifications Artifacts: Ritual objects; skeletal remains; pens; pencils; ink bottles and ink wells; slates; toys; refuse and debris from residential components and inmates or employees; buttons and buckles and other ob- jects; personal adornment; coins; objects related to site-related activity such as fire-fighting equipment, military equipamt, hospital or medical equipment, etc. Site-specific Documents: Land records; tax records; minute books; newspapers; historic pictorial representations Resources Inventoried. The Private Institution Study Unit is archeologically represented in the study area by only one resource, the State in Schuylkill Men's Club, al- though it has -had more than one location throughout its history. Only the most recent location (Bucks County) was investigated by an archeologist, this being undertaken after it burned in December, 1980. other archeological resources representative of this Study Unit may be associated with extant historic structures such as churches and hospitals, but none are presently known. The Public Institution Study Unit is considerably better represented archeologically in the Coastal Zone than in the Private Institution Study Unit. FrankfordArsenal and Fort Mifflin have,both been archeologically investigated, and at least three other suspected military sites or encamp- ments of various dates are known in the Pennsylvania/belaw-are River'Coastal Zone. In addition, Printzhof, Wasa and Fort.Korsholm. served the public as centralized protection for early.settlers. Of these three, only Printzhof Figure 7. Site of Printzhof, the resi- dential and miZitary compZex erected by Swedish Governor Johan Printz in Z643, near what is ncw,Essington. 6.04 has been precisely located, registered and archeologically excavated. It is -owned and maintained by the Commonwealth and, accordingly is well-protected. 113 Other archeological resources which can be assigned to the Public Institu- tion Study Unit include a late 17th century cemetery in Delaware County recognized locally but not as yet registered at the state level, and the possible site of Crewcorne, the first county seat and courthouse in Bucks County. Currently, the suspected location of Crewcorne is under a large landf i 11. Figure 8. ProbabZe site of Crewcorne, the first county seat and courthouse in Bucks County. Site currently is used for landfill. 7-1 Public Accommodations The Public Accommodations Study Unit, as noted in an earlier section, generally includes such resources as hotels, inns, taverns, restaurants, and other facilities established for public convenience and use. In an archeo- logical context, the following cultural characteristics can be expected to be associated with this Study Unit: Types of Sites: See Historic Resources Section. Cultural Contexts: Nm-rural public acccmTodations are rore likely to appear as a component of a dwelling or farm site rather than as a specialized site; urban areas generally provide a wider range of choices in public accomx4ations with rany specialized sites; some public accommodations, especially in rural areas, may not be site-specific, but my represent a teoporary or transient activity with no pexnanent base (i.e. country fairs, race niee-ts, agricultural exhibits) Structures: See Historic Resources Section. Features: Structural remains; refuse deposits; use surfaces and race courses, playgrounds, etc. Artifacts: Tavern and restaurant wares; animal bone and other food renains such as seeds and pits; items of per- 114 sonal adornment; objects related to specific activities, such as sporting equipment, costuming etc.;coins and tokens Site-specific Documents: Land records; tax and census records; account books; newspaper advertising; estate inventories Resources Inventoried A number of archeological resources representative of the Publid Acom- modations Study Unit are known for the study area, although none have been archeologically investigated nor formally registered. In Philadelphia County, Ball's Shore, Wigwam Baths, Washington Garden, Golden Swan Tavern, Point Breeze Hotel, Gilbert Hotel and Hamburg Hotel all provided early Phila- delphians with recreation, refreshment and accommodation, and have been sub- sequently demolished. In Delaware County many hotels and taverns, such as the Old Ship Hotel, have been reported in the WPA survey and no longer exist above ground. In Bucks County, some of the old taverns and inns, such as Dunk's Ferry Hotel, still exist, but in many cases, their structural integrity may have been altered radically, leaving only possible archeological components with some integrity. Lindenthorpe, site of a public park in Delaware County, can also be associated with this Study Unit, although its present status is unknown. Transportation The Transportation Study Unit encompasses a number of diverse kinds of historic and archeological resources which are present to an appreciable degree in the Coastal Zone. Primary characteristics of the Transportation Study Unit expected in an archeological context include the following: Types of Sites: Peripheral, i.e. roads, canals, railroads that cut through or bound a site; terminus, way-stop sites where travelers or cargo stop, change or break a journey Cultural Contexts: As a general rule, terminus or way-stop points rapidly develop into town sites, while peripheral sites may be relatively unaffected by transporta- tion activities; urban connections often pass through non-urban areas; transportation sites may include a residential component for employees Structures: See Historic Resources Section. Features: Structural remains; road beds, canal sections, etc.; landings, wharves, piers; freight yards Artifacts: Tools, machinery, vehicles, freight and cargo, refuse from residential occupation Site-specific Documents: Engineering records; maps and surveys; day books; ac- count books; corporate annual reports 115 Resources Inventoried Several axche-ological resources known for the coastal Zane are associated with the Transportation Study Unit. The "Dock" in Philadelphia County, repre- senting an early transportation system for the shipment of merchandise to and from the city, has been intensively investigated by archeologists who uncovered an early corduroy road and bridge abutftents.1 An 1878 shipwreck reported an the Delaware River at Delaware County, while never being subjected to investigaticn, nevertheless can probably be associated with the Transporta- tion Study Unit. The Thamas Leiper Canal and Railroad, also in Delaware County, has been investigated and partially documented by avocational archeologists, bat is not otherwise recognized. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad station site in Phi-ladelphia is documented in the HABS survey, but its archeological inte- grity since demolition is unknown. Finally, several possible ferry sites are known to Bucks County officials, although their condition and archeological integrity are not known at present. Industry Given the nature of industrial development in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, the Industry Study Unit, perhaps more than any other, has considerable archeological potential. Characteristics of the Industry Study Unit which can be expected in archeological contexts in the Coastal Zone include: Types of sites: Craft shops; cottage industry sweat shop; indus- trial craft; factory mass production Cultural Contexts: Industry generally associated with urban and tam sites; rural areas may support single large indus- try that is totally self-contained and may not af- fect local life styles, i.e. iron furnaces; indus- trial sites my include residential, cmmiercial and transportation cmipments Structures: See Historic Resources Section. Features: Structural remains; power sources, i.e. mill races and mill dams; waste durps, i.e. slag heaps Artifacts: machinery and equipment; packaging materials; waste and by-products; workers' refuse Site-specific documents: land records; estate inventories; factory day books Resources Inventoried As a Study Unit, Industry is sporadically represented in the known archeological record of the Coastal Zone, especially in light of the vast potential for this type of archeological resource due to the history of inten sive development. shipbuilding operations in Delaware County and the Hog Island shipyard in Philadelphia remain substantially undocunented and unregis- terea. Several saw mills, grist mills and factory sites are documented for 116 streams and creeks in Delaware County, but their present condition and archeological integrity is unknown. The site of the Dyottville Glassworks in Philadelphia also remains uninvestigated and unregistered. The I substan- tial industrial history of the study area suggests that a significant oppor- tunity exists to expand the knom data base for the Industry Study Unit. Residences The Residences Study Unit represents a rather ubiquitous class of archeo- logical resources and, in fact, in some cases overlaps considerably with other Study Units. In an archeological context, the following characteris- tics may be expected to be represented in the Residences Study Unit: Types of Sites: Dwelling sites with no other c aTponent; dwelling sites where space is utilized for economic acti- vities; dwelling components which a integrated into an.econcmic, institutional, agricultural or transportation site Cultural Contexts: Urban sites,more likely to be used exclusively as residences; town and rural sites =re likely to include mixed usage Structures: See Historic Resources Section. Features: Structural remains; wells; privies; paths, alleys, walkways; gardens and yards; special use areas Artifacts: Kitchen utensils; teawares and tablewares; storage vessels; chamber pots; bottles; buttons, pins, buckles, and other items of personal adornn nt; toys and recreational objects; cutlery; garbage bone; seeds and pits Site-specific Documents: Iand records; tax records; census records; estate inventories; household account books; diaries and jo urn als; letters; newspaper advertising Resources Inventoried The Residences Study Unit, by far, is the rmst,well-represented in the known archeological record of the study area. Several important early resi- dences, including the Tohn 1@brton Hame-stead, the Morton Mortonson house, and Pennsbury b4anor have been excavated in conjunction with their restorations, and are well documented and registered in the Pennsylvania Archeological Survey @ystern filds. Other residences, particularly urban residences, were archeolog@ ically investigated prior to demolition for Interstate 95 construction in Philadelphia. The reported ruins of large estates, such as "Sorobia" and the landreth Ettate (Bloomdale), both in Bucks County, remain uninvestigated and unregistered.. Finally, there were numerous residences reported for the Mlarcus Hook and Chester areas by the @QPA survey, all of which have since been razed and, accordingly, may represent possible archeological resources. The status and integrity of these potential resources, however, remain unknown. 117 Figure 9. The John Morton Homestead, an earZy Swedish Zog house in Norwood Borough. A substan- tiaZ archeoZogicaZ component is associ- i, ated with this house. -0 7" ?igure ZO. Pennsbury Manor, the restored .7 !*@7 home of WiZZiam, Penn., in FaZZs Town- ship, Bucks County. 40 As Rri, . . . . . . . 118 Pl:a= TORIC ARCHECLWICAL IMSOURCES few additional reports of 11relics" and/or "Indian villages" have been recorded as possible sites on.the study area resource maps (Figures Al through A3 in Appendix A). However, even less is known of these .sites than.the ones noted in the preceding section, so they cannot be even tentatively assigned to a Study Unit. Considerable effort will be required in thefuture to increase the number of known and registered prehistoric archeo- logical resources by cmprehensive survey and subsurface testing throughout the Pennsylvania/belaware River Coastal Zone. Such survey and testing, however, May I be severely hanpered in scope by limited accessibility to the private sector for purposes of archeologica.1 investigation. In truth, the use of the Study UxAt concept with reference to prehistoric archeological resources in the Coastal Zone is severely linited by the paucity of archeologically known or otherwise investigated sites, and its utility may never be realized until more information is generated in the Coastal Zone. At this point, the primary purpose of the Study Unit conceprt.is to provide an ordering framework for the assessment of prehistoric archeological resources. Since the Coastal Zone clearly is lacking well-defined archeological sites representative of all six Study Units, the most pressing need in the future is for a couprehen- sive survey and subsurface testing program designed to generate more pre- historic archeological resource data. HISTORIC ARMEOLOGICAL EESOMMS Because the historic. archeological resources of the Coastal Zone are in- tegrally related to the evolving urban and suburban develoFnent of the area, considerable opportunity for expanding the historic archeological data base exists. A large number of the known historic archeological resources, how- ever, have never achieved proper recognition and, in fact, may only be known at the local level. An important step required to improve upon the situation is state registration of sites which previously have been archeologically investigated, and further investigation of those which have not. This can only be dme by ocniprehensive historic archeological site survey. At present, only sites representative of the Residences Study Unit have received mach archeological attention, and only in a site-specific, non-comprehensive manner. once comprehensive survey for historic archeological resources has been undertaken and ccopleted, historic archeological resources representative of the other seven Study Units should, in particular, be targeted for future documentation and/or excavation. 119 - .1 40 4) QU 2 A Q oc 2 40 . V.4 z I IEM@Mdng SM-7USY'S &nd ID)oCUMentatonOn HE existing record of historic resources in the Coastal Zone varies sig- nificantly with regard to the a%rtent of doc@umentation. South Philadel- phia ea t of Broad Street is the most corrprehensively-surveyed area, a result of the recently conpleted Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey. (While this survey was not intended to specifically add ss the Coastal Zone, it included Coastal areas south of South Street and north,of the Naval Yard.) When. ampleted, the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey will provide similar conprehensive historic resource information for Bucks, Delaware and the re- maining areas in Philadelphia County. In addition to this PHM sponsored survey, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVITC) prepared an inventory of previously recognized historic resources for the nine-county Delaware Valley Region which, while it should not be considered a cornprehen- sive survey-F does provide a thorough list of officially recognized resources. (It was prepared in 1969 and expanded in 1975 with an unpublished update.) Al- though the Windshield Survey conducted for this project specifically addresses the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone, it was conducted only to pre- liminarily assess the area and detemine the amount and types of potential historic resources and should not be regarded as conprehensive. Resource information compiled from official National, State and local recognition lists is the result of separate initiatives to register specific resources. These include the National Register, Pennsylvania Inventory, Bucks County Conservancy Register and Philadelphia Historical Commission Register. Mile these registers generally provided excellent documentation of specific historic resources, they are usually nat the result of,carprehen- sive surveys. Resources listed an the National Register are the most thoroughly docu- mented, both historically and architecturally. overall, twenty@five historic resources in the study area have achieved this level of recognition. Since the Pennsylvania Inventory now requires the same information, it will also provide rather extensive historical and architectural documentation for the more recent entries. At present, 36 sites in the Coastal zone are documented on the Pennsylvania Inventory, including the 25 sites listed on the National Register. Nineteen historic resources in the Coastal Zone are recorded in the Pennsylvania Historic Resources Survey, which provides some architectural doamentation, but very little historical information. Eight sites are re- corded in the Historic Aterican Building Survey, which extensively documents architectural features and provides some historical background information. The two local registers, the Bucks County Conservancy Register of Historic Places and the Philadelphia Historical Commission Register of Historic Places, also provide scm additional resource documentation. More recent listings on the Philadelphia Register require the same information as the National Register while the Bucks County Register requires less thorough documentation. The majority (90) of the sites recorded herein were recorded as a result of the Windshield Survey. As this cursory survey was not intended to provide a comprehensive inventory of historic resources, it does not provide extensive historical or arclutectural information. Nonetheless, 56 of these sites were 121 preliminarily classified as "appears to be eligible for the National Regis- ter," based on a visual evaluation of their canditicn and integrity. These selected sites were further documented on PHMC survey forms used in the Ristoric Pesource Survey. 122 resources outside the riverfront towns in Delaware County are the John Morton Hanestead, owned by the PHMC, and the Morton Mortonson House, both of which are in Norwood Borough. Viscose Village, in Marcus Hook Borough, and the Eddystone Workers' Housing were inventoried as examples of 19th and 20th century industrial workers' housing. Cn a simi-lar note, a block of row houses along Chxch Street in Chester was inventor- ied as representative of the speculative housing built to accommodate workers at the near- by shipyards. A smaller com- plex of row houses,'locally known as "Trainer's Bank" also inventoried. These hares originally served as housing for, workers at the nearby Trainer Mills along Marcus Hook Creek. Figure 36. These row houses were An Art Modemestyle residence built when Chester was a rapidly in Essington (Tinicum Township) growing ship building center. They is a relatively unique resource retain much of their original in- within this category. tegrity. As statedfew residential resources were found in the central and southern port-ions of Philadelphia. The Bartrwn House and Gardens and the Bleakly House are two resources within this area. Both are owned by the city. A few houses remain in the Eastwick area as evi- dence of the nore than 3,000 resi- dential and conTercial buildings that were once located there. Much of this area, known as the "Mea- dows", was cleared as part of the huge Eastwick urban renewal project. The northern, or Thrresdale, a, a z of Philadelphia contains a number of resources, however, including a QUIP number of grand country houses built along the banks of the Dela- ware River. Figure 37. This Queen Anne style residence in East TorresdaZe is now The country house them con- used as a drug and alcohol rehabil- tinues into Bucks County. Country itation center. houses and estates in Bensalem Township that were inventoried in- clude Andalusia, Chestnut Wood, the Dell, Edgewood and Chelwood. Further north there are a number of historic residences along historic Radcliff Street in Bristol Borough, the only =icipal (Act 167) historic district in the study area. However, north of Bristol, an area within Tulleytown Borough of princi- pally residential buildings was inventoried as a potential Historic District. In nearby Falls Township is Pennshury Manor, the 1939 reconstruction of wil I iam Penn s fonner riverfront home. 154 to large; after c. 1940 suburban houses mostly diluted versions of colonial revival (Cape Cod or Georgian) or prairie styles (rancher); company housing usually modest, plain raw houses; public housing usually plain Modern style rows or clusters, sometimes skyscrapers; before c. 1950 apartment hotels with historical style details, usually five stories and higher, after c. 1950 Modern style, two stories and higher. Resources Inventoried Fifty@seven resources associated with the Residences Study Unit were inventoried in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. They range fran the elegant mansions and country hares overlooking the Delaware River in southern Bucks County and northern Philadelphia to the Delaware Countywork- ers' housing villages associated with the Viscose Mills and the Eddystone Printworks . Further, it includes such carefully restored houses as the Morton Mortonson,Hbuse in Norwood Borough or the reconstructed Pennsbury Manor in Falls Tovmship. The Society Hill Historic District, albeit only adjacent to the study area, is included in the inventory as representative of'the type of housing that once existed in that area of Philadelphia. The Southwark Historic District extends into the Coastal zone between Fitzwater Street and Washington Avenue and, like the Society Hill District, represents the type of housing that existed in this area before the construction of Interstate 95. Rather than discuss each site individually, areas within the study area are character_ ized below by the types of residential resources they.-pontain. (These re- sources are mapped and described individually in Appendix A.) Since much of the study area south of the Bridesburg section of Philadel- phia is in industrial or port-related uses, most residential resources there- in tend to be found in the residential enclaves of Essincrton, Lester, Trainer, or Marcus Hook. Moreover, with the e=eption of the Bleakley House on the . Fort Mifflin grounds, and a few extant houses in Eastwick, there are no resi- dential resources in this, area. of Philadelphia. The Bartram House is the only residential resource inventoried along the Schuylkill River. Notable residential A a "A AL (b) t Figure 35. (a) Viscose ViZZage (c.LM) (b) Eddystone Printworks Workers' Housing (c. Z872)* are contrasting excanpZes of company vizzages. Both are potentiaZ residentiaZ Historic Districts. 153 shop, a shopkeeperls store ora merchant's counting room. The rich and poor never lived far apart. Structures: Farm-houses and cottages, urban dwellings Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame, half-tiuber, log; one, two, three- stories; gable, gambrel, shed, hipped roofs; generally small scale and symmetrical fronts; occasionally heavy (Baroque) carved detai-Is. c. 1750 - 1850: Residences reflect the Renaissance trend to separate the home from the work place, which leads to the development of the townhouse and its rural counterpart, the country house as a summer residence for an elite few. Structures: Farm houses and cottages, urban dwellings; townhouses, country houses, raw houses Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame, log; me to four-stories; gable, gambrel, hipped, flat, shed roofs; before c. 1820 Georgian or attenuated Georgian proportions and details, symmetri- cal facades; after c. 1820 Greek Revival details (portico, pilasters, columnated porches, Greek cornices and fret motifs) and iwre nearly cubic proportions, or Gothic Revi- val motifs (battlemented towers, pointed-arch windows and doors, c= ss-gables, elaborately cut bargeboards and porch trim) . c. 1850 1981: Housing for workers was recognized as a serious urban prob- lem. Old single-family dwellings were altered; tenement houses were constructed; reform-minded projects tried; and company housing was built in the shadows of factories. Steel-fran-ed apartments were built for the affluent urban dweller and later for all classes. Balloon frame construc- tion was developed. First commxter railroads and then the automobile encouraged subirban development. Structures: Farm houses, townhouses, country houses, raw houses; sub- urban villas, tenements, apartment hotels, suburban tract houses Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame, concrete-block, steel, reinforced concrete; one-story to skyscraper; gable, gambrel, hipped, mansard, flat roofs; before c. 1920 townhouses of large scale withenriched ornamentation for a variety of histori- cal styles; before c. 1940 raw and twin developments of modest scale with some details suggesting an historical style; before c. 1940 suburban house usually of picturesque historical style, some distinct (such as Renaissance Revi- val or Italianate, Second Empire of French rcde, and Roman- esque Revival) and others eclectic; scale varies from, nrdest 152 by the South Philadelphia Survey). The Philadelphia Electric Company build- ings also appear to be eligible as part of an electric facilities theme. in addition, the Disston saw works, the Philadelphia coke Company and the Bald- win Iocomotive Works should probably be doc@ted in the Emim. Figure 34. These (a) factory buiZdings and (b) eZaborate iron gate are-part of the Disston Saw Works compLex; a good subject for HAER documentation. A serious shortcoming of the current inventory of industrial sites is the lack of shipbuilding sites. Shipbuilding was me of the first industries to develop in the study area and historically has been one of the imst im- portant. This industry has declined dramatically in recent years, and the U.S. Naval Base in South Philadelphia and the Sun Ship Yard in Chester are all that remain. Future survey work should certainly focus on, at least, the documen- tation of this inportant Coastal Zone industry and its extant historic re- sources. FESIDENCES Chronological Subunits Three sweeping historical nynvnents have vitally affected housing in the Coastal Zone during the past 350 years: the medieval tradition, the Renais- sance, and the Industrial Revolution. Although a broad chronological develop ment in housing is perceivable, local factors, such as,living patterns, occu- pations, economic status, social fashion, and transportation, make it diffi- cult to clearly establish rigid tiTm limits for the three periods. c. 1650 1750: Colonial Am-xicans continued the n-e-dieval practice of treating residences as family work centers as well as family shelters. Residences included a craftsman's work- 151 addresses the Irvington Mills and the Viscose Mill in the 1936 TVWA Survey of Delaware County. All other resources were recorded as part of the Wind- shield Survey. As a result of the latter, the Baldwin Locomotive Works, the Irvingtm Mill and the Viscose Mill were selected for further documentation on the State Resource Survey forms. The Philadlephia Electric Company facil- ities were also selected for further documentation as part of an electrical facilities theme. Conclusions Some of these resources are not likely candidates for physical preserva- tion. One may be hard pressed, for exanple, to develop a new use for an abandoned generator facility. On the other hand, these resources do reflect the industrial development of the Pexmsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone and frequently provide examples of technological and engineering innovations. Documentation of these resources, either through registration or official surveys, such as the Historic American Engineering Record, should be an imipor- tant preservation consideration. Other resources, however, may lend themselves to new uses and their structures more easily preserved. Factory comple-les associated with resources such as the Disston Saw Works or the Viscose Mill may provide sheltered space for mre cantemporary industrial uses, given the Figure 33. This cruciform office buiZding is on the grounds of the BaZdwin Locomotive Works. It ap- pears to be eligibZe for Zisting in the NationaZ Register. appropriate context, or be adapted, for residential or ccauercial uses. The Viscose Mill is a -promising candidate for such adaptive or industrial reuse.. Arong the other industrial resources, the Irvington Mills (partially occupied) and the South Philadelphia Mifflin Street industrial buildings, as well as -the Disston Saw Works (also partially occupied) may also be candidates for reuse. overall, the following resources appear to be eligible to the National Register: Irvington Mills, Viscose Mill (as a possible component of a.Viscose Village Historic District), the cruciform office building at the Baldwin LOCO- motive works, and. the Mifflin Street buildings (which have been so designated 150 and the Viscose Mill in Maxcus Hook Borough are industrial remnants of two once flourishing industries in the study area. The Viscose CaTpany factory, first erected in 1905-09, grew to beccme the largest rayon mill in the world by 1936 and employed close to 5,000 workers. In addition to notoriety for its principal product' - locomotives - the Baldwin Locomotive Works became the world's largest rifle factory during World War. I and produced tanks during World War II. The site also includes a massive cruciform office building. Other important resources associated with the industry Study Unit include the Philadelphia Coke Ccrnpany ccmplex in the Bridesburg area of Philadelphia, whichis still in use; the Disston Saw Works in Tacony; and the Hudson Automobile Assembly Plant along the Schuylkill River. The South Philadelphia Resource Survey also recorded a cmiplex of industrial buildings at Mifflin and Vandalia Streets. Conditicm J, Integrity, Context The only major problem associated with the industrial resources inven- toried relates to their abandonment. The Viscose Mill and the Baldwin Loco- motive works have been idle for a number of years. The Viscose Mill, although in relatively good structural condition and of good.integrity, is beginning to show signs of neglect and suffers fran,some vandalism. While some of the Baldwin buildings are apparently leased as warehouses, the office building and most of the factory buildings are vacant, but in good condition. A sur- viving structure associated with an old grist and saw mill ccniplex in Bensalem Township near Poquessing Creek is in very poor condition. The Hudson Autcmo- bile Assembly Plant, on the other band,. has found. a new use as a market for office furniture Although its integrity has been -JI; AM affected by altering the d_mm- sions arid appearance of the plant, the new construction does not overwhelmingly detract from the old building. All of the Philadelphia Electric Corn- pany buildings are utilized and in good condition, as are most of the other industrial re- sources. The integrity of the Disstcn Saw %brks has been af- Figure 32. The Hudson ilutomobtle fected as some buildings have Assembly Plant at Market Street and been adapted to other uses, al- the Schuylkill River has found a new though the Disston Company use as "The Marketplace." still utilizes a number of the structures. With the exception of the Irvington Mills and the old mill site in Bensalem Township, the context of all these resources is relatively appro- priate for their use and historic significance. Status, Recognition, Protection The industrial bui-iding camplex on Mifflin Street has been do=Mted on the State Resource survey form as part of the South Philadelphia SurveYj, and the Viscose Mill was recorded in the Delau-,Ire County Survey Checklist. The only other official documentation of industrial resources in the study area 149 Structures: mills, shipyards; factories, warehouses, gas works, coal mines; iron forges, steel mills, oil refineries, oil storage; electricity generating and transmission facilities, nuclear power plants Arch. Features: Factories, warehouses; since c. 1945 steel, reinforced concrete, brick, concrete block; mostly one story; mostly flat roofs; Modern style with many large windows for factory and very few windows (sametines none) for warehouses. Electricity generating and transmission buildings: steel, reinforced concrete, brick; one to twelve-storieS; flat, gable shed roofs; large scale, variations of Classical or Georgian Revival styles. Resources Inventoried Eighteen resources were in- ventoried that are associated with the Industrial Study Unit. They range from the 18th century Irvington Mills along Ridley Creek to the huge 20th century Baldwin Iocomotive Works in Ed- dystaie Borough. An-industrial theme noted throughout the study area enconipasses the preponder- ance of electrical generating and transmission facilities present. Although six such sites were inventoried, there Figure 30. The Irvington MiZZ, along are many more (winch could pro- RidZey Creek in Chester began as a vide an interesting architec- grist and saw miZZ complex in the late tural md engineering history Z8th century. of the development of electrical in the Pennsylvania/belaware River Coastal Zone and the Delaware 17alley). The Baldwin Iocomotive Works in Eddystone Borough a) (b) 14-@ Figure 3Z.- The (a) Chester Power company generating facility along the Delaware River and (b) Philadelphia Vectric Compco@zy's Station A-2 along the Schuylkill are components of an extensive electrical network in the Coastal Zone. 148 c. 1640 - 1790: Much of the region's industrial activity was concentrated in or near the Coastal Zone. Crafts make up the industrial economy. Shipbuilding was thelargest manufacturing indus- try in the Zone, although iron-making was the priamry heavy industry in the colony as a whole. Structures: Craft shops, mills, shipyards, lumber yards Arch. Features: Shops, mills: brick, stone, frame; one to three-story shops, two to four-story mills; gable, gambrel, shed roofs; shops with Georgian proportions, domestic scale, often parts of houses; mills larger scale, usually near water source. Shipyard, lumber yard, iron plantation buildings: frame, stone, brick; one, two-stories; gable, shed roofs; Georgian proportions, utilitarian, some partially open. c. 1790 - 1840: Transition period between the craft industries and the steam-driven maufactories of the Industrial Revolution. Flour mills, distilleries, tanneries and cotton and woolen mills are developed, many along Philadelhia's waterways. Shipbuilding continued to prosper in the Coastal Zone. Structures: Craft shops, mills, shipyards,lumber yards, factories, warehouses Arch. Features: Factories, warehouses, gas works: brick, stone; one to four- stories; gable, shed,gambrel roofs; large scale, sometimes historical style details. c. 1840 - 1900: Iron and coal formed the foundation for the Industrial Revolution. Volumes of manufactured goods, based on cheap immigrant labor and steam power, led to personal fortunes for a few and changed ways of life for all. Structures: Mills, shipyards, lumber yards; factories, warehouses, gas works, iron forges, steel mills, oil refineries, oil storage, timber camps Arch. Features: Factories, warehouses: brick, iron, stone; one to six- stories; often larger scale, often historical style details, high stacks on factories. Oil-refinery buildings: brick, stone, frame: one, two stories; gable, flat roofs, utilitarian. c. 1900 - 1981: Massive technological change. Shift in energy from steam to electricity. New technologies produce new materials, lik the rayon of the Viscose Company. Large corporations formed by pulling anumber of manufacturing companies into a single entity. Period eventually saw the decline and deterioration of many of the Coastal Zone's aging industrial facilities and operations. 147 have been doc"nented for the Pennsylva nia Inventory, and the pier facilities, Baltimore and Ohio Fruit Exchange and the Pennsylvania Railroad Refrigerated Warehouse have been documented on Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey forms as part of the South Philadelphia Survey. In Delaware County, the granite ice breakers were recorded on the preli min ary survey checklist and will probab- ly also be subumtted on the State Survey forms as part of the Delaware County CaMonent of the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey. Although the Bristol Pike in Bucks County has been listed on the Pennsylvania Inventory, the sec- tions of the highway so included have not been clearly defined. The other sites were noted during the Windshield Survey and have not been adequately documented, although the bridges and the ferry houses have been selected for further documentation on the State Survey.forms as part of this Project. Conclusions The specialized uses associated with the develolmmt of many resources associated with the Transportation Study Unit may not be conducive to many reuse alternatives when such resources become obsolete. Such is the case for bridges and many railroad facilities. As a result, physical preservation may not always be a realistic objective for such resources, even though they my prove rather significant. The Port Richmond Terminal is such a resource in the Coastal Zone. Although there nay be few facilities and buildings at the Terminal that lend themselves to physical preservation, the Terminal does represent an important development in the history of the port facilities in Philadelphia and the coal industry an the Commonwealth, which should at least be documented. Other resources are not as limited. As mentioned, Pier 30 has been adaptively re-used as an indoor tennis court complex, and the Penn- sylvania Canal has proved to be a valuable recreational resource. Overall, the resources in this Study Unit appear to be fairly secure. r hi ade hi Ihe Fruit Exchange and Refrigerated Warehouse in South P 1 lp a may be likely candidates for creative reuse schemes if they should become threatened. The remaining pier facilities may be somewhat vulnerable unless thev can he adapted to new uses if the present uses are terminated. These piers and warehouses are ccniponents of a Delaware River Waterfront District pro- posed in the South Philadelphia Resource Survey and considered potentially eligible to the National Register. In addition, this project reccmnends that the granite ice breakers in Marcus Hook and the bridges, as part of a Coastal Zone bridge them, be considered eligible.-to the National Register. INDUSTRY Chronological Subunits Because industrial activity has been tied to developments in transportation and energy technology, industry developed over four historical periods that closely parallel those of transportation. The expected cultural-technological lag in industry should not be over-en#1asized. Although craft shops not unlike those of colonial times can still be found today, they neither form the founda- tion of the economy nor,constitute the major means of production; they are relics of an earlier era. The four historical periods and their associated structures and architectural features are listed below. 146 riverfront. They were built by the Cam-onwealth in 1785 to protect and support the wharves. The Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal, listed on the National Register, forms part of the western boundary of the Coastal Zone in Falls Township and Morrisville Borough. nvo ferry houses were also inventoried in this area of Bucks County. ra) b Figure 28. The (a) Burlington Bristol Bridge and the (b) B & 0 Railroad Bridge offer different approaches to acconmodating river traffic. Condition, integrity@ Context All of the bridges inven- toried are in good condition and still in use. They obvi- ously are in their appropriate context. Although most of the pier facilities inventoried ap- pear to be in good ccndition, their continued use as pier fa- ci-lities may be endangered due to changing technologies, main- ly the introduction of contain- erized shipping. Pier 30 is now being used as an indoor tennis facility. Pier 34, how- Figure 29. This ferry house at ever, is in poor condition and Delmorr Avenue an@ Gi@een Street in neglect has detracted from its MorrisviZZe is being restored. integrity. The tuo ships have been restored and are operated as museums. Anong the other buildings inven- toried, only the train station in Chester City has-begun to show signs of neglect. The ferry house at Delmrr Avenue and Green Street. in Morrisville Borough, although vacant, is in the process of being carefully restored. Status, Recogniticn, Protection The Barnegat Light Ship, the Moshulu, the Pennsylvania Railroad and Cal- ham Street Bridges'in Morrisville and the Delaware Division of the Pennsyl- vania Canal have all been extensively documented as part of their nomination to the National Register. The Ben Franklin Bridge and the Moshulu have been 145 Resources Inventoried Twenty-six historic resources associated with the Transportation Study unit were inventoried. Bridges dominate the list, as might be expected in this river-oriented environment. The resources include the Benjamin Franklin and Tacony@PalnWa Bridges in Philadelphia, the Burlington-Bristol Bridge scuth of Bristol Borough, and the Callioun Street and lower Trenton Bridges--in Morrisville Borough. The Calhoun Street and a Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge, also in Morrisville, are listed on the National Register. Three other railroad bridges were inventoried, two of which cross the Schuylkill River. Other railroad-related facilities include a small vacant train station on Jeffrey Street in Chester and the Baltizmre and Ohio Fruit Exchange buildings and the Pennsylvania Railroad Refrigerated Warehouse included -in the South Philadlephia Historic Resource Survey, The Port Richmond Terminal, another resource inven- toried as part of this effort, is a huge facility on Phi-ladelphia's waterfront developed by the Reading Railroad prirerily as a shipping terminal forPennsyl- vania's vast coal rescurces. In addition to the coal-related facilities, the site contains piers, warehouses, grain elevators, nuintenance buildings and garages, interconnected via an extensive track network. There is even a small chapel on the grounds to provide services for seauen during their stay at the terminal. ra) !AE, (b) Figure 26. This (a) coaZ Zoader and (b) granery are among the faciZities at the Port Richmond TerminaZ, deveZoped by the Reading Raitroad. Two ships have been includ- ed in this Study Unit -- the Moshulu, a four-ffasted bark used for cargo, and the Barnegat Light Ship, docked at Perm's landing in Philadelphia and listed on the National Register. Six Philadelphia piers - nudoers 84, 30, 34, 36, 38 and 40 - in- cluded in the South Philadelphia Historic Resource Survey are also associated with the Transporta- tion Study Unit. Amng the n-cre Figure 27. These "granite ice unique resources inventoried are the granite ice breakers along breakers," aZong the Marcus Hook a pier off the Marcus Hook riverfront, were buitt by the State in 1785. 144 c. 1845 - 1910: The age of the railroad. Pennsylvania Railroad chartered in 1,846. Canals and steanboats declined in inportance, but shipbuilding continued to expand into a major industry in the Coastal Zone. Structures: Roads,, bridges, ferry houses, docks, wharves; canals, canal locks, canal structures; railroads, railroad stations and terminals, repair and storage buildings, water and signal towers, Arch. Features: Stone-arch bridges, iron and steel truss bridges. Ferry houses as earlier. Canal buildings as earlier. Railroad stations: brick, stone, frame, iron; one or two stories; gable, hipped, flat, mansard roofs; range from early dorves- tic appearance (soaretims converted taverns) to picturesque massing and decoration. Railroad terminals: brick, stone, iron, steel; two to approx. twelve stories; gable, hipped, flat, mansard roofs; usually picturesque massing and decor- ation; usually attached train shed, often arched. Railroad repair and storage buildings: brick, stone, frame; one to two-stories; gable, shed, flat, arched roofs, range from small tool sheds to large roundhouses. c. 1910 1981: Automobiles and airplanes emerged to eventually dominate. Railroads reached their peak by 1915; after World War I, the mileage of tracks actually shrank. Structures: Roads, bridges, ferry houses, docks, wharves; railroads, railroad stations and terminals, repair and storage buildings; bus terminals, service stations,'repair garages, home garages, auto dealer shoumx)oms, highway rest facilities; airport facilities such as runways, hangars, control towers, waiting rooms; possibly extant but probably not in use, canal locks and structures. Arch. Features: Steel truss.and prestressed reinforced-concrete bridges. Bus terminals': usually utilitarian, after c. 1945 Modern style. Service stations: brick, concrete-block; one story; flat, hipped, gable roofs; before c. 1940 often small historical- style buildings; after c. 1940 usually larger enamel-clad box-lake buildings with one or two lifts. Garages: brick, concrete-block, frame; one story; flat, shed, gable roofs; usually small and utilitarian. Auto showroorm: steel, brick, concrete-block; usu ally one story; flat, arched roofs; large show windows, large paved lots. Airport facilities: before c. 1950 utilitarian, often,one story; after c. 1950 modern style, larger scale. 143 be eligible for inclusion cn the National Register. Overall, there were surprisingly few public accamrcdation resources inventoried, given the prob- able number of inns, taverns and hotels that would be expected within a busy port area. Future surveys that include the Pennsylvania/t)elaware River Coastal Zone should undoubtedly be directed to specifically examine the his- torical location of such resources in an effort to find and record remaining evidence of them. TRANSPORTATICN Chronological Subunits Modes of transportation have played a key role in the formulation of Pennsylvania's historical periods - from, the sail ships of the colonial periods to the autcwbiles of today. Although society may enthusiastically adopt new forms of transportation, the older forms do not immediately dis- appear. While ferries, for example, were a primary means of crossing Penn- sylvania's rivers in the colonial days, they continued their role in the Coastal Zone until recentlyin spite of the construction of numerous bridges. Tbstament to this is the only recent demise of the Chester Ferry in the . ea ly 1970's. Four chronological periods reflect new dev,-Iopnents in trans- portation technology and -structures in the- study area. c. 1640 - 1795: Rivers -onre Pennsylvania's highways and ships became a major industry along the Coastal Zone. Overland transportation was slow and expensive and ferries were the primary way to cross rivers. structures: Roads, milestones, bridges, ferry bouses, docks, wharves, Arch. Features: Stone-arch bridges, tan-ber-truss bridges (variations of king and queen-post trusses). Ferry houses: frame, brick, stone; dcmestic in scale and appearance. c. 1795 - 1845: Completion of the lancaster Turnpike in 1794 set off a boom of road building in Pennsylvania. Rivers became obstacles and bridge construction accelerated. Steamboats were de- veloped to navigate rivers, which,became important feeders to canals, which made possible the "coal rush" of the 1830's and 40's. Structures: Roads, milestones, bridges, ferry houses, docks, wharves; turnpikes, toll boxes, canals, canal locks, canal structures. Arch. Features: Stone-arch bridges, more sophisticated timber-truss bridges (Tbwn, R:>we, etc.). Ferry houses as earlier. Canal build- ings: usually frame, one to two stories, gable or shed roof, utilitarian. 142 entrance for the BP Oil Refinery, is also poor. The William Penn Inn is also vacant, but its condition and integrity are still good. (a) A' (b) Figure 24. (a) The WiZZiam Penn inn, vacant for a number of years, stiZZ has good integrity. (b) The Tun and Punchbowl (Spread EagZe) HoteZ has not faired as weZZ since its use as an inn was discontinued around Z900. Status, Recognition, Protection None of the public accan- modation resources have been officially recognized at the National or State. level. The Tun and Punchbowl Hotel was in- cluded in the Delaware County survey checklist and will prob- ably be included in the Penn- 0 Mo sylvania. Historic Resource Sur- vey. Although it is in poor condition, it dates frcin the Figure 25. The Dunk's Ferry Inn has 18th century and appears to have an interesting history. -It was not yet been officiaZZy recognized as ,also recognized in the 1936 an historic property. Part of Ne@sh- Works Progress AaTdnistraticn aminy State Park,it is being renova- Survey for Delaware County, ted as the.-park Supervisor's 'resi.-;;. which also included the Tinicum dence. Inn and the Riverside Hotel. Although the @brelton Inn and the Dunk's Ferry Ihn-are not officially recognized or protected as historic properties, their current omers appear synpathetic to their historic value and they are probably secure as residential uses. The Tun and Punchbowl and William Penn Inn are probably the least secure since they are currently vacant. Conclusions Since none of these resources have been registered or significantly dbcm- mented at even the local level, they need to be further researched and evalu- ated. Since the Tun and Punchbowl Hotel and the William Penn Inn are vacant and deteriorating, they are probably the rrost threatened and should reeeive priority treatment -to determine if they -are to be.,,_.protect,--_d.' _ Iwo properties, the Morelton Inn and the Dunk" s Ferry Inn, have been selected for further doc- umentation on the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey forms and appear to 141 Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame steel, reinforced concrete, aluminum, enamel; one story to low skyscrapers; gable, hipped, flat, mansard.roofs. Motels: collection of small cabins or rows of one to tun-story plain structures. Diners: usually clad in aluminum or enamel, many windows, but after c. 1950 chains have unique designs with brightly colored walls and/ or roofs and signs. Stadiums: before c. 1945 historical stylistic elements, after c. 1945 more functional designs and larger scale. Recreational buildings generally small, wood or metal, utilitarian. Resources Inventoried Seven resources were inven- toried in the Coastal Zone that are associated wil:h the Public 26, Accommodations Study Unit, the William Penn Inn in Falls Town- ship, the Dunk's Ferry Inn in Bensalem Township, the Moreltan Inn in northeast Philadelphia and the TmicLn Inn in Essing- ton. The Riverside Hotel, cur- rently operated as Walber'sRes- taurant, the Preston Diner, both in Essington, and the Tun and'. Punchbowl or Spread Eagle Hotel Figure 23. Erected on the ruins of in Marcus Hook Borough were al- Risdon's Tavern, the Morelton Inn (Z858) so inventoried. Among these, was a popuZar sumer resort. Renovated only the Riverside Hotel, the in 1948, it is currentZy used as a resi- Preston Diner and the Tinicum dence. Inn are still operated as "public accommodations. The others are either vacant or used as residences. Condition, InteELty, Context The Morelton Inn has been renovated as an elaborate riverfront residence and appears to be in very good condition. The integrity and context of the -Txm is still quite good, although interior renovations, which have included the addition of millwork fran the former China Retreat ransion in Bucks County, have probably affected the building's interior integrity. The context and integrity of the Dunk's Ferry Inn, now part of Neshaminy State Park, is also very good and the Inn is currently being renovated as a residence for the park s @sor u, The original structure of the Riverside Hotel is almost completely ob- scured with additions and alterations, and is currently used as a popular riverfront restaurant, Wal-ber's. Also still in use as public accommodations, the Preston Diner and the TinicLun Inn are in good condition and have good in- tegrity and context. The integrity of the vacant Tun and Punchbowl Hotel (later known as the Spread Eagle Hotel and the Seamen's institute) is very poor,, due to alterations and poor maintenance. Its context, adjacent to an 140 PUBLIC ACCOMDATIONS Chronological Subunits The structures and architectural features associated with three periods in the history of local Public Accamrcdations have been identified. As new structures have appeared, however, the old did not necessarily disappear. Roadside inns, for example, were pushed aside by the railroad-serviced hotels in the nineteenth century; yet tl@ clung to life and today are among the more popular rural dining spots. c. 1640 - 1820': Philadelphians congregated in taverns for exchange of gossip and news. Boarding houses filled the need for short- tenn living facilities in urban areas, inns and taverns offered food and lodging in rural areas. Theater emerged in late 18th century. Structures: Taverns, inns, boarding houses, theaters. Arch. Features: Bric@, stone, frame; two to four stories; gable, gambrel, hipped roofs; domestic in scale and form except theaters; theaters with classical details (columns, pilasters, pedi- ments, niches); open front porches often on inns. c. 1820 - 1910: Hotels replace taverns as the dominant fom of public accm- modation. Restaurants, beer gardens and amusement parks emerged, along with playing fields for baseball and cricket Structures: Taverns, inns, boarding houses, theaters; hotels, sa loons, restaurants, parks and park structures, sports fields, amusement parks. Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame, iron, steel. Hotels.: various histor- ical styles (usually variants of Renaissance Revival) , three to four-stories to low skyscrapers. Restaurants, saloons: usually domestic in scale or part of commercial buildings. Ammement and park structures often unique with rich ornament. c. 1910 1981: Automobiles and affluence appear to-have been th e strongest determinants of change. 1@btels, roadside diners and tourist homes serve the traveler. Growing demand for recreation facil- ities. Structures: Boarding houses, theaters; hotels, saloons, restaurants, parks and park structures, amusement parks; notels, tourist homes, diners, public golf links, public swimning pools, public tennis courts, playing fields, playgrounds, recreational centers. 139 built in 1800. Originally a quarantine station, it has not been used as such since 1880. New public uses have been developed for other resources. Fort Mifflin, the U.S.S. Olympia and Becuna, and the Cbmmandant's Quarters at the U.S. Naval Base have been restored as public museums. While the condition and integrity of these resources is quite good, Fort Mifflin is in need of main- tenance and has suffered from a recent fire. Anong the three parks, Penn Treaty Park and William Penn's landing (Chester) suffer most from contextual problems. The former is sandwiched between industrial uses along the river in Kensington and William Perm's Landing is situated ammg deteriorating and a idoned row houses near Chester's industrial waterfront. Both parks have graffiti and vandalism problem, Status, Recognition, Protection Governor Printz State Park, William Perm's Ianding, Fort.Mifflin, the Fairmount Waterworks, Frankford Arsenal, and the Marine Barracks and C=Tnan- dant's Quarters at the Naval Base are listed on the National Register, and all, are in public ownership. All are adequately protected and are threatened principally to the extent that future funding is not available for their maintenance and upkeep. Also on the National Register are the T-azaretto, the U.S.S. Olympia and the U.S,S, Becuna, which are in private ownership. The two ships are completely restored and operated as museums. The Iazaretto is operated as a seaplane base. Perm Treaty Park is on the Pennsylvania Inventory and is maintained by the City of Philadelphia. None of the remaining resources within this study have been officially recognized, although the firehouse on South water Street in Philadelphia is recorded in the Pennsylvania Historic Resources Survey. The Lighthouse Hall and the Thcmas Simpson School have been selected for further documentation on the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey forms as part of the Eddystone Works Housing District. The La:rdeners Point Pumping Station and buildings associated with the Thrresdale Filtration Plant have also been selected for similar documentation as part of a waterworks theme. Perhaps the most threatened of all the resources associated with this Study Unit is the South Water Street firehouse, since it is currently vacant, boarded and showing signs of deterioration. Conclusions All resources recorded as part of the Windshield Survey should be further documented and evaluated for significance. The waterworks facilities (Lar- deners Point and Torresdale) appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register as part of a waterworks them; and, the Thomas Simpson School and Lighthouse Hall appear eligible as part of an Eddystone Workers Housing Historic District (discussed below under the ResidercesStudy Unit). The South Water Street firehouse was similarly evaluated as eligible as part of a firehouse theme by the South Philadelphia:Survey, completed as part of the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Suvery. As most of the resources associated with the Public Institutions Study Unit are still in public ownership, official registration will usually be adequate to ensure their protection. 138 Resources Inventoried Parks, municipal buildings, schools, firehouses and military buildings are among the twentyw--1ive historic resources inventoried in the Pennsylvania/ Delaware River Coastal Zone associated with the Public Institution Study Unit. Three historic parks are amcng these: William Penn's Landing -in Chester City, Penn Treaty Park in Philadelphia, and Governor Printz State Park in TinicLun Township. All three are public parks which were created to commemorate sig- nificant historic events in the colonization of Pennsylvania. Governor Printz State Park is also an hTiportantarcheological site - Printzhof. School buildings inventoried include the Thcmas Sinpson School in Eddystone Boroughol the Linwood.Public School in lower Chichester and the Lester Public School in Tinicun Township. The Lester School is the only site stall-used as a public school. The Thomas Simpson School is operated as a fabric outlet store and the Linwood School is used as a municipal building. Military sites include Fort Mifflin, Frankford Arsenal, two buildings at the U.S. Naval Base in South Philadelphia, and two ships berthed at Penn's Landing on the Philadel- phia riverport, the U.S.S. Olympia and the U.S.S. Becuna. The Fairmount Waterworks on the Schuylkill River and the Thrresdale Filtration Plant are public waterworks facilities associated with the Public Institution Study Unit In addition, the lazaretto, an early quarantine staticn in Essington was inven- toried. It (a) Figure:22. The (a) Lardeners Point- Pumping Station and (b) a Victorian 'Gothic building on the grounds of the TorresdaZe Filtration Plant were inven- toried during the Windshield Survey. Canditicn, Integrity, Ccntext The condition of Public Institution resources generally reflects the degree to which these resources still serve their original functions. The Fairmount Waterworks is a prime example. Abandcned as a waterworks in 1911, it was used as the site for an aquarium until 1962 and has gradually deter- iorated since that time. Renewed interest in the works, however, has initiated studies of the site to develop preservation alternatives. New uses were devel- oped for the 'Ihcmas Simpson and Linwood Schools when their educational uses were discontinued early in this century. While both of these resources are in good conditicn, the integrity of the Linwood School has been adversely af- fected by subsequent alterations. The Laza in Essington has faired quite well, however, ccnsidering the variety of uses it has experienced since it was 137 c. 1890 - 1930: Humanitarian reform marks the beginning of this period. The penal code was revamped, correctional facilities for juveniles introduced. The state moves into areas pre- viously cared for by private charities, and a state-wide system of public education is established. Public facili- ties are increasingly provided , such as libraries, parks and utilities. Military expansion includes construction of arsenals and naval bases. Structures: Court houses, town halls, customs houses, jails or prisons, almshouses, ioost offices, inmigration quarantine stations, military installations; insane asylums, hospitals, work- houses, water works, gas works, libraries, schools. Arch. Features: Brick, stcne, iron, steel; before c. 1900 two to eight stories, after c. 1900 one story to skyscrapers; gable, hipped, mansard, flat, dared roofs; various historical styles. Court houses, tam halls, custans houses, alms- houses, insane asylum, hospitals, libraries, post offices: Classical Revival, Renaissance Revival, Second Empire styles most cannon, Romanesque Revival c. 1880 - c. 1900, Georgian Revival after c. 1900. Priscns: usually Gothic Revival style, sometimes Egyptian or Renaissance Revival styles, high rock-faced and rusticated stone walls, battle- mented towers common. Water and gas.works: Classical, Re@ssance., Gothic Revival styles, reservoirs for water works, smoke stacks and reservoir tower for gas works. schools: usually plain two-story elementary schools with Classical, Renaissance or Gothic details; two to four-story high schools with mre fully expressed historical styles. c. 1930 1981: Govenunent moved away from Zaissez faire and toward the welfare state in response to the Great Depression. County boards of assistance were authorized by the State Emergency Relief Board in 1932. Federal government's presence was felt through new eccnanic and social programs. New buildings were required to handle the increased paperwork and to replace obsolete and overcrowded structures. Structures: Court houses, tam halls, custams houses, jails or prisons, post offices, military installations, insane asylums, hos- pitals, uorkhouses, water works, libraries, schools; govern- nent administrative offices, public housing, recreational centers; possibly extant but probably not in use, inmigra- tion quarantine station., Arch. Features: Brick, stone, steel, reinforced concrete; one story to sky- scrapers, rnostly flat roofs. Before c. 1945 Art Deco and variants of Classical or Georgian Revival-styles; after c. 1945 nostly Modern style. 136 College, the Cokesbury Methodist Episcopal Church and St. Martin's Church have received further documentation on the PMC survey form as part of this study. The Bristol College, the State in Schuylkill Men's Club and the Colum- bus Country Club also received further documentation. Conclusions All of the resources identified solely by the WPA Survey and Windshield Survey should be further researched and documented. The Cokesbury Methodist Episcopal Church and St. Martin's Church were noted in the Delaware County Survey checklist and will probably be recorded in the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey. While most of these resources appear to be relatively secure, Some appear likely to be adversely affected by further alterations, specifically the Columbus Country Club. Given the setting of St. Raphael's School amid the Eastwick urban renewal target area in the Meadows, its future survival may be scnia-whiat threatened. Since the main section of Bristol College is rapidly deteriorating, its physical preservation may be jeopardized unless action is taken in the near future to stabalize the building. The, College, along with the State in Schuylkill and the Columbus Country Club appear to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register. The CDkesbury Methodist Episcopal Churchand St. Martin's Church, in Marcus Hook, also appear- to be eligible, either individually or as ccuiponents of the Old Market Square Historic District, previously discussed under the Mercantilism/Cmimrce Study Unit.. PUBLIC INSTI=CNS Chronological Subunits Since 1681 fundamental governmental responsibilities in Pennsylvania have been divided. among municipalities (townships, boroughs, cities) , counties and the province or, after 1776, the cammonwealth and the national government. The formation of these political jurisdictions, together with the historical expansion of govenunental responsibilities, have produced a variety of public institutions. Accordingly, public institution development in Pennsylvania can be classified according to the following three historical periods: c. 1640 - 1810: Basic governmental responsibilities, such as making and enforcing laws, adjudicating disputes, and providing for common defense, are established. Structures: Court bouses,'toun halls, customs houses, jails or prisons, almshouses, post offices, immigration quarantine stations, military installations. Arch. Features: Brick, stone; two or three stories; gable, hipped roofs; Georgian proportions and details, especially cupola. Forts with star plan and embankment s. 135 Condition, Integrity, Context With the exception of the main section of Bristol College, all of these resources appear to be in relatively good condition. Tun wings of the formr Bristol College building are now- used as apartments. The main section (White Hall), however, is abandoned and in a rather ad- vanced state of deterioration. St. Mxirtin's Church, which had been damaged by a nearby ship explosion in 1975, is still in ILI Tir the process of being repaired. The integrity of one of the St. Vincent's School 'buildings has 6.1 been moderately affected through alterations to the main entrance. The integrity of the cottages Figure 20. Bristol Cofzege-('c'.Z83'5) was at the Columbus Country Club is built on the grounds of the former China fair because of the alterations Retreat. It has been used as a coZZege,, made by their respective owners. military school and Civil War hospitaZ. In one case, an original cvttacft Th. e main section is vacant and deteriorating. was recently removed and replaced with a much larger structure, The main club building is a renovated farmhouse which has been extensively altered with a rear addition, enclosed front porch and aluminum siding. The integrity of the cottages will likely continue to be affected by alterations and routine re- pairs. The context of most of the Private Institution resources does not ap- pear to detract from them, with the exception of St. Raphael's School in East- wick. The context of all resources in this area of southwest Philadelphia has been dramatically changed by the demolition of close to 3,000 residential and cowmercial buildings since the early 1950's as part of the Eastwick urban re- newal project. Status, Recognition, Protection Gloria Dei Church has been exten- sively documented. It is on the National Register of Historic Places and the Pennsylvania Inven- J tory, and is listed in HABS. St. Martin's Church has also been ex- A. tensively documented for a Nation- 41 OR al Register nomination and is listed in the Pennsylvania Inven- tory. The Swedish Burial Ground so on the Pennsylvania Inven- is al tory and is identified with a . . . . . . . . P124C historic site marker. The Figure 2Z. The Kensington Methodist Kensington Methodist Episcopal Episcocal Church is on the PhiZadeZ- Church is registered with the phia Historical Commission Register Philadelphia Historical Commission. of Historic Places. All of the remaining Delaware County sites were listed in the WPA Survey, but receive no official recognition. The other sites in Philadelphia and Bucks Counties were identified during the Windshield Survey and receive no official recognition or protection. Bristol 134 Arch. Features: Brick, stone, laminated wood, steel, reinforced concrete; one to five stories; gable, hipped, flat, peaked roofs Churches: Georgian or Gothic Revival styles or gothicizedd variants of Modern style. Synagogues: Modern style, sountimes suggestive of massive.Ancient Middle Eastern ..,architecture. Schools, social service institutions: nxx1ern style buildings with mny windows; schools one or two stories; hospitals two to ten stories. Cultural in- stitutions: before c. 1950 often with classical motifs; after c. 1950 usuallyvariants of Modern style. Resources Inventoried Sixteen historic resources Figure Z8. St. associated with the Private In- Martin's Church in stitution Study Unit were inven- Marcus Hook is built toried in the Coastal Zane. on a si@;e donated by Seven of these are churches, in- Walter Martin in cluding the fmmus Gloria Dei, Z699. The cemetery aZ or Old Swedes Church, in South has been in continu Philadelphia. A number of.pri- use since. The pre- vate social clubs were also re- sent structure is corded: the State in.Schuylkill built on the founda- Men's Club in Bensalem Tounship; tions of two earlier the Columbus Country Club, also structures (Z702 and in Bensalem Township; the Quaker Z 74 5). City Gun Club in the Holmesburg secticn of Philadelphia; and the Corinthian Yacht Club in Tinicum Township, which is on sto, the site of the Swedish Fort Gothenburg. (See Archeological Resources.) Bri College in Bensalem Township, St. Raphael:ls School in the Eastwick section of Philadelphia and St. Vincent's School in the Tacony sectian, recorded during the Windshield Survey, are private schools associated with the Private Institutions Study Unit. The Swedish Burial Ground in Chester, the oldest Swedish burial ground in the United States, is also associated with the Private Institution Study Unit. 7AN (a) (b) -Lai Figure Z9. (a-) The State in Schuylkill is a PhiZadeZphia-Men's Club. This build- ing was moved fromits former site aZong.the Schuylkill River. .(b) Cottages are part of the Columbus -Country CZub, associated with the Knights of Columbus. Both sites are along the riverfront in Bensalem Township. 133, with decorative details, possibly cupola, probably interior meeting hall. Fire companies: plain style, equip- ment doors, probably stone name plaque on front. c. 1810 1930: Reform movement establishes new secular institutions to rehabilitate the deviant and rescue the dependent. Sane churches formed their own benevolent associations to help the needy. Reform zeal was exhausted by the end of the Civil War, but institutions already in place continued. Structures: Meeting houses, churches, synagogues, burial grounds, schools, almshouses, hospitals, libraries, scientific societies, volunteer fire companies, as above; cemeteries, cemetery gatehouses and chapels, asylums, institutes, lyceums, concert halls, clubs, fraternal lodges, orphanages, youth organizations (YMCA, YMHA, CYO), settlement houses, hospices, soup kitchens. Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame, iron, steel; usually one to four stories', some early-20th century buildings five to fifteen stories; gable, hipped, flat, mansard, dcmed roofs; larger scale and proportions, historical styles. meeting houses: plain style, some early-20th century examples with Georgian Revival proportions and details (tower, spire, pointed- arch windows, stained glass, pinnacles, buttresses, tran- septs, apses), sometimes Renaissance Revival proportions and details (round-arch windows, dome, pilasters, portico, corbels). Synagogues: often Egyptian Revival style or Ancient Middle-Eastern variant with heavy proportions. Schools:--- plain style, cupola, probably entrance pavi-lions; after c. 1890 high schools sometimes with Gothic or Georgian Revival details. Social service institutions (almshouses, asylums, etc.): large scale, wings, entrance pavilions, sometimes pediments and/or domes; Renaissance Revival style most popular. Cultural institutions (institutes, libraries, etc.): Classical or Renaissance Revival styles most popular, often pedimented pavilions, sorretimes dams. Fire companies, clubs, lodges: styles range from vernacular to highly decorated historical styles. Youth organizations, settle- ment houses, hospices: often in altered dwellings of any historical style; after c. 1900 Y's often in two-stoxy Georgian Revival building, c. 1930 1981: Depression destroyed or damaged many private institutions. Government agencies were created to absorb many earlier functions of benevolent associations. Sam institutions proved durable and expanded once prosperity returned after WWII. Yacht clubs, country clubs and volunteer fixe com- panies grew in importance in the post-war period. Structures: Sam as those listed above. 132 Status, Recognition, Protection The two farmhouses were recorded during the Windshield Survey. The farmhouse and barn at State Road and Kings lane have been selected for further documentation on the PHMC survey form. Neither site had been pre- viously documented. The Bleakley House, commonly known as the "Cannonball" Faxmhouse, is on the National Register, the Pennsylvania Inventory and the Philadelphia Historical Cbmission Register of Historic Places, and is dmnm@nted in the Historic American Building Survey. Conclusions The industrialization and urbanization of the Coastal Zone has displaced virtually all agricultural uses. Of the sites inventoried, only the farm- house and barn at State Road and Kings Lane are significant representations of the Agriculture Study Unit. This site appears to be eligible for the National Register due to its good integrity and context, and as one of the few remaining agricultural historic resources in the. Coastal Zone. It should be further researched and documented, and could be protected through local zoning and recognition techniques. The future appears d3-Tn for the Bleakley House, which has suffered the lost of a wing fran its recent move and is in an advanced state of deterioration. Although it could be restored at considerable expense, its remote setting among the infill and marshes adjacent to the International Airport and city sewage facilities provides a rather poor context. PRI= INSTI=ONS Chronological Subunits Private institutions have often survived for long periods of time; sometimes outgrowing their early quarters. That survival has resulted in their adaptation to broad cultural changes, which can serve to provide a structure with which to subdivide the study unit into three distinct his- torical periods. c. 1740 - 1810: Omirches were the most numerous and active of private insti- tutians. They were responsible for nearly all educational and social service institutions. Structures: Meeting houses, churches, synagogues, burial grounds, schools, almshouses, hospitals, libraries, scientific and guild societies, volunteer fire companies. Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame; one to three stories; gable, hipped, gambrel.roofs; generally Georgian proportions and details. Meeting houses: plain style, rectangular plan. Churches: some with touvers or steeples, usually aisle-and-nave plan, round-arch or rectangular windows. Schools: generally small .and plain, perhaps a cupola., Almshouses, hospitals: large scaled (by 18th century standards), probably cupola and entrance pavilion. Libraries, societies: usually enriched 131 Resources Inventoried--- Cnly one site was noted during the Wihdshield Survey which is exclu- sively associated with the Agriculture Study Unit: a fannhouse and bank barn alcng State Road in Bensalem Township-. Another farmhouse, also in Bensalem Tbunship, was inventoried further south along State Road, near the Philadelphia city line, but due to its poor context it was not categorized as an agricultural resource. 7he Bleakly FarmImuse, wtuch is listed on the Naticnal Register, has been moved to a site adjacent to Fort Mifflin. Both the Bleakly House and the second Bensalem Township farmhouse are considered, and my, in fact, be, more directly associated with the Residences Study Unit. Conditim, Integrity, Context id a ot6d BLZAKLY. Figure Z6. The BZeakZYL Farmhouse, on the NationaZ Register, has Lost most of its originaZ spZendor. Moreover, its historicaZ context i's drasticaZzy effected by its recent removaZ to a site adjacent to Fort MiffZin. The farmhouse and.bank barn are in very good conditicn and of good integrity. Mri addi- tion, the rural setting in a small field east of State Road provides an appropriate agricul- 77777, tural cmtext. The condition and integrity of the other single farmhouse is good, but-it Figure Z7. This farmhouse aZong has lost most of its agricultur- State Road in BensaZem Township is al context. The Bleakly House is in very poor condition and in good condition and possesses much possesses little of its original of its originaZ integrity. A bank- barn is Located just south of the integrity. ..@ site. 130 c. 1850 1900: Increased agricultural specialization, farmers develop dairy herds or raise produce for canneries and urban con-- sumption. Technological innovations range from specialized steel plows and seed drills to reapers and threshers. Farm organizations formed to disseminate technological information and develop social contacts. Structures: Farmhouse, barn, silo, privy, springhouse, smkehouse, mill, carriage house, stables, corn crib, pig pen; tenant house, equipment storage, chicken coop, icehouse, also possible. Arch. Features: Faxnftuse: brick, frane, stone; usually two or two-and- one-half stories, complex of roofs and wings, largeriin scale than earlier houses; usually with historical stylis- 'tic features (ci ss-gable, round or pointed arches, porches with turned and sawed elements, decorative bargeboards, bay windows). Barn: frame, brick, stone; gable roof with cross-gable, larger scale than earlier. c. 1900 1945: Mechanizaticn, particularly the gasoline-powered tractor, made over-production and reduced prices a real danger. Farm organizations are transformed, into political pressure groups- Structures: Farmhouse, barn, silo,, rrd-l-khouse,, privy, springhousef stables, corn crib, pig pen, tenant house, equipment storage (possibly garage), chicken coop; smokehouse, mill, carriage house, icehouse less likely in use. Arch. Features: Farmhouse: brick, frame, stone; usually two or two-and- one-half stories, porch with sawed trim before c. 1920. Barn: frame, brick, stone; usually two stories, gambrel roof, wooden silo, open wing for barnyard, larger stanchion area. c. 1945 - 1981: Urbanization has taken over and the number of farms and farm- ers on the Coastal Zone has dwindled. Structures: Farntnuse, barn, silo, milkhous e or cooling equipment, corn crib, pig pen, equipment storage (including garage), chicken coop; gasoline tank; possibly extant, but probably not in-use. privy, springhouse, smckehouse, carriage house, stables, tenant house. Arch. Features: Farmhouse: brick, stone or frame with shingle, clapboard, aluminum siding; one or two stories, sometimes split level; usually low gable roof, no porch, attached garage. Barn: concrete-block, frame: rigid-arch roof, rectangular plan, metal silo. 129 warrants their continued Pro- tection via the Philadelphia Historical C=mission Register of Historic Places. Their use as residences should not con flict with their architectural qualities. The three warehouse buildings in Philadelphia ap- pear to be in good condition and their large size lends them potential for a variety of imaginative reuses. Figure Z5. This warehouse at Vine Street and DeZaware Avenue is pro- posed for reuse as a residentiaZ condominium. AMICULTM Chronological Subunits Like agriculture elsewhere, agriculture in the Study Area has been dramatically affected by technological change-'---As a result, technological innovation was regarded as the major factor in determining the four historical periods of the Agriculture Study Unit. These four periods, or chronological subunits, presented in detail in the Background Section of this report, are reflected in the type of structures and related architectural features which would have been found on the local farmstead, These inter-relationships a as follows: c. 1650 - 1850: Self-sufficient family farms. Tools locally made by farmers and blacksmiths. Farmers constituted the majority of the local population. Structures: Farmhouse, barn, privy, springhouse, smokehouse, mill, carriage house, stables, corn crib, pig pen. Arch. Features: Fandxxise: brick, frame, stuccoed stone, log; usually twv stories, gable or gambrel roof vernacular style, Georgian proportions. Barn: log, frame, stone; usually two stories, gable roof, bank barn with forebay and sometimes squat stone columns, tripartite interior configuration. Mill: stone, brick, frame; usually three stories, gable roof, few windows; near a stream. Springhouse: usually stane, low one story; gable, shead, or jerkin-head roof; suhmrged (lowered) floor; usually near small brook. Outbuildings: usually wood. 128 Figure Z3. Z20-Z26 Richmond Street These storefronts are on the PhiZa- deZphia HistoricaZ Commission's Register of Historic PLaces. an MAN I W, lv 7,i Status, Recognition, Protection The storefronts along Rich- nmd Street in the Kensington Figure Z4. The W0Zfe BuiZding in section of Philadelphia are the :Cheater City has only resources which currently exceZZent architec receive any degree of pretec- p 'tur aZ integrity., tion. They are registered with but rather poor con- the Philadelphia Historical text due to adjacent Commission and, as such, any demoZition. proposed development =pacting these resources is subject to ission review. Historical Cam-L In addition, only the Richmond Street storefronts are official- ly documented to any extent. The Old Market Square District is partially documented in the Delaware County Survey and the TVMA Survey. Market Square and the Wolfe Building have been selected for further documentation on the PHMC survey forms. Conclusions All of these resources should be further documented, particularly their historical background.. Both the Wolfe Building and Old Mzrket Square 'appear to be eligible' for the National Register; the Wolfe Building for its -1 @ I exceptIonal- architectural integrity and Old Market Square for its significance as an early n-arket place and as an iuq@ortant elenent in the emergence of the Market Hook town plan. The Mill Street Business District is a potential "Main Street" historic district. Since the integrity of this district is relatively good, with no major buildings missing, minor facade inprovements could do much to inprove the architectural and aesthetic qualities of the streetscape. Althouth the R3-Chnmd Street storefronts are no longer part of an inportant A -IT il- commercial area, the integrity of sonne of the buildings is very good and 127 structures: Shops, stores, warehouses, market houses, grain elevators, department stores, chain stores, shopping centers, road- side stores. Arch. Features: Brick, stone, frame, steel, reinforced concrete; before c. 1945 sane Art Deco Style; after c. 1945 Modern (Inter- national) Style featuring box-like buildings with emphasis on skeletal structure and glass or solid walls, advertising signs sometiines part of building, a-, -conditioning especial- ly after c. 1950; one-story roadside stores often with unique designs. Resources Inventoried Seven historic resources were inventoried which are associated with the Mercantilism/Comrerce Study Unit. These includethe Old Market Square District in Marcus, Hook Borough, the Wolfe Building in Chester City and a number of warehouses and old storefronts in Philadelphia. The Mill Street Business Dis- trict in Bristol Borough is a potential historic district which was inventoried during the Windshield Survey. The old Market Square is the oldest commercial resource, and the site of a former market area originally chartered in 1699. The Mill Street Business Dis- Figure 12. MiZZ Street Business trict is Bristol's "Main Street!' District, Bristol Borough, a potential and consists of mostly mid- and "Main Street" Historic District. late-19th century stores and shops. The warehouses in Phila- delphia date from the later 19th and early 20th centuries. Conditiai, Integrity, Context Basically, all resources are in good condition and have good integrity. The Wolfe Building has exceptional integrity, but only fair context, due to extensive demolition in the nearby area. The Market Square District, repre- sentative of the Marcus Hook market area from 1699 to approximately 1870, has little remaining evidence of the original market, but is situated among some interesting residential, commercial and institutional buildings. Some of the Philadelphia warehouses appear to be vacant and the Richmond Street area is no longer a vibrant commercial area. 126 c. 1650 - 1790: Commerce is dominant economic force. Stores and shops offer a wide variety of merchandise, and merchants a predominant colonial leaders. Structures: Shops, market sheds (shambles). Arch. Features: Frame, brick, stone; two to four stories; gable, gambrel, shed roofs; domestic in scale and appearance; usually shops in dwellings or dwellings converted to shops and warehouses. c. 1790 1880: Specialized merchandise and enclosed market houses. Mer- chants organize formal exchange companies. Structures: Shops, market sheds, as above; stores,warehouses, market housest grain elevators. Arch. Features: Frame, brick, stone, iron; before c. 1830 domestic scale .with more attenuated proportions, two to five stories, bulk shop windows, gable or gambrel roofs; after c. 1830 commercial appearance with three to eight stories, shop front with show windows, flat roof (shallow shed or low gable roof behind heavy cornice); after c. 1850 often his- torical revival style, sometimes iron elements (shop front, cornice,.lintels, shutters),-skylights, water closets, sub-cellar for furnace. c. 1880 - 1930: Department stores and five-and-dine chain stores emerged and food markets were organized into large chains like A & P. Small independent-grocers joined associations to reduce costs. Structures: Shops, market sheds, stores, wmrehouses, market houses, grain elevators, as above; department stores,chain stores. Arch. Features: Brick,. stone, frame, steel, reinforced concrete; cammer- cial appearance, larger scale than ea lier,,often histori- cal revival style and elegant interiors; after c. 1900, skyscrapers in comnercial centers. C. 1930 1981: Automobile had greatest inpact. Merchants after MII moved into large shopping centers. Commercial strips devel- oped along main roads with a variety of roadside architec- ture@designed to compete for the attention of passing motorists. Main Street merchants face crisis as shoppers patronize malls. Wealth and pouler of merchants is diffused. 125 ;yD,7.aapazj avf aaD qq saoanos a7d-bq2nw wo -Z; aoanoS) -S,97fiqS P= SPOS-zad rc kBo?ouoazjj -71 iqan-6@j SVM-4 OE6T et=BPCW 4-W OV6T H SZ6T coaa :;..w SKT@-@OWT OTKas Tmvrzv=a:ga OC6TH OWT TP-TAOU Urlmdue OV6Tf---IST6T TuTwTco MsTueds OKTI 006T STPATAOU POT.TDd OZ6Tf---iOD6T qTAqs owTezi OZ6Tf---1968T S7FATAGH T=Tssem s souessTeum OV6T 1 06ST sTrQs PzTebune OZ&Tf----iDUT 8:@-w 3m-se OMT@@068T DUPAT .TTns &=USO q42r*WU 006T"0881 omzv umo 006T@@OSST OTAS arbum oz6TI OLOT TQ&TAQU TBTU7M 006T@-@OLST erftouawa urrmop2vqum 06M-40LST uem=q--rM 06M-@OLOT WPM 568*-@098T ZeTrcm=A 06STF --- 4-098T 9TAS *=n =Uwm 06M-@0981 =Tdaz PUM)OS 068TI 098T enbsmiw4mD 098TH OSST u3bezoo eql 006TI 'OtST TPATMW atseumma S68TI OUT invueT Te:;l 088TI ocal VMA twTTV4I 068TI OV8T TPATAW SOUPBSTMUGH 09ST F----4 OUT TFAMMU -"Ttr . 4M I OSSU-1 OEST TPATfMH UFr4dUa 098V MT .*aa2D OCSTI OUT VETOTemem UBMCH TPATAVJ LRDWRiW Dmi @08LT TomVel OOSTI -4004r uro=BD UeTB=SD OEBU POL'T tp:lrc BE91 MUTTfm ATMM .3 qrrpwts Sa=w/smnm Tom= 086T 006T OOST OUT O"T -.2pm OAT OL 06T Od6-1 dn 04-1 011,91 0-&T 4T 56@T d9T CAT OAT 009T 006T OAT 609T suopraT4m oT Tqnci 026T oyal OAT SUDT GWAT-M BA-r o T OSST Od9T G=14Tro=[&v ACE OAT OAT OL 049T */dErrTwjm=w . HIS Study Unit Analysis discusses the-implications of the applica- tion of the Resource Protecticn Planning Process for historic resources of' the study. area with the context of the eight Study Units. It is concerned with the extent to which each Study Unit is represented by known or potential historic resources in the Coastal Zone and identifies the types of resources, their condition, integrity and context. In addition, the overall preservation status of the resources associated with each Study Unit is re- viewed to determine their degree of recognition, documentatim and protection and draw preliminary conclusions with respect to potential future preservation efforts. Each..Study Unit is discussed below. A brief description of the chrono- logical themes within each unit is presented followed by a list of structures and architectural features that are representitive of these themes. This , I provides an accounting of the historic resources associated with each cbrono- logical them that could theoretically be found in the Study.Area. (The histor- ical background for each Study Unit and its chronological subunits is dis- cussed earlier in the report under "Basis for Organizing Resource Information. It also provides a resource baseline with which to determine the extensiveness or completeness of the existing resource inventory as it relates to the preser- vatim of resources which document the developmental history of the Study Area.. Figure 11 is a Chronology of Architectural Periods and Styles which relates the design features with the chronological themes associated with each Study Unit. The use of this schematic outline in conjunction with the archi- tectural features and structures listed with each Study Unit chronological them enables one to mre readily understand the stylistic context of the resources which may be found in the Coastal Zone Study Area; or, conversely, to more readily assess resources that have already been inventoried. The historic resources inventoried in the Coastal Zone that are associated with the respective Study Units are then discussed, addressing the general condition, integrity and context of these resources and their preservation status, level of recognition and degree of protection. Conclusions are then presented which outline the general state of historic preservation and protec- tion for resources in each Study Unit and briefly discuss possible preservation objectives and techniques that may be used to insure appropriate consideration of such resources in the future. bMRCAN=SM/CCMMERM Chronological Subunits The Mercantilism/CaTrnerce Study Unit is subdivided into four chronological subunits.. They represent significant historical develoErEnts in cmuercial activity that may have been manifested over time in the built environnLent. The structures (resources) and architectural features that.are likely to be associ- ated with chronological units are as follows: 123 Figure 38. These houses dZong Main Street are within the proposed,TuZZey- town Historic District. )E WAY '11' ITTTTTTTT T1111 P (a) (b) (c) Figure 39. (a) Fruithouse Wharf, (b) the DeZZ and (c) Chestnut Wood are among the numerous riverfront mansions in Bucks County. The Chestnut Wood house is one of two identicaZ houses buiZt on a4jacent properties in 1853. Condition, Integrity, Context The condition and integrity of the residential resources inventoried reflects their respective owner's ability to maintain them and/or the extent to which the owner's perceive their architectural and historical qualities. The publically-owned Bleakley House, for example, is in poor condition and losing its integrity because the City of Philadelphia lacks the funds to have it appropriately restored, but not because the city is unaware of the farmhouse's historical value. On the'other hand, many of the owner-occupied hames within Viscose Village are well-maintained and in excellent condition but have lost much of their integrity to inappropriate additions, alterations and the application of contemporary siding materials because the:ix owners are generally unaware of the value of this relatively unique historic resource. In general, the residential resources are in good condition, and although dKI many my have been inappropriately altered or maintained, their integrity is not entirely lost, and in most cases, can be restored . Of notable exception a the residential resources inventoried in Chester City, which include tun 155 groups of row houses. Surprisingly,, these houses retain much of their original. integrity due to lack of maintenance. Like most of the inventoried residential areas in Chest7er-,, these resources are in very poor neighborhoods and typically owned by absentee landlords. An official public policy of derm- lition and industrial use in these areas has provided little incentive for the property own- ers to invest in maintenance. The workers' Housing District in nearby Eddystone Borough con- sists of row housing that has generally been well-maintained and also has good integrity. The only apparent significant @Iigure 40. This Queen Ann style house problem in this district is in the TuLleytown District is being that a few of the houses have rehabilitated. been abandoned. The individual properties within the Viscose Village District are in good conditicn and, while many have been significantly altered, their integrity has not been canpletely lost and, in many cases, can be restored. The row houses known as Trainer's Bank are similarly in good condition,, but inappro- priately repaired and maintained. Houses within the Tulleytown District in Bucks County are all in good condition and many have very good integrity. None of these districts - Tulleytown, Viscose Village, Eddystone, Trainer's Park - have any significant intrusions of major newex or inappropriate build- ings or land uses. Most of the individual site residential resources inventoried are also in good candition and smy_-, such as the John Morton Hcmestead, the Morton Mortonson House and the Bartram House, have been completely restored. A" _!j Figure 4Z. The Morton Mortonson Figure 42. This carriage house in (c. Z750) House has been compZetely TorresdaZe is now used as a recrea- restored. owned by Norwood Borough, tionaZ facility for a condominium it is Listed in the Pennsylvania project developed on the grounds. Inventory. Other residential resources have been renovated for non-residential uses. The Bacon Stonorov House in Torresdale is used as an office. A carriage house tie@ "__ J 4- 6111, reused as a recreation facility and a former riverfrant mansion reused as a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center were also inventoried in Thrresdale. None of 156 these reuses has adversely affected,the condition or :integrity of their respective buildings. Although currently in good condition, many of the larger houses and mansions may similarly be adaptively reused as it becon-es economically unfeasible to continue their use as single fmnily residences. The context of the urban residential resources - Viscose Village, Eddystone, Tulleytown and other sites originally developed within an urban setting - is generally good, whereas the context of scoe of the forrmr rural residences and country homes is only fair. The housing inventoried in Chester is an urban exceptionsince the context of these resources is being adversely affected by nearby demolition. The farmhouse inventoried in Bensalem Tbvm- ship along State Road just north of Philadelphia has been adversely affected by subsequent hig[iwmy and high density residential development. The carriage house and the Baccn-Stomnov House inventoried in Thrresdale are adjacent to recent condominium developments and the other large hcmes along the Tbrresdale riverfront are similarly threatened. The former urban environment of the re- sources inventoried in Eastwick has been effectively remved through urban renewal activity. The Bleakly House has one of the Coastal Zone's mre unique contextual problems since it has been removed from its former location on Penrose Avenue and currently rests on a tenr-orary foundation adjacent to Fbrt Mifflin. Status, Recognition, Protectim six of the residential resources-inventoried are on the National Register: the Morton Homestead, the Bleakley House, the Bartrain House and Gardens, Glen Poerd, Andalusia and Pennsbury Manor. The restored Morton Mortonson House and Blackbeard's Mistress' House in the Old Market Square District of Marcus Hook are listed in the Pennsylvania Inventory. The Mortonson House is WJ 7.7 , WLI ON, TnAM__ Figure 43.- A pZacque instaZZed by the former PennsyZvania HistoricaZ Commission an the second row house from the corner indentifies it as the site of the former Robert Wade House where WiZZiam Penn spent his first night in PennsyZvania. also documented in the HABS. The Essex House (Robert Wade House) site, adja- cent to William Penn's. Ianding in Chester, is recognized by a plaque installed by the fozmer Pennsylvania Historical Commission on a row house that now occu- pies the site. The extant Widow Price House in Trainer is similarly recognized with a plaque installed by the Daughters of the American Revolution, The Bacon- Stonorov House is on the Philadelphia Historical Ccmmission Register of Historic 'OV - (a) (b Figure 44. This (a) Art Moderne Style house in Essington and the (b) Bacon- Stonorov House are more contemporary residential resources. The Bacon- Stonorov House is on the Philadelphia Historical Commission Register of ::Historic Places. Places and eight houses along Route 13 near Wheat Sheaf in Falls Tbwnship have been preliminarily inventoried for the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey in Bucks County. Viscose Village, the Eddystone Printworks Workers' Housing District and the Tulleytown District have been further documented on the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey form for this project; as have the mansions and country hones in Bucks County and the Tbrresdale area of Philadelphia as part of a riverfront estate them. The Widow Price House and Viscose Village were identified in the Delaware CoLmty Survey Checklist and will probably be docu- mented in the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey in Delaware County. In addition, the John Morton Homestead, owned by the PHMC, the Bartram House and Gardens, owned by the City of Philadelphia, the Morton Mortonson House, owned by Norwood Borough, Andalusia, operated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Pennsbury Manor, owned by the PHMC, are generally open to the public and operated as ruseums.. Conclusions Despite the number of residences receiving scue form of recognition, most of the residential resources inventoried are not officially recognized, documented or protected. The principal objective, therefore, should be the further identification and evaluation of the forty-four resources inventoried during the Windshield Survey that are associated with the Residences Study Unit. Viscose Village, the Eddystone District and the Tulleytown District appear to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places as Historic Districts and similarly are potential n=icipal (Act 167) Historic Districts. The country houses and mansions that-were further documented on the State Historic Resource survey forms also appear to be eligible to the National Register, possibly as part of a riverfront estate theme. The more difficult preservation problems associated with this study unit, in the Coastal Zone will probably involve the riverfront estates in Northeast Philadelphia and in Bristol and Bensalem To%nships in Bucks County. Since most are very large and are generally associated with a number of outbuildings 1.58 and large acreage, they will become more difficult to maintain as single- 'family enterprises. As a result, they will be threatened with subdivision and the subsequent reuse or demolition of their principal historic resource, the mansion. If these resources are to be saved, preservationists will have to assess the impact of such developnent prospects and examine reuse and sub- division developnent alternatives that are least det.rimental to the archi- tectural, contextual and historical values associated with them. 159 UTURE Historic Resource Protection Planning in the Coastal Zone will need to address a number of issues if it is to become a comprehen- sive effort. Of primary concern is the need to complete the Pennsyl- vania Historic Resource.Survey; and proceed with the further documentation and evaluation of resources inventoried during the Windshield Survey conduct- ed for this study. As mentioned, the comprehensive Historic Resource Survey has only been.ampleted for the South Philadelphia (east of Broad Street) portion of the study area.. With regard to the Study Unit associations of the existing resource inventory, it is apparent.that some historic themes are not significantly represented. Only one resource was directly associated with the Agricultural Study Unit and no resources were inventoried that are associated with the shipbuilding industry, historically an extremely important local Coastal Zone industry. In addition, fewer Mercantilism/Commerce and Public Accom- modation resources were inventoried than was initially expected, given the developrental. history of the study area. while it was not surprising to find few agricultural resources, which have been mostly displaced by subse- quent industrialization and urbanization; the ccauercial activities histor- ically associated with a busy port facility- would lead one to expect to find more taverns, inns, hotels and market places than were inventoried. The shipbuilding industry in the Philadelphia area has diminished to the extent that only two major facilities still exist, the Sun Ship Yard in Chester and the U. S. Navy Yard in South Philadelphia. Neither of these facilities were surveyed for shipbuilding-associated historic resources. These Study Unit issues should be important considerations for future survey efforts in the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. Overall, two land use development trends may have significant implica- ticns for historic preservation in the Coastal Zone - the conversion of the larger estates and land holdings in Bucks County and the extreme northeastern section of Philadelphia County to more intensive residential and industrial uses, and the decline and abandonment of sites and facilities within the more industrial areas of Delaware and Philadelphia Counties. In both situa- tions historic resources may be threatened. The former viral and open river- front setting of the Bucks County country houses@has already been partially sacrificed. to accommodate new development, while vacant and underutilized industrial.and pier facilities in South Philadelphia have-suffered from deterior- atim ajid denolition. The physical protection of such a diverse group of historic resources will require a more creative application of physical preser- vation/planning techniques to the Resource Protection Planning Process. If resources in these areas are to be protected, old industrial or commercial facilities in South Philadelphia and Delaware Counties will have to acccn=- date new uses, whereas new residential or commercial development will have to respect the historic architectural and contextual values associated with small towns and country houses of Bucks County. In essence, the implementation of the RP3 in the study area will have to be responsive to the changing urban/ suburban landscape through the use of many and often relatively remote or in- direct preservation/planning strategies. Indeed, preservation planning initi- 160 atives will need to, at least, keep pace with future developnent. Ideally they will preceed any actions which would otherwise negate their- intentions. The preservation planner must strive to identify and'understand fully the significance of the historic resources, be ever-mindful of the existing and proposed conditions which may affect them, and utilize even the most remotely effective planning and preservation techniques available in an effort to physically document, through the preservation of the resources or informa- tion about them, the history of the develognent of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone. 161 Appendices I Maps and Inventory Data )k6, APPENDIX A Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources A-1 Delaware County A-2 Philadelphia County A-3 Bucks County The following abbreviations aused: NR = National Register NHL = National Historic Landmark NEL = National Engineering Landmark HABS = Historic American Building Survey HAM = Historic American Engineering Record PI =Pennsylvania Inventory PS = Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey PRC = Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Cammission Marker DVIRPC =Delaware Valley Regional Planning Ccnmission BCR =Bucks County Conservancy Register of Historic Places WPA = Works Project Administration, 1936 Survey (Delaware County only) DC = Delaware County Planning Department Files DSC = Delaware County Survey Cbecklist (preliminary to Pennsylvania q 3 rvey) PHC = Philadelphia Historic Ccnmission Register of Historic Places M = Windshiel d Survey, Coastal Zone Management Study Historic and Contemporary Landforms, A-4 Delaware County A-5 Philadelphia County A-6 Bucks County A-1 uoT qpooT aq4 q-e s-4sTx;a lq4uasaid urxe; q4 ;0 4xed KT-re;9 atR buTznP uOT4PwT xu,eq v ',@=4uao ST sT I q4 4P PTG'rj P84PAT,4Tn::> e u-r punp; @T-TeTnSqa exam s:pej -T4au 4MR S:4JOd9.1 X9=4.1 go Llbncxzog aq4 trr uearrTounoo V uc)T--jd-Faosaa 74Ue=O;UT TRZOKYJ :90aTIOS (POOmuTa) tibno-IOEI -TauTezu :A-4TTedT0TUrW 94TS ueT umomm :-4TUrl A@njS puj paqaodad, :6WN 90-=Sa@j 9oueq=asT .p axatias go aouasaid aLp pa=;uoo pue aqTs ;9qq 3:0 aouapula P-1aTA 04 PGT-FeJ butls;94 TPOTbOTOMPxe :,U938u *uOT'4POTJ-r4uGPT TPOTBoTod,14 -lo-T PeqpooT aq 4ou PTnO0 s4DPJT4ae W4 'POTTe--Ga 8q 4ou pTnOc) L104podaa ap enurs *uin9srw.TLaoT P oq paqeuop aq qou Im .,,spL-aq -mo= OC qnoc[e., punog Gq 31.1cm sTLP bu-FanP -WLP pgqaod-ax OsTle PH "TTTJ sle Pues JO '49E9 99XZ4 ATaquarFmaddle P94TsOd;9P Pue PGxe az'r4ua aq4 pappaBea pw aq qpq4 pa4po --F (94Ts W4 ;0 uOT:WDOT Pe:taodal mp) xaecl uos-Woc suTtl4uTum ATTa-e4unToA oqm qbnoac)a aq4 go 4uap-rse-T v : uo-r-4dTmsqa quemp;uT jewl : 9=nos tIJ5no-Tc)a laup-U :,F4TTvdTOTtMW ut4OuXM :-4Turl A@njs ;94TS ueT pa:podea : aureN ;DanOsaH PUI DMIMPTuead o xac@mu TTMS le paaaAa)ea jow-"4uT:rl -=a 3:0 ;94Ts c)TzrO'4sTq W4 4P su:)T4PAR, T'eDT.60TCGEP-W : uOT-4dT=saa ULM -EMP99 :;DoxnoS (LO4&uTssa) dT UTIL Wumcm um-r :AqTTedTc)TurW um0u*Q :4TUE1 APn4S a4TS ueTPuI P94aOdad :amN a=nosau -E OT-70-4s'nPad ou wTvaAaa BuT74s;9,4 TPDTf:,OT09'1= 4uaoard :uoTqdT=sqa WRMP-edaU buTuuL-Tcl A-4MOO axemL-Tea :BaMOS q-6ncaOG 490 TOa :.74TTedTc)TurvA umotzM :4Tun Apn4S 94TS uPTPuI P9410dald :GmN aom-tosaa -z .90T OT-10:@STWad Ou POTPaA--a buT-4sa-4 TmTbOTc)GtP-Te W90GH : MT, aosaa .4dT WaxPed9G -6uTuueTcl A-4uncD axm%PTaU : OOMOS A-4TO -T94s9LD :A-4TTPd-rDTurW tAOu:iun :-4Tufl Apn-4S (.,uOT4,e'4S E)uTtisTd,.) a4TS UeTPUI P9::@MdGld :aUeN aoanoSad 'T s94TS TeOTbOT09TLPW 0TaO4sTqazd &,4moo a-mmeTed -E-v SE)@MSMI MMUM DrdOISIH MW DMOISUMIcl Historic Archeological Sites 1. Resource Name: Morton Mortanson House (18th century) Study Unit: Residences Municipality: Norwood Borough Source: Ed Hinderliter (personal communication) Description: Archeological cariponent, associated withearly brick house has been excavated in conjunction with restoration of the structure. 2. Resource Name: John Morton Hcmestead Study Unit: Residences Munici@ality: Norwood Borough Source: Mid-Atlantic Archeological Research, Inc. (1978) Description: Archeological component associated with typical Swedish log house has been excavated in conjunction with restor- ation of the structure. 3. Resource Nam: Lindenthorpe Study Unit: Residences Municipality: Marcus Hook Borough Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: Site of house overlooking the river, date unknown, was surrounded by a park which existed from 1894 -until 1902. 4. Resource Name: Shipwreck Study Unit: Unknown Municipality: Marcus Hook Borough (coast) Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: Undocumented, uninvestigated site 5. Resource Name: Cemetery (late 17th century) Study Unit: Public Institution It-micipality: Marcus Hook Borough Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: A structural feature, possibly a house foundation, is extant, as well as unmarked graves believed to be of pirates, paupers and shipboard victims of disease. 6. Resource Name: Militia Camp Site (1812) Study Unit: Public Institution Municipality: Marcus Hook Borough Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: Oral traditicn places this carnp in more than one locaticn. Camp supposedly existed for two years and consisted of several thousand people. Scnetines called the "Flying camp. Is 7. Resource Name: Shipbuilding operations Study Unit: Industry Municipality: Chester City kurc@e: Delaware County Planning Department Description: T%u centuries of shipbuilding operations are reported for this area although exact dates and location are not known. A-3 8. Resource Name: Thomas Leiper Canal and Railroad (early 19th century) Study Unit:. Transportation Municipality: Chester City and Nether Providence Township Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: One of the earliest working railroad--, built in the country, this system was designed to get ranufactured goods to the river from the mills. 9. Resource Name: Site of Revolutionary War Scuttle (1777) .Study Unit: Public Institution Municipality: TinicLun Township Source: Delaware County Planning Depart; also documented by tun historic naps Description: Cmm:)dore Hazleton's gunboats were scuttled in the Dela- ware River near the mouth of Darby Creek and in the vicinity of Hog Island. Some ships were wrecked and sunk. 10. Resource Name: Printzhof (17th century) Study Unit: Residences and Public Institution Municipality: Tinicum Township (Essington) Source: Becker (1977) Description: Site of a complex of buildings and earthworks constructed by Swedish governor Johan Printz in 1643. Archeological excavations by Donald Cadzow in 1937 revealed foundations and features and recovered artifacts, but field notes were lost and data never published. Further excavations are described by Becker (1977). 11. Resource Name: Springhouse (probably 17th century) Study Unit: Residences (outbuilding) Municipality: Tinicum Township (Essington) Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: The structure is reputed to be of Swedish origin and associated with the original Swedish village next to Printzhof. It suggests the possibility of more exten- sive subsurface archeological- remains associated with Printzhof . 12. Resource Name: Hog Island Shipyard (early 20th century) Study Unit: Industry Municipality: Tinic= Township Source:. Delaware County Planning Department; U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (1919) Description: Large shipbuilding complex fran World War I era has been mostly demolished for construction of Philadelphia International Aarport. 13. Resource Name: Militia Camp Site (1776 1779) Study Unit: Public Institution Ylunicipality: Trainer Borough Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: This site is undocumented and the location is also unknown. 14. Resource Name: Chevaux de Frise (18th century) Study Unit: Public Institution Municipality: Tinicum Township (coast) A-4 Source: Maritime Museum, Philadelphia Description: A French method of sinking ships, wood stakes with iron tips, were positioned on the river bottom during the Revolutionary War. The Army Corps of Engineers still recovers pieces of these entrapments during routine dredging of the river. 15, Resource Name: Historic Dump 119th and 20th centuryl Study Unit: Residences Municipality: Chester City Source: located during archeological testing for the Coastal Zone project Description: The extent of this dump is possibly an acre, and it seems to have been for local- residential use. Artifacts recovered included bottles, cookware, shoe fragments, and other.dcrestic items. 16. Resource Name: Flowers Grist and Saw Mill (19th century) Study Unit: Industry or Mercantilism/Commerce Municipality: Chester City Source: Delaware County Institute of Science (1844) Description: Little. is known except that this mill was damaged or destroyed by the flood of 1843. 17. Resource Name: Crosby Grist and Saw Mill (19th century) Study Unit: Industry or Mercantilism/Cammerce Municipality: Chester City Source: Delaware County Institute of Science (1844) Description: Little is known except that this mill was damaged or destroyed by the flood of 1843. 18. Resource Nam: Trainer Factory (19th century) Study Unit: Industry Municipality: Trainer Borough Source: Delaware County Institute of Science (1844) Description: Destroyed in the flood of 1843. 19. Resource Name: Inskeep, Grist and Saw Mill (19th century) Study Unit: Industry Municipality: Folcroft Borough Source: Delaware County Institute of Science (1844) Description: Little is known except that this mill was damaged or destroyed by the flood of 1843. 20. Resource Name: Sandelands "Double House" (17th century) Study Unit: Public Accommodation and Public Institution Municipality: Chester City Source: Delaware County Historical.Society (1934) Description: This establishment was primarily a tavern, but is iriFor- tant historically because the first assembly of Pennsyl- vania ray have met here in 1682. Foundations were un- covered in 1893 while excavating the Cellar of Ccmmission Plow A-5 21. Resource Nam: Militia Camp Site (1814 - 1815) Study Unit: Public Institution Municipality: Marcus Hook Borough Source: Delaware County Planning Department Description: This site was occupied by 5,000 to 10,000 men, mostly Pennsylvania and Delaware militia units, but some U. S. regular. Extensive earthworks were hastily constructed and cannon rnounted following the sack of Washington, D.C., August 1814. 22. Resource NaTm: Ship Hotel (1714 - 1872) Study Unit: Public AcconTcdation Municipality: Marcus Hook Borough Source: WA Survey Description: The second licensed hotel in Marcus Hook was destroyed by fire in 1872, but its remains were still standing in 1936. 23. Resource Name: Marcus Hook Area Study Unit: Unassigned, multiple resource Municipality: Marcus Hook Borough Source: TAWA Survey Descripticn: BecIause this area was so extensively surveyed and recorded by the WPA project in the 1930s, possible historic archeo- logical sites have not been mapped individually. Sites included in the area include: Pennell House (1744) Blue Ball Tavern (19th century) Cedar.Grove School (19th century) First School (18th and 19th centuries) Marcus Hook Hotel (1726 - 1919) mount Hebron African Methodist Church (19th century) Mount Olive Baptist Church (early 20th century) Linwood Public School (1835) Delaware County Bank (1814 - 1882) Phillips.House (c. 1736) Seventh Street Grammar School (1895) George Smith Farmhouse (c. 1800) Walker Farmhouse (1725 - possibly the same as Lindenthorpe) 24. Resource Name: @Chester Area Study Unit: Unassigned, nultiple resource Municipality -. Chester City Source: WPA Survey Description: The area delineated on the map includes the most dense cluster of sites recorded in the Chester area by the WPA survey of the 1930's. Other sites noted in the survey are scattered and not plotted individually on the Tmp. Sites in the Chester Area include: Bloch House of Defense (17th century) William Kerlin House Ashbridge House Blue Bell Tavern (1765) A-6 Darlington House Friends Meeting House (1736) Lloyd House (1703) Four old brick houses, "Heart of Chester" (18th centux-j@) Other possible sites ofarcheological significance noted in the TWA survey are: Davis and Culin Saw Mill in Ridley Log House in Essington Rosedale Im in Essingtcn Post Office in Essington St. John's Lutheran Church in Essington Eddystone Printworks in Eddystone. Toll Gate #1 in Eddystone A-7 Historic Resources Resource Name: St. martin's church Property Class Type: Church Lookinc, N Study Unit(s): Private Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough street Address/Lomtjon: 305 Church St., opp- Market Lane source/status: PI, DVRPC, DSC, WPA CznTnents: c. 1845. Built on foundations of tvqu foriner structures, 1702 and 1745. Land was given for church and cemetery, 1699. Striking original interior umdwork, altar rail and box pews. Supposedly the secMd oldest church in. Pennsylvania. (DSC) Appears to be eligible for National Register. Part of proposed Old Market Squ are Historic District. 2. Resource Name: Blackbeard's Mistress' House Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough Street Address/location: 215 Market St.& Market T-a- (NE crnr) Source/Status: PI, DVWC, DSC, WPA Conments: Late 17th c. Oldest house in the looking: Borough. Reputed home.of Blackbeard's mistress * (DSC) Appears to be eligible for National Register. Part of the proposed Old Market Square Historic District 3. Resource Name: Widow Price House Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit(s): Residences y .unic1pal-Ity/Neighborhood: Trainer Borough Street Address/Location: 4358 Ridge Ave., S. of M. Hook Ck Source/Status: DC Ccam-ents: House camieworated by DAR plague on Looking: NW southeast corner. Occupied by Mai - uen Ualnes In 1814 during threatened,invasion by British. (DC) Appears to be eligible for the National- Register 4. Resource Nam: Morton Hanestead property Class Type: Detached house Stildy Unit (s) Residences municipality/Neighborhood: Prospect Park Borough Street Address/Location: Lincoln Ave. and Darby Creek Source/Status: NR, PI, DC, W2A Coments: c. 1654. Swedish log house with Looking: E later stone additions (DC) A-8 5. Resource Name: Diorton Moz se Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) Residences M. unicipality/Neighborhood: Norwood Borough Street Address/location: Muckinipates & Darby Creeks Source/Status: HABS, P1, DC, WPA Camants: c. 1750. Recently restored. (P.I.) Looking: N Appears to be eligible for the National Register. 6. Resource Umre: Macbeth log House Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit(s) : .-Residences Municipality/Ue-ighborhood: Folcroft Borough Street Address/Incation: NE of School Iane & Horne Drive Source/Status: DC cam-ants mid-17th century. Log structure which has been obscured with subsequent additions. (DC) 7. Resource Nam: Corinthian Yacht Club Property Class Type: Clubhouse Study Unit (s) Private Institution Ylunicipality/Neighborhood: Tinicum, Township Street Address/Locatim: 2nd Street at Del-aware River Source/Status: DVI@PC, DC Ccmnents: c. 1763, 1892. Originally site of S Fort Gottenburg in 1656. John R= purchasea and constructed the Rosedale Inn in 1763, which is center part of present building. (DC) Appears to be eligible for the National Pegister. 8. Resource Nam: The Printzhof (Governor Printz State Park) Property Class Type: Park Study Unit (s) : Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Tinican Tow-nship Street Address/location: 2nd Street & Taylor Ave., at River Source/Status: NR, NHL, PI, DC, WPA Comnents: c. 1643. Site of first permanent white settlement in Pennsylvania. Excavations have uncovered the foundations of Governor Johan Printz"s house. Now a park operated by PHMC. (DC, PI) A-9 9. Resource Ncme: The Lazaretto Property Class Type: Former hospital Study Unit (s) : Public Institution municipality/Neighborhood: TinicLun Township Street Address/Iocation: 2nd St. & Wanamaker Avenue Source/Status: NR, HABS, PI, DC, VMA Comrents: c. 1800. The state legislature Looking: N created a Board of Health to operate the Ijazaretto, a quarantine station. moved to marcus Hook in 1880 when Federal government took over. Later used bY Pennsylvania Athletic Club as a pleasure resort until 1913. operated as a seaplane base since. MR) 10. Resource Name: Progressive Fanrers & Stock Raisers Property class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) Private Institution Municipality/Neighborbood: Folcroft Borough Street AddreSS/1,OCation: Hook Rd. & PriTMS Ave., SW Corner --- Source/Status: 'VMA W. Ccmngnts: The Association, which met in this Looking: S building, was formed by the farmers of Folcroft Borough in 1916. It was still active in 1936. (WPA) 11. Resource Ncium: Lighthouse Hall Property Class Type: Town hall Study Unit (s) Public Institution MLmicipality/Neighborhood: Eddystone Borough Street Address/Locatim: 2nd St. & Eddystone Ave., NE corner Source/Status: 'VPA Camients: c. 1880. Built by the Sirpson fam- ily, who operated the Eddystone Looking: E Printworks across the street. First floor used as a library and retiring room in 1936. (WPA) It. is a couponent of the proposed Eddystone TAbrkers' Housing Historic District. 12. Resource Name: Thamas Simpsm School Property Class Type: school study unit (s) Public institution Municipality/Neighhorhood: Eddystone Borough Street Address/lDcaticn: 4th St. & Seville Ave., SW corner Sou.rce/Status: TVPA comments: c. 1879. Built by William Siupson, owner of the Eddystone Printworks Looking: S Used as a school until 1915, since then it has been used as a store. (WPA) It is a.conponent of the proposed Eddystone V@brkersl Housing Historic District. A-10 13. Resource Nme: Tinicum. Inn Property Class Type: Bar, restaurant Study Unit (s) Public Accomodation Municipality/Neighborhood: Tinicum Tow Street Address/Location: Carre Ave. & 2nd St., SW corner Source/Status: WPA Comnents: Original hotel built in 1884. De- Looking: NW stroyed by fire and rebuilt in 1927. (WPA) -14. Res 'ource Name: Episcopal Church Property Class Type: Church Study Unit (s) : Private Institution municipality/Neighborhood: Tinicum TamshIp w Street Address/tocation: 3rd St. & Wananaker Ave., 19W corner Source/Status: VNA Ccim-ents: c. 1892. Wooden structure built by Looking: W Mrs. Box in 1892. Stone church erected in 1929:and wooden structure moved to the side.' (VIPA) 15. Aescurce Narm: Riverside Hotel (WalJoer's) Property Class Type: Restaurant Study Unit (s) : Public Accam-odation Amicipality/Neighborhood: Tinicum Tbwnship Street Address/Location: Taylor Ave. at Delaware River Scurce/Status: TV2PA Cmrrents: c. 1864 (TATA) . The original struc- ture has been almost completely ob- Looking:- S scured by subsequent additions and alterations. 16. Resource Nam: Lester Public S chool Property Class Type: School Study Unit (s) Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Tinicum Township Street Address/location: 3rd & Powhatan Avenue Source/Status: VWA Conments: c. 1918 (WPA) Looking: N A-11 17. Resource Name: Essex House (Robert Wade House) Property Class Type: House Site Study Unit(s) Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Chester City Street Address/Tocation: Front & Penn Streets Source/Status: PHMC, WPA, DC camnnts: Site of Robert Wade House where Plaque on William Penn spent his first night right house in Pexmsylvania. A plaque has 122k3 :ng: W been installed on a raw house which now occupies the site by the former Pennsylvania Historical Commission. (WPA) 18. Resource Name: Swedish Burial Ground Pmoperty Class Type: Cemetery Study Unit(s) : Private Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Chester City Street Address/location: 3rd & Market Streets Source/Status: PI, PMC Cam-ents: Oldes Swedish burial ground in the U.S. Also as Old St. Paulls Cemetery. John Morton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and David Lloyd, first Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, are buried here. (PI) 19. Resource Name: William. Penn's Landing Property Class Type: Park Study Unit (s) : Public Institution M.micipality/Neighborbood: Chester City Street AddresS/jDcat_jM: Front & Penn Streets Source/Status: NR, PI, PHMC, DC Comments: A park and five foot granite milestone replica was placed here in 1882 to mark the spot where William Penn landed October 28, 1682. 20. Resource Name: Irvington Mills Property Class Type: Stone mill complex Study Unit (s) Industry A, fi; municipality/Neighborhood: Chester City Street Address/Tocation: E. 25th St. & Ridley Creek Source/Status: DC Comments: c . 1785. Originally operated as gHst -and saw mill, converted to Looking: NE woolen mill in 1843. (DC) Appears to be eligible for the National Register. A-12 21. Resource Nam: Cokesbury yjethodist Episcopal Church Property Class Type: Church Study Unit (s) Private Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough Y Street Address/tocation: Plum & Market Sts., SE corner Source/Status: DSC, WPA CanTkents: c. 1871. Named after the first two locking-: 'NE American Bishops - Coke and Asbury. 22. Resource Name: Tan and Punchbowl Hotel Property Class Type: Brick building Study Unit (s) Public Accommodations Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough Street Address/Location: Delaware Ave. & Church St., NW cc@=r=nr. Scurce/Status: DSC, WPA Comnents: Built prior to 1782. later known as Looking: .'Spread Eagle Hotel." Licensed as an inn until the 1900's, but became an apartment house prior to 1913. In 19301s, it served as a stcp-o@ver for sailors. (WPA) 23. Resource Nam: Henry Huber House Property Class Type: Attached house Study Unit (s) Residences r4micipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough Street Address/locatim: 3rd & Market Sts., NW corner Source/Status: DSC, WA CamL-nts: c. 1845. Reputed to be first house Looking: W in Borough to be built of Amrican rather than English brick. (DSC) It is within the proposed Old Market Square Historic District. 24. Resource Na me: Immaculate 0mception Italian Cath- Property Class Type: Church -olic.Church Study Unit (s) Private Institution ci ighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough street Address/Ilccaticn: 8th & Green Sts.., SE corner Source/Status: DSC, WPA CcmTents: c. 1917 (NPA) Lookin-9: S A-13 25. Resource Name: Old Market Square Property Class Type: River park and buildings Study Unit (s) Mercantilism/Connierce Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough Street Address/Location: Market St., 4th St. to River Source/Status: DSC, TATA ConTnents: Granted a charter in 1699 to hold NW weekly markets. A tuo-story brick market house was added prior to 1800, the 2nd floor was used as a meeting hall. Demolished in 1869- 1870 and weeJay markets gradually died out. (DSC) Appears to be eligible for National Register. 26. Resource Name: Viscose Village and Mill 'A A Property Class Type: Attached houses, mill building Study Unit(s): Residences; Industry Ymnicipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough Street Address/Location:- NE corner of Marcus Hook Borough Source/Status: DSC, VMA Comments: c. 1911. Constructed as planned in- Looking: N dustrial com-mmity. Homes Tudor Revival. First factory built 1905-09 for manufacture of rayon. (DSC) Appears to be eligible for the National Register. 27. Resource Name: Linwood Public School Property Class Type: School Study Unit (s) Public Institution Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Lower Chichester Tbwnship Street Address/Locaticn: Market & Ormond Sts., NW corner So urc e/Status: DSC, WPA CmTnents: c. 1869. The "Rock Hill" School was Looking: NMW discontinued in 1921 and used as a private residence and.clubhouse until 1939 when it becare the rmmici- pal building. (DSC) 28. Resource Nam: Mount Hebron African M.E. Church Property Class Type: Church Study Unit (s) Private institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Lower Chichester Township Street Address/location: Green St., east side; n-of Morton Source/Status: DSC, WPA Comnents: Church was organized in 1893 and Looking., NE first established in Marcus Hook Borough, M of Green and 7th Streets. (WPA) A-14 29. Resource Name: BP oil Refinery Property Class Type: Buildings, and associated pipes, tanks, & chiuneys Study Unit(s): Industry Municipality/Neighborhood: Trainer Borough Street Address/Location: Post Road to River Source/Status: DSC Conments: Tract bought in 1921 by Union Oil. (DSC) 30. Resource Nam: Trainer's Bank Property Class Type: Row and twin houses Residential; Industry "s@ Study Unit (s) Trainer Borough Municipality/Neigbborbood: street Address/location:. 4332 to 4358 Ridge Rd., w of MH Crk Source/Status:, DC, WS Camments: Built in late 19th century as COM- pany housing for Trainer Mills. Looking: NE (DC) 31. Resource Narre: Phillips' Tenant House Property Clam�s Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) : Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Nook Borough Street Addressy/tocation: Grreen St. & Delaware Ave., NE corn Source/Status: WS Cannents: Late 19th century. Phillips' Man- Looking: NW sion was an adjacent property. Tenant house desig- nation is only speculative. (WS) 32. Resource Name: Marcus Hook Library/Amicipal Bldg. Property Class Type: Library, Boro Hall, Police Sta/Jail 9 Study Unit(s): Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Nook Borough Street Address/location: Post Road, opposite Green Stree t Source/Status:. WS Ccmrents: Lookingt NW A-15 33. Resource Name: South Chester Tdm Coirpany Property Class Type: Brick industrial buildings Study Unit (s) Industry . ..... Municipality/Neighborhood: Chester City Street Address/location: Front & Booth Sts., at River Source/Status: WS Comments: Iooking: 34. Resource Name: Chester Pouer Company (PECO) Property Class Type: Masonry generating building Study Unit(s) Industry Municipality/Neighborbood: Chester City Street Address/7-ocation: Mill Street at Delaware River Source/Status: TVS Comments: Appears to be eligible for the Looking: E National Register as part of an.electrical facil- ities theme. 35. Resource Name: Train Station Property Class Type: Small brick station Study Unit (s) Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: Chester City Stxeet Address/Locaticn: Jeffrey St., east of Front St. '*to Source/Status: WS Cam-ents: late 19th century (WS) Iooking: E 36- Resource Name: Row Houses Property Class Type: Attached brick houses Study Unit (s) : Residences Municipality/Neighborhmd: Chester City Street Address/Incation: Church & Front StS. , NE corner Source/Status: WIS Ccmnents: c. 1915. One-half block of raw Looking: N houses. Good integrity but their condition is deteriorating. ROsidences in area (east of 2nd St.) are being demolished for indus- trial redevelopment. (WS) i@k@ S A-16 37. Resource Name: Stone Row House s Property Class Type: Four attached houses Study Unit (s) Residences a Yfunicipality/Neighborhood: CImster City Street Address/Location: Abbott & W. 2nd Sts., SE corner Source/Status: WS Cam-ents: Deteriorating condition. Houses in looking: E area being demolished. 38. Resource Naim: Wolfe Building Property Class Type: Office building IM S tudy Unit (s) mercantilism/Cmuerce Municipality/Neighborhood: Chester City Street Address Ave. of the States & 3rd St..,,,SW'd , /tocation. Source/Status: W-S Comrents': Built around 1900, this Beaux Arts Looking: S office building survives amid commercial buildings slated for demolition. (WS)- Appear to be eligi- ble for the Naticnal Register. 39. Resource Nam: Building, - entrance to Scott Paper Property Class Type: Brick industrial building Study Unit (s) : Industry Nimicipality/Neighborhood: Chester City Street Address/location: 2nd & Market Sts., SW corner Source/Status: WS Ccmnents: Icoking.- S 40. Resource Nam: Eddystone Workers' Housing Property Class Type: Raw houses Study Unit (s) Residences; Industry Municipality/Neighborhood: Eddystone Borough Street Address/110cat_10n: Along Iexington & Concord Avenues Source/Status: ccmrents: c .1872 built by Sinpson family as Looking: W workers housing (WZ). Appears to be eligible for the National Register. A-17 41. Resource Name: Baldwin Locomotive TAbrks Property Class.Type: Masonry of c. bldg. ; steel f raftme/til. Study Unit(s) Industry 11micipality/Neighborhood: Eddystone Borough Street Address/Location: NE quadrant of Eddystone Borough 'S Source/Status: W Conments: Built after 1906. Large Beaux Arts Cruciform Ofc. office building, cruciform plan ; Bldg..Looking: SE datestone indicates 1928. Office and mst factory buildings appear to be vacant. (WS) Office build- ing appears to be eligible to the National Register and the cmiplex is a good candidate for documenta- tion in the HAER. 42. Resource MM: Phila. Elec. Ccopany Substation Property Class Type: Brick building Study Unit (s) Industry ilki, Municipality/Neighborhood: Eddystone Borough Street Address/lDcation: SW of Crum and Little Crum Creeks Source/Status: WS Ccmnents:. 20th century. Appears to be eligi- Looking: N ble for the National Register as part of an elec- trical facilities them. 43. Resource Name: Preston Diner Property Class Type: Stainless steel pre-fab restaurant Study Unit (s) Public Accommdation .., Mmicipality/Neighborhood: TinicLun Townsl-up Street Address/Location: Essington & Center Aves., SE corner,' Source/Status: WS C=ents: Silk City Diner Co. c. 1950 (WS) Looking: S 44. Resource Nanie: Modern house Property Class Type: Detached hosue Study Unit (s) Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Tinicun Township Street Address/Tocation: 3rd St. & Carre Ave., SE corner Source/Status: WS camients: c .1940. Art 1@bderne (WS) Looking: E A-18 45* Resource Name: TinicLn Firehouse Property Class Type: Brick firehouse Study Unit (s) Public Institution MILmicipality/Neighborhood: TinicLun Township 5V Street Address/iocation: 3rd St. & Carre Ave., SW corner Source/Status: WS Cannents: Looking: S 46. Resource Name: lester Firehouse Property Class Type: Brick firehouse Study Unit (s) : Public Institution municipality/Neighborhood: TinicLn Township Street Address/location: 4th Ave. & Massasoit St., SW corner W"', M-2,01 =05 Source/Status: WS CcnTnents looking: SW 47. Resource Name: Erickson House Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit(s) Residences Amicipality/Neighborhood: Folcroft Borough Street Address/location: East side Erickson Ave. S of Hook Source/Status: WS Camients: Current owner reports that house was built by developer of surround- looking: SE ing area. 48, Resource Name: Granite Ice Breakers Property Class Type: Cut stone pier supports Study Unit (s) Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: Marcus Hook Borough Street Address/location: Church St. at Delaware River Source/Status: DC, WS _zA Cam-ents: c. 1785. Diamond-shaped granite piers built by the Conrwnwealth to Looking: S protect harbor. (DC) Aopears, to be eligible for the National Register or for HAER docm-entation. A-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A-20 I 4P _@6 3' -27 @j IvI ,2@ ...... 2 A 8Z @,x i W 5, 0 N /,j E, 3" Z, "T 0 J_ 4'' 37", _4t 2,J 4'j 2k, "L C4 10 4 47" 1 1`22 219 @V '36 48 19 ZZ 17 Z, .. .. .... . 16 C-1 46 ""1 W" I ... . ...... J, "Q@, n,@ x -12 1A, j" @,Tw :7 'Al z: 1 inch 1 mile Legend: Resource Protection Plan 0 1/2 1 2 Prehistoric Archeological Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone I Sites Historic Archeological Prehistoric and Historic Resources Key map: Sites Historic Archeological prepared for Areas/Districts Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Figure Number: Historic Sites Bureau for Historic Preservation ; prepared by Historic Areas/Districts ............. Cee Jay Rrederick Associates 0% W, - , Al in association withjohn Milner Associates A-2 Philadelphia County Prehistoric Archeological Sites 1. Resource Name: Reported Indian Site at Frankford Arsenal Study Unit: Historic Contact Source: John Milner Associates (1979) Description: Site reported to have been occupied by Lenape Indians as late as 1755. Artifacts were reported on arsenal grounds, but archeological testing failed to produce further evidence. Historic Archeological Sites 1. Resource Name: Frankford Arsenal Military Depot and Factory (1836) Study Unit: Public Institution Source: John Milner Associates (1979) Description: Archeological investigation of the Quarters' Area of the grounds was conducted in an effort to locate struc- -cm early Arsenal renderings and provide tures sham fi a more complete assessment of architecture, function and chronology. 2. Resource Name: Dock Project (17th and l8th century) Study Unit: Transportation Source: Liggett (1970) Description: A section of an early corduroy road was exposed in a sewer relocation trench, and subsequently photographed and mapped. The 1699 drawbridge and mid-1700's stone bridge supports were also located and studied before demolition and relocation of Dock and Front Streets intersection. 3. Resource Name: Blue Anchor Project (17th century) Study Unit: Residences Source: Liggett (1970) Description: Excavations attempted to locate'remains, of 17th century dwellings called "Budd ' s Row" which probably floated on wood cribbing. The location of the back of adjacent 19th century buildings demonstrated by negative evidence the situation of Buddl.s Row and its 201 x 20' dimensions. 4. Resource Name: "Area F," Independence National Historical Park Study Unit: Residences; Mercantilisn-VCcnuerce Source: Parrington 11980a; 1980b) Description: Salvage archeology was conducted prior to construction of a parking garage and included excavation of privy pits and building foundations in an area adjacent to Independence National Park. 5. Resource Nam: Mlarket Street Project - North Side Study Unit: Residences; Industry A-21. Source: Hunter and levy (1976) Hunter (1979) Description: Salvage excavations were conducted in cellars of buildings slated for demolition prior to construction of Interstate 95 access ramp. Features revealed included privy pits and wells, as well as structural features. Historically? the area was the "printing house square of Philadelphia and Benjamin Franklin lived and worked here unti-I 1748. 6. Resource Name: 8 South Front Street Study Unit: Residences Source: Cosans (1976) Description: Excavation of aL cellar site revealed three privy pits dated at 1720, 1735 and 1754. Project was funded pri- vately in conj-unction with restaurant renovations. 7. Resource Name: New Market Project (pre-1830) Study Unit: Residences; Mercantilism/ConTnerce; Private Institutions Source: Liggett (1981) Description: Salvage archeology was undextaken in an area to be re- developed as a shopping mall and in-. conjunction with restoration of certain'historic buildings in the New Market area. A variety of features and artifacts were uncovered. 8. Resource Nam: Bonnin and Morris China Factory (1770 - 1772) Study Unit: Industry Source: Hood (1972) Description: Kilns associated with main work houses were never located, but an auxiliary structure produced sagger and waster fragments pertaining to the tine period. 9. Resource Name:, Fort Mifflin (18th century) Study Unit: Public Institutions Source: Liggett (1977; 1979) Description: The project concentrated on the excavation of a redoubt. 10. Resource Name: John Bartram. House (18th century) Study Unit: Residences Source: Kenyon, Hunter and Schenk (1975); Parrington (1979; 1981) Description: Several excavations have atteopted to locate and explore outbuildings and other features associated with the restored structure. 11. Resource Nane: The Meadows (19th and 20th centuries) Study Unit: Residences; Mercantilism/Connerce Source: Coastal Zone project, Windshield Survey (1981) Description: As a result of me of the urban renewal projects in the nation, begun in the 1950's, approximately 3,000 residen- ces dating to the early 20th century were demolished along with small businesses in an area of 2,500 acres. Site may be of potential significance to future archeolo- gists. A-22 12. Resource Name: Stable and/or Barn Ruins Study Unit: Agricultural Source: Coastal Zone @roject, Windshield Survey (1981) Description: Structural features of unknown date may indicate historic archeological site in the vicinity. 13. ]Resource Name: Site of T-on Mansions Study Unit: Residences Source: Cc)astal Zone Project, Windshield Survey (1981) Description:, 19th.century mansions reported to have been demolished before construction of condominiums. . Victorian Gothic carriage house extant, presently used as a clubhouse. 14. Resource Nam: Site of Estate Study Unit: Residences Source: Coastal Zone Project, Windshield Survey (1981) Description: Structural features, fence, formal gate entrance, w-alled area of unknown date indicate possible archeological remains of an estate present in the vicinity. 15. Resource Nzme: Ball's Shore Study Unit: Public Accommodation Source: Carroll and Moak (1980) Description: A gravel road which once extended from Gunner's Run to M-p-atsheaf lane along the Delaware River was a favorite walk for young people and attracted people out from the city for drives. 16. Resource Namet Wigwam Baths (1791) Study Unit: Public Accommodation Source: Carroll and Moak (1980) Description: Recreational ccmplex.included a public garden, water water, plunging baths, bowling alley, and a tavern which ,served coffee and sweets. Site is now part of Schuylkill Park. 17. Resource Name: The Washington Garden (1824) Study Unit:. Public Acccumodatian Source: Carroll and Moak (1980) Description: Establishment offered ice cream, cakes and fruit to visitors of nearby Faizmount Water Works. Site is now a part of Schuylkill Park. 18. Rescurce Name: The State in Schuylki-11 (second location 1822 1887) Study Unit: Private Institution Source: Carroll and Moak (1980) Description: One of the oldest social and fishing clubs in the country has had several homes. This site was occupied from 1822 to 1887. 19., Resource Name: Golden Swan Tavern (c. 1809) Study Unit: Public Accommodation Source: Carroll and Moak (1980) Description: Part of a congregation of inns and taverns in the area A-23 v Z-V ,@aAans - sm quapuadapuT ue f)u-cmlp P;9,4uamc)op GX-VA 4se-TaquT TP=lq--,@qTtp-Te jo s-Bur ng . pTT -paLlsTTqnd Lraaq seq qaodea ou 4nq lpapaooaa aaem siaanq -saj TpoTf5oToap-Te go F49TxeA V *APAqf)TTI 94V-4Saa4UT Mr4 0 UOT UDD UER JO UDT4PdTC)T- UPA-[AS *WrLl4s .4M UT LIT uu;ad jo AqTsaaAT -ips :UY.PdTmsaa ujn w4 tifmomp pa:pnplL= aaam suc)T74@eALoxa a67PA (9L6T) x-y4scraM -'(UDT4e0Tumum0 Tpimsmad) suvsco : aom-toS 9sn PueT ueqxn .PaxTuI 'P9ubTsSPM :4TM 4r4S PGW 96 94174SI94UI :RMN 93=IOS;Ekl *SZ -Umotr@m ST MT4POOT :Pmm 9q4 4riq lpslem .9'4Tsoddo,. POO-4s 9APq Cq P94MOdaa ST :@-10.; ATXea : UDT:@dT-MSaa (0,86T) LmX09E :90-mOS u:)T4n,4Tqsuj oTTqria : qTufl 4pnqs (ES9T - LV9T) ur[cqs.'O>I 4aOa :GWN wanosau tZ *UmotDtm ST uo-rq-eooT aLp BUOTL :Pmm GIR '4nq 'aaA'r%d UPRAMIDS Lpqxia mR Aq paqonpuco ape-Tq LRT-m 9-mjx-y4u-F 0-4 z4uT-xd -IOUlaA0-6 tIST Pams Aq -4TTnq ATpa:podaa spA amu sTtp go asnoLl ;quTj,, v :u:)T:4TxDsea (086T) -TaXO99 :90.InOE; aalGuux)D/ulsTT-r4ue3a-GW -sa0uGPTS;9J'- :4Tufl Apr4s PseM :aWN 90MOSGH *EZ .s 008T 9tR JO SXaM:p72:;nuetu sseT.6 umou3[-TTem -4scLu `4safaxeT 9q4 JO 9uO -70; SDMOW-Tem PUP JBuTsncq S-MX-TOM 'SbUTPTTnq KIO-4cye-J sseT.6 JO SUTPma ;o xaTduoo :uoT pdTaosaa (OL6T) uTaVZXDW :9=nOS Ax4snpuj :qTua Apnqs (fan-W90 tr46T) S-A-70M sseTO 9TTIFA-44ONG :awN 90=10saU *ZZ DT *E96T UT P;94sTTalmC 'Xx9lQuleT le 4T 9PeuI tlDTqm u6TSep .409TO9 ue q4Tm uDT4P4s PPOXTTR-T ueqxn ;DTqe4Ou -40 a4TS : uc)T-4dT-msaa (9L6T) -Ta'4SCIPM :90aTIOS uoTq,eqaodsup-Tz :,4-rua Apn4S (988T) uOT:M:IS PeCITTed OTqO Ptle 9.xau-E4TPZ :GMN WMOMU 'TZ bur .PT-X PUP lbuTqpxs 'BUT -q.6TaTs 'J5uTWTJ '.Bu-r-4mtl .1p.; sueTqdT;appTTqd maip x1onin ,3109u 9114,, Se 04 Pa=99a-l PaIP ue UT sT94OLl 9:0 94TS :UOT4dTMSaa (0861) NeW Pue TTO2xE0 :a0.InOS u:)-r-4PPam10--)0V D-rTqncj : qTLn 4pn-4s (S;D,F-ln'4u@O q46T Pule q48T) I-a-40H -6-TnqLueH Pue T9-40H 4aaqTT9 'Te-40H 9z99ag 4uTc)d :au2N aO.InOsad 'OZ s-4-ioM sL-j PT . qdTapeT-rT4cj TP=BT-To aLp JO 94Ts -19471 *.6u-CPT.1 Pue BuIRL-As 'BuTqbT;DTS 'bUT qSTJ 'E>UT-4Urq -TO_; SUeT .qdT9pPMCI M-Tp tPUIM (S-T;DA-1-T aLR uaam4eq) .Xoeu 9W4,. sP 0-4 Pa=;999-7 Historic Resources Resource Name: Fort Mifflin Property Class Type: Study Unit (s) : Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Hog Island Street Address/lDcation: Hog Island Road Source/Status: NHL, NR, HABS, PI, PHC Cam-ents: c. 1772 - 1798. Buildings in the complex include a blacksmith shop, soldiers' bar-racks, officers' quarters, commandant's house, arsenal and hospital. (PI) 2. Resource Nam: Bleakley House ("Cannonball" Farmhouse) Property Class Type: House Study Unit(s) : Residences; Agriculture Y=i ity/Neighborhood: Hog Island Street Address/location: Hog Island Road Source/Status: NR, HABS, PI, PHC Ccmnents: c. 1714 - 1720. Moved from original location on Penrose Ferry Road. Presently elevated with no permanent., foundation. Poor condition.. (PHC, WS) 3. Resource Name: Bartrwn House and Gardens (Bartrum Park) Property Class Type: House, outbuildings Study Unit (s) : Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: West Philadelphia Street Address/Location: 54th St, 1, El,@ Ave. Source/Status: NR, NHL, HABS, PI, PHC CcmTents: c. 1731. House and gardens on twenty-six acres of land. Owned and operated by the City as a museum. Restored 1923-25. (HABS) 4. Resource Nam: Bacon-Stonorov House Property Class Type: Detached residence Study Unit (s) : Residences Nbn i ty/Neighborhood: 'Ibrresdale Street Address/Iocation: Just north of Pleasant Hill Park Source/Status: PHC Ccmments: Late 1930's. Currently used as an Looking: W office for adjacent condominiums. Appears to be eli- gible for,the National Register, individually, or as part of a riverfront country houses theme. IMN A-25 5. Resource Name: Fairmount Waterworks Property Class Type: Six buildings Study Unit (s) : Public Institution Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Fairmount Park Street Address/location: Fairmount Ave. at Schuylkill River Source/Status: NR, NHLr NELr HABS, PEI PHC Camlents: Steam-engine house, built 1812-15, is earliest building. Currently under study for-reuse/restor- ation. (HABS, WS) 6. Resource Nam: Glen Foerd (Lutheran Retreat) Property Class Type: House and gardens, outbuildings "Study Unit (s) : Residences Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Tlorresdale Street Address/Location: State Boad and Grant Ave., NE corner Source/Status: NR, PI, PHC Ccwments: C. 1850. Renovated into an elegant mansion in 1902. Grounds include three-level boathouse, garden house,.Swiss Chalet-type cottage, water tower and pump house, tennis courts, carriage house and gate house. MR). 7. Resource Nam: Storefronts and shops. Property Class Type: Raw buildings, Study Unit (s) : Mercantilism/Camnerce Rmicipality/Neighborhood: Kensington Street Address/location: 120 to 126 Richmond Street Source/Status: PHC Ccmnents: 1830's storefronts and shops. 124 g: E Richmond St. is a brick house, c.1831. 120 Ricrimonct St. storefront donated to Smithsonian Institute in 1972, it is of wood construction with convex window shutters. (PHC) 8. Resource Nam: Kensington M.E. Church and Rectory Property Class Type: Church Study Unit (s) : Private Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Kensington Street Address//Locatim: 300 Richmond Street Scurce/Status: PHC C=M-ents: c. 1850 (PBC) Looking: E lookin A-26 9. Resource Name: Thirteen buildings, 300 block Richmond Street Property Class Type: Detached and raw buildings Study Unit (s) : Residences; Ylercantilism/ComTerce ftmicipality/Neighborhood: Kensington Street Address/tocation: S. side Richrund St. , Marlborough to Columbia Source/Status: PHC comments: Detached and row buildings date frcTn the early 19th century. Integrity of the area poor due to demlitians and alterations. 10. Resource Name: Frankford Arsenal Property Class Type: Multiple Resources Study Unit (s) -. Public Institution Mtmicipality/Neighborhxd: Frankfold/Bridesburg Street Address/7=ation: Tacony and Bridge Streets Source/Status: NR, PI, PHC Ccmnents:. c. 1830 11. Resource Name: Benjamin Franklin Bridge Property Class Type: Bridge study unit (s) : Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: center City Street Address/tocatica: Vine Street at Delaware River Source/Status: PI CcnTnents: c. 1926. Bridge is two miles long with totipars 380 feet high. (PI) Appears to be eligible for the National Register, individually or as part of a Coastal Zone bridges theme. 12.. Resource Nam: Penn Treaty Park Property Class Type: Park, monument Study Unit (s) : Public Institution Municipality/14eighborbood: Kensington Street Address/tocatim: Beach St. & Columbia Ave NE corner Source/Status: PI C=mts: Park marks site of Penn's famous treaty with the Indians in 1683. Icoking: S (PI) A-27 13. Resource Name: Three ships, Penn's Landing Property Class Type: Ships Study Unit (s) : Public Institution; Transportation Municipality/Neigbborhood: Center City Street Address/Location: Delaware Ave., market to South St. Source/Status U.S.S. Olympia: NR, PI - 1893, protected cruiser and CcaTnents: U.S.S. Becuna: NR, PI - WWII fleet submarine 1@bsholu: PI - c. 1917, a 4-nast bark built to carry cargo 14. Resource Name: Barnegat Light Ship Property Class Type-; Ship Study Unit (s) Transportation municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/InMtion: Pier 30, Delaware Ave. & FenilWOrth Street Sctu-ce/Status: NR, PI CcnvL--nts: Oldest iron light ship in the U.S. It is operational and fully staffed with nuseum nenbers. It guided vessels to the ports of Philadelphia.. 15. Resource Name: Gloria Dei (Old Swedes Church) Property Class Type: Church Study Unit (s) : Private institution Municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Location: 929 S. Water Street Source/Status: NR, HABS, PI Comnents: c. 1698-1700. Built for Swedish Lutheran congrega- tion, oldest extant church building in Pennsylvania. .(HABS, PI) 16. Resource Name: Commandant's Quarters Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit(s): Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Location: U.S. Naval Base Source/Status: NR, HAW Ccmrents: C. 1875. A late exanple of the Italian villa mode, it is currently used as the Naval Historical Museum. (HABS) A-28 17. Rescurce Name: Society Hill Historic District Property Class Type: Study Unit (s) : MunicipalityMeighborhood: Center City Street Address/tDcation: Walnut Street to IaTbard Source/Status: NR, PI Cannents: Contains over 575 18th and 19th century cammercial, residential, and religious structures. 1-95 Expressway now form eastern boundary, adjacent to Coastal Zone study area. (NR) 18* Resource 33,ne: Southwark Historic District Property Class Type: Study Unit (s) - Mmicipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Iocation: Imbard St. to Washington Ave. Source/Status: NR, PI Conments: 18th% and -19th: -century buildings. Extends into Coastal Zone study area between Fitzwater St. and Washington Ave. Originally an independent borough called Wicaco by the Swedes. (NR) 19. Resource Name: South Front Street Historic District. Property Class Type: ribunhouses Study Unit(s) : Residences Municipallty/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/locaticn: 400 to 700 block Front Street,-east side Source/Status: 400 to 700 blocks: PI; 700.block: NR Ccmnents: l8th century. Adjacent to Coastal Zone study area. 20. Resource Nam: Old City Historic District Property Class Type: Study Unit(s): -Municipality/191eighborhood: Center City Street Address/tocation: Wood St. to Walnut St., west of 1-95 Scurce/StatuS: NR, PI Ctnuents: 18th and 19th century. Residences, churches, financial and cannercial buildings-.--(PI)- Adjacent to the Coastal Zone study area. A-29 21. Resource Name: Marine Barracks Property Class Type: Group quarters Study Unit(s): Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/location: U.S. Naval Base Source/Status: NR C=Trents: c. 1901 22. Resource Name: Firehouse Property Class Type: Brick firehouse Study Unit (s) : Public Institution btuucipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/locaticn: 1401 South Water Street Source/Status: PS ConTmnts: The date 1894 is indicated by a terra cotta plaq2e in a triangular pedinent. The building is boarded up and degenerating, although no major damage has been sustained. Appears to be eligible for the Naticnal Register as part.of a South Philadelphia firehouse thenie. (PS) 23. Resource Name: Pier 84 Property Class Type: Pier andwarehouse Study Unit(s): Mercantilisin/Ccmuerce; Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/lDcatim.: 2201 S. Delaware Avenue Source/Sta-@us: PS ccun-ents: c. 1915. Beaux Arts Pier facility. ApjVars to be eligible for the Naticnal Register. (PS) 24. Resource Nam: Baltimore and Ohio Fruit Exchange Property Class Type: office and refrigerated waxehouse Study Unit (s) : Transportaticn Municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/7-ocation: 2204 S. DelawareAvenue Source/Status: PS conrents: c. 1929. Deco bioderne two-story office attached by a bridge to an eight-story windowless cold storage warehouse. Appears to be eligible for the Naticnal Register. (PS) A-30 25, Resource Nanva: Victorian Industrial Buildings Property Class Type: Study Unit(s) : Industry MuniciPality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Iocation: 20 Mifflin street Source/Status: PS Ccnments: c . 1885. Develognent, of two and three-story brick and stcne buildings. High Victorian Indus- trial Vernacular. Appears to be eligible for the National Register. (PS) 26. Resource Nam: Pennsylvania Railroad Refrigerated Warehouse Property Class Type: Brick warehouse Study Unit (s) : Transportation; MercantilimVCcnnerce Mmicipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Location: 8 Oregon Avenue Source/Status: PS CmTrents: c. 1928. This Deco warehouse is the largest structure along the Delaware River in South Philadelphia. Appears to be eligible for the National Register. (PS) 27. Resource Naffe: Pier 30 Property Class Type: Study Unit (s) : Transportation; MercantilimVCcnrerce MmiciPalitY/NeighbOrhOOd: South Philadelphia Street Address/locatim: Delaware Avenue Source/Status: ps Cmments: c. 1916.' Beaux Arts, poured concrete pier. it is currently used as an indoor tennis court ocaplex. Appears to be eligible for the National Register. (PS) 28. Resource Name: Pier 34 Property Class Type: Study Unit(s) : -Transportation; mercantilism/Ccauerce Municipality/Neigbborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/location: Delaware Avenue Source/Status: PS Ccrmients: c .1900 Neo-Classical design with metal sheathing. Poor condition. Appears to be eligible to the National Register. (PS) A-31 29. Resource Name: Pier 36 Property Class Type: Study Unit (s) : Transportation; Mercanti-lism/Cawerce Municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Location: Delaware Avenue Source/Status: PS CcnTnents: c. 1913-1915. Beaux Arts. Appears to be eligible for the National Register. (PS) 30. Resource Name: Piers 38 and 40 Property Class Type: Study Unit (s) : Transportation; Yiercantilisrq/CcnTrerce Municipality/1,Teighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Location: Delaware Avenue Scurce/Status: PS -1915. Beaux Arts. Appears to be eligible Camients: C. 1913 for the Naticnal Register. (PS) 31. Resource Name: Delaware River Waterfront District Property Class Type: Piers and warelx)use facilities Study Unit (s) : Transportation; Mercantilism/Commerce Amicipality/Neighborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/Locaticn: South St. to Washington Avenue Source/Status: PS Ccmnents: A proposed.historic district. It includes site numbers 23 through 30 as contributing properties. (PS) 32- Resource Name: Meadows Firehouse Property Class Type: Firehouse Study Unit (s) : Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Eastwick (The Meadows) Street Address/Locatian:. 84th and BartrLun Avenue Source/Status: WS C=n-ents: The datestone indicates 1929. Looking: W A-32 33. Resource Name: Pastor's ibuse Prope.rty Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) : Residences; Private Institution, ftm1C1Pal1tY/Ne-19hb0rhOOd: Eastwick (The Meadows) Street Address/Location: East of 86th & TinicLun Ave. Source/Status: WS Ccmrents: T-ate 19th c. Frarre building pre- Looking: SE dates other structures in the Meadows 34. Resource Narre: St."Raphael's School & Con vent Property Class Type: Masairy Building and convent Study. Unit (s) Private Institution Municipality/Neighborhood Eastwick Street Address/Location: East of 86th,& TinicLzn Avenue Source/Status: WS Coments: NE. cornerstone of school/churdh: School., 1915.. (WS) Looking: N 35. Resource Narre: Duplex Class T Property ype: Attached house Study Unit (s) : Residences Ylunicipality/Neighborhood: Eastwick Street Address/Locatian: 86th & Bartrum Ave-,.SE corner Source/Status: ws Ccmnents: 20th c.. Same of the few remadning Icoking:. residences in the Eastwick urban renewal area 36.. Resource Name: B & 0 Railroad Bridge Property Class Type: Bridge study Unit (s) : Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: South Philadlephia street Address/1-ocation: B & 0 freight yard, Sdurylkill River Source/Status: WS Ccnumts: Bridge pivots to allow river traffic Looking.- n7 through. (WS) Appears to be eligible for the Naticnal Register as par t of a Coastal Zone bridges there. A-33 37. Resource Nam: Philadelphia Electric CaTpany Property Class Type: masonry generator building Study unit (s) : industry Y=niciPalitY/Nelghborhood: South Philadelphia Street Address/location: 26th & Christian Sts. Source/Status: WS CcmTkents: 20th c. generating facility. Appears Looking: S to be eligible for the Naticnal Register as part of an electrical facilities there. 38. Resource Name: Railroad@Bridge at 30th St. Staticn Property Class Type: Bridge 5z" Study Unit (s) : TransPortaticn Municipaljty/Neigt@borhood: West Philadelphia Street Address/location: Dbrth of JFK Blvd. & Schuylkill R. 5@ 'Givwpp@ Source/Status: TtS ccmments: Appears to be eligible for the Na- tional Register as part of a Coastal 7me " -In 9 bridges them. 39. Resource Nam: Hudson Autcmobile Assembly Plant Property Class Type: Manufacturing building Study Unit (s) Tndustry Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Center City Street Address/Tocatim: Market St. & Schuylkill R., SE crnr Sck=ce/Status: WS Ccoments: c. 1930. This former assembly plant has a new ccmrparcial use as The SE Marketplace, a furniture wholesale market. 40.- Resource U-zw: Warehouse Property Class Type: Brick warehouse Study Unit(s): Mercantilism/Caw.erce Ya.micipality/1,4eighborhood: Center City Street Address/tocatim: Vine St.. & Delaware Ave., SW corner U1 Souxce/Status: WS Cam-L-_nts: c. 1870. A 16-bay, 4-story wax-e- Lookinq W house with cast iron entablature and Pilasters on ground floor. It is proposed for con- version to residentialcondominiums. wt SW A-34 41. Resource Name: Philadelphia Warehouse & Cold S Property Class Type: Refrigerated warehouse Y, Study Unit (s) : MA--= a n t i 1 i s m/Cc mT ex c e Municipality/Neighborhood: North Philadlephia. Street Address/Location: Front St., south of Fairmunt Avenue.. Source/Status: WS Comnents: c. 1925. Brick, Flemish bond with Looking: t (7-1 decorative brick patterning. Appears to be vacant. 42. Resource Name: warehouse Property Class Type: Brick warehouse Study Unit (s) Yjercantiliw/Czmwxce Municipality/Neighborhood: North Philadelphia Street Address/Location., 5oo Beach street Source/Status: WS Cannents: c. 1880. Tuo-story, brick with Lookiag: NW rusticated stone water table, lintels and belt coursing. 43. Resource Name: Ajax Metal Canpany Property Class Type: mahufacturing bui-Iding Study Unit (s) : Industry Ymicipality/Neighborhood: Kensington Street Address/Locatim: 56 Ricbmnd St. Source/Status: WS Ccninents: Building is c. 1890 with 1930's Looking: S addi tion. 44. Resource NZEMM: Philadelphia Electric Ccopany Property Class Type: Masonry generator building Study Unit (s) : industry Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Kensington Street Address/tocation: Lehigh Ave. & Delaware River Source/Status: WS Camients: Generating station. Appears to be g: E eligible to the National Register as part of an electrical facilities theme. A-35 45. Resource Name: port Richrrond Terminal Property Class Type: Railroad and port facilities Study Unit (s) : Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: Richwnd/Kinsington Street Address/Location: Lehigh Ave. & Delaware River Source/Status: ws ComTents: Large port facility developed by toal-ioader Reading Rai-Iroad as a coal loading Looking: NE faci-lity. Site includes numerous piers, ware- houses, garages, grain elevators, ooal loaders, and a chapel. A good subject for HAM documentation. 46. Resource Name: T(A;o manufacturing buildings Property Class Type: Brick industrial building -Study Unit (s): Industry I - I-@ Mmicipality/Neigbborhood: Richmond Ian- Street Address/locat-ion: Tioga and Casper Sts. Source/Status: WS ccmnents: c. 1880. Buildings are identical Looking: N 47. Resource Name: Philadlephia Electric Company Property Class Type: Pla@y generator building Study Unit (s) : Industry MM . cipality/Neighborhood: Richnond Street Address/Locatim: Lewis St. & Delaware River Source/Status: WS ccmnmts: Generating station. Appears to be Looking: NE eligible for the National Register as part of an electrical faci-lities thenie. 48. Resource Name: Penn Central Railroad Bridge Property Class Type: Bridge Study Unit (s) : Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: Richmond Street Address/Locaticn: Lewis St. & Delaware River Source/Status: WS Cznc-ents: Center section raises via counter- %,eighted assembly for river traffic. Looking: -S Appears to be eligible for the National FgTis-ter as part of a Coastal Zone bridges theme A-36 49. Resource Nme: Philadelphia Coke Coapany Property Class Type: Office and factory buildings Study Unit (s) : Industry Nbnicipality/Neighborhood: Bridesburg Street Address/Location: Orthodox St. & Delaware Ave. Source/Status: WS CanTents: Large facility for manufacturing coke looking: NE fran coal. Structures appear to date fran mid-19th century. A good subject for HAM docuTentation. '50. Resource NaTm: Lardeners Point Purrping Station Property Class Type: Puap house Study Unit(s) : Public- Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Wissinoming Street Address/location: Delaware Avenue & Levick St. Source/Status: M Cxxments: 1904 recorded on datestme. Appears Looking: SW to be eligible for the National Register as part of a Coastal Zone waterworks theme.- 51. Resource Name: Tacony-Palmyra Bridge Property Class Type: Bridge Study Unit (s) : Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: wissincodng JT M N Street Address/location: Levick St. & Delaware River Source/Status: WS Cmments: Appears to be eligible for the Na- Looking: S tional Register as part of a Coastal Zone bridges them. 52..- Resource Name: Disston Saw Works Property Class Type: Factory buildings Study unit (s) : Industry Municipality/Neighborhood: Tacony Street Address/locatim: Knorr & Wissinaning St. Source/Status: WS Caments: C. 1900. Large carplex of buildings Looking: SW is now in various industrial and ware- house uses.. Sore are still used by Disston. Elaborate iron fence and gatemoik. "D" logo used throughout in keystones and starr bolts. A good subject for HAER documentation. A-37 53. Resource Name: House (detached row) Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) : Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: T"acony Street Address/liocation: Princeton & Delaware Ave. Source/Status: WS Camlents: c. 1900. Appears to be on grounds Looking: SW Of St. Vincent School. Although it is a detached house, it has row house configurations. 54. Resource Name: St. Vincent's School (2 buildings) School buildings and grounds Property Class T@@: Study Unit (s) : Private Institution Muni-cipal-ity/Neighborhood: Taccny Z?R@, I @ - I t . - Street Address/tocation: Milner St. & Cottman Ave. Source/Status: Looking: COMPents: Datestones on brick building: 1901 (WS) 55. Resource Nane: Riverview Ham for the Indigent -A Property Class Type: Administrative buildings, group qtr. Study Unit (s) : Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Holresburg Street Address/locatian: Rhawn St. & State.Rd. 47979 St. Rd.) Source/Status: WS r7- Camients: Originally built in 1914 for over @kjKg-: SE 2000 people. Newer sections added in 1956. Soup original buildings are being demlished due to code cmipliance problems. (WS) 56. Resource NaTM: House of Correction Property Class Type: prison Study Unit (s) : Public institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Holniesburg Street Ss/Incatiai: Rhawn St. & stat,-- Rd. Source/Status: WS Ccmrents:, Looking NW A-38 57. Resource Name: Quaker City Gun Club Property Class T Ype: Clubhouse Study Unit (s) : Private Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Holmesburg Street Address/Iocation: Immediately north of House of Correc. Source/Status: WS C=ments. Site includes trap shooting range and. Looking: NW ruins of stables. still in use. (WS) 58. Resource Narre: Water.WorkS Buildings Property Class Type: Maintenance buildings & pumphouses Study Unit (s) : Public Institution Municipality/14p-ighborhood: ThrreSdale Street Address/location: Thrresdale Filtration Plant Source/Status: CCX1nentS: Thrresdale Filtration Plant grounds Looking: W includes nuTerous pumphouse buildings and interesting Figh vlctorian Gothic buildings which is apparently used as maintenance building for adjacent city park.. Selected buildings appear to be eligible for the National Register as part of a Cbastal Zone waterWOrks therOe- 59. Resource Nam: Carriage House Property Class Type: Stone carriage house Study Unit (s) : Residences rresdale 1@= cipality/Neighborhood: TO Street Address/Locatian: State Rd. at Bakers Bay CondOPliniums Source/Status: WS Cmments: c. 1880. Building is now used as 7LEbking: recreation facility for ccndcrrdnium developTent 60-- Resource Nam: Two Italianate, Houses Property Class Type: Houses Study Unit (s) : Residences 'cipality/1,7eighborhood: Thrresdale Street Address/,tDcatim: SW of Milner & Filter Sts. Source/Status: WS Ccnrients: c. 1870. These two houses are On adjacent parcels. They are identical lookihg: NW although one.has an enclosed porch and the bracketed eaves on the other have been boxed with aluminum. A- A It him A-39 61. Resource Nam: The Roost Property Class Type: House. Study Unit (s) : Residences IM. Municipality/Neighborhood: r1lorresdale Street Address/Ijocation: Filter & Milner Sts., NW corner Source/Status: WS Cannents: c. 1870 NW 62. Resource Name: Morelton Inn Property Class Type: House Study Unit (s) : Public Accomodaticns; Residences orn municipality/Neigbborhood: Thrresdale Street Address/Location: Filter & Milner Sts., at Del. r Source/Status: WS Ccnnents: c. 1858. Erected on the ruins of Lookin Risdon's Tavern. Moralton was a popular aff@ resort inn. Restored in 1948, although mill uurk from China Hall was installed in. the interior. (NR, Glen Fberd) Appears to be eligible for the National Register individually or as part of a riverfront country home them. 63. Resource Name: Lyn Del Hall Property Class Type: House Study Unit (s) : Residences YAmicipal-ity/Neighborhood: Thrresdale Street Address/Location: Milner & Grant Ave., SW corner Source/Status: WS Cam-ents: Looking: N 64. Resource Name:. Two houses Property Class Type: House Study Unit (s) : Residences Yxinicipality/Neighborhood: Thrresdale Street Address/lacation: Grant Ave. .& Delaware River Source/Status: WS Ccmnents: Former mansion and tennant house now used as drug and alcohol rehabilita- Looking: W tion center. A@)pears to be eligible for the National Register as part of a riverfront country NW house theme. A-40 65. Resource Name: Delaware River Yacht Club Property Class Type: House Study Unit (s) :Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Tbrresdale Street Address/Location: SE of Grant & Milner St. on River Source/Status: WS Cammts: Former riverfront house now used as Lookinc clubhouse. Appears to be eligible j -.W for the National.Register as part of a riverfront country home them. A-41 41 kz -@,L N @Vl 4F VA, iRk -@O V7", zk 10 yj I 'kv t J@ I;@,q 2 "5 tl K ev N't, -4 M -W. IN, KI- --VN, 1 ju, 8. 9 r4l 29 2 77W p,,@ `25 i@' 2ac IK 2 % 2T J@ &T, Legend: Prehistoric Archeological Sites Historic Archeological Sites Historic Archeological Areas/Districts Per Historic Sites Historic Areas/Districts 4 M V, WOR 'M 4 ,kv- it4A z V V OVA's lrk, -,p z A -b'-1 W NU ,4@F,, 14 W L4 qlb L -Q k 4"K 7@H@;,4, W', 61 4 1, zit -I- J i 4 A 14 vr,@tr V-Z ,I- QAI@ 1 inch I mile ktion Plan 0 1/2 1 2 r Coastal Zone ic Resomwe S Key Map: prepared for BUM COMMiSSiOn Figure Number: Historic Preservation prepared by derick Associates se MaPSource. Delaware Vai- 2 Milner Associates 60 T- A-3 Bucks 2ant-y Prehistoric Archeological Sites 1. Resource Name: "Tschichocke" Indian Site Study Unit: Historic Contact Municipality: - Bristol Borough Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: The site is reported for the general area of Bristol Borough, but nothing further is known. 2. Resource Nanie: "Sipaessing" Indian Site Study Unit: Historic Contact Municipality: Falls Township Source: Bucks County Conservancy; Becker (1978) Descripticn: The site is reported for the general area of Pennsbury Manor at the t3ze.when William Penn first settled there, presumably attracted by the land already partially . cleared by the Indians. A small number of waste flakes and broken stone tools was recovered during recent archeological testing on Pennsbury property and wi-ale surface collecting in agricultural fields to the west of Pennsbuzy, near the Delaware River. Cne other prehistoric artifact, a broken bannerstone, is reported fran 1978 excavations at Pennsbury. 3. Resource Nam: "Menahakonk" Indian Site Study Unit: Historic Contact Mmicipality: Falls Township Source: Bucks County Conservancy Descripticn: The site is reported to have been along the Delaware River near present day Fallsington, but nothing further is known. 4. Resource Nam: ,sanckahickanll Indian Site Study Unit: Historic Contac t Municipality: Morrisville Borough Source: Bucks County Consexvancy Descripticn: The site is reported for the general area of what is now Morrisville Borough, but nothing further is known. 5. Resource Name: Indian Trail Study Unit: Unassigned, probably several Municipality: Philadelphia to Morrisville Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: This trail is known to have been the original path along the Delaware River from Philadlephia. to Bristol and Morrisville, and later became "King's Highway" or Bristol Pike 6. Resource Name: "Xentkateck" Indian Site Study Unit: Historic Contact Municipality: Morrisville Borough A-43 umoml s-r xaq::pmj. buTtr 4ou -4nq IdTWuAqL sTI-ea AleP -4u9said g:o paze atR aog: paqaocl@a s-r 94TS STtll :uD-F4c#acos9a (9L6-[) sPTOM-KG@PPW :90-TnOS dTWMqL STTea :A'4TTedTc)TurIYA 4OP-4UCO DT-104STH : qTurl Apn'4S ueT 'UOPTT :amN 9=nCsad 'ET 94TS . puj ,Ac . No, 409coad auoZ TL-49eoo W4 -109: f)uT4s94 TeOTBOTOMIZ-Axe WE)oaa Buranp 9-mLl pea-atooo9a exam sa,4eTj aqsPA auns qnq "WIPPOOT sTtp aqj pq:@aodaa ATSrIOTA9.Md ST 84TS CN :UDT4dTXDSaa BuT4sq-4 TL-3T5oTo9tp-Te quaoal bu-cmip pa4ieOUI : aO=IOS d-rtlstriqL waTestrag :F4TTvd-rc)TurW Umomm :-4TUn Apnqs ;9-4Ts ueT . pui ;aTc[Tesoci : aueN aomiosau ZT -UMOWj ST aSlr4=lj btrrtr4OU qnq 'X-)AT'd 8aW-IRTaa 9TT4 -Teau Xaaxo BuTssanbocl buoTe paqaodaa s-r umoq ueT .pui uv :uOT ea .4dTzic)s (.p*u) -mWasor4S Aq paqaodea sp IsnTuedamo : aoxnoS (e'rsnT'ePuV) dTWa4c'L umTesuDg :A4TT'edTc)=.W 401?,4mo arao'4STH Muri Aprqs ;94TS 'LreTPuI P94aOdBd :aareN 9OJnOBGH *TT -UMDLD[ S-E Xa@ bun pou qnq IlLpeag aTdw uo puno_z peqaoclaa 9-Te sqo'ejp- uoT-4dTaosea (,p*u) -TaNeimcqs :ao:cnoS (tpeas ;aTdcw) dT WtnckL ToqsTxEl :A4TTudT:oTurW UMC)MM :qTuLl Apn-4S 94TS ueTpui paqaodad : amN aomosad *OT a4TS W4 WOW UP"zi s-F xatPaT9 .6uTq4ou I-rq 'XGA-.M 2 - r ?-AwTea W4 u-r pLaq qpaaB aq4 =Pau paqpooT s-r a4u4S9 sTq4 'SleT-4le 9L8T ue uO P9:P-FdaP sV . -a4u4sa suTTTcD *,a,, UO Pur'0-J P9420daa OaatA S--PPJT:kle uP-EpuI : uoT'4dTI-,Saa (*P*U) -mxmmaqs : a0mos dTqsw&qL s TT'ea :AqTTled'rr)TunW umomM :-4-cun ApnqS aqTs ueT .pui paqaodea : amm wxnoseu -6 -UAOEZ[ S-r .19T4=9 BuTtROu qnq l3pa-gD mwjoo jo tpue-zq L14-TOU aLp BuoTe pa:@xodax ST 9'4TS STtjL :UOTq4MSqa (.P.U) -TaXomoqs :;a=noS '109 Uf LlbncL AKPA9TTnl. :ATFTedTOTUMA uwxDM : qTun Apn'4S 94TS ueTPuI P9:POcl;2kl : awN 9D.InOsGU -8 umoml s-r -mq4-ug BuT q4ou -4nq I pueTsi saT-r g go qxed uraLr-ljou aq4 -iog paqaoclaa s-r a4-Fs s-rtil :UOT44-iosac (.P.U) -TaNmugow : go-mos dT WuMQL sjTej :AqTTedToTurW umOu5[un :4Tun APn4S 94TS upT pui paqaodad : awN qo=Losa@j L eoueC[ aR ;0 GO'elcla Su29M auleu S'4T PUP 'PueTSI UOCW 90 4aed u-TaLT4JOu 9P .109 P94aoq9a s'r aqTs sn" :UDT44msea (*p*u) -mxvuiaolqs : eamos Historic Archeological Sites 1. Resource Name: Ferry House or Old Stone Tavern Study Unit: Public Accam-odation Municipality: Bristol Township (Edgely) Source: Rivinus (1965) Description: located at the old Bloomsdale Ferry, it was here that Aaron Burr crossed the Delaware River on his flight after killing Alexander Hamilton. 2. Resource Nam: Black Horse Tavern (1794) Study Unit: Public Accammodaticn Municipality: Tulleytown Borough Source: Rivinus (1965) Descripticn: This inn was headquarters for the overland stage from New York to Philadelphia for a number of years. 3. Resource Name: WIheat Sheaf Inn (1792) Study Unit: Public Acccntoodatian Municipality: Falls Township Source: Rivinus (1965) Description: Structure may still be standing, though altered. Associated archeological ccmponent is potentially significant. 4. Resource Nam: Dunk's Ferry 1:nn (18th century) Study Unit: Public Acccmmodation Municipality:- Bensalem Township Source: Rivinus (1965) Description: The Hotel originally acccnr-cdated passengers of the ferry and other travelers, but became popular in the mid-nineteenth century with fishermen and hunters. Structure stands on state property and archeological component is potentially accessible and significant. 5. Resource Name: Likely site of Crewoorne (17th century) . Study Unit: Public Instituticn Municipality: Morrisville Borough Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: The first county seat called "Crewcorne" (with various spellings) has never been precisely located, although this site seem likely in the opinion of local historians. 6. Resource Name: Ice House Study Unit: Mercantilism/Ccrm-erce Municipality: Morrisville Borough Source: Bucks County Conservancy, documented in 1891 atlas Description: Little is known of this establisbment except that no structural features remain above-ground. 7. Resource Name: Bloomdale (late 19th century) Study Unit: Residences; Mercantilism/Cam-erce Municipality: Bristol Township (Bdgely) Source: Bucks County Conservancy A-45 Description:. The remains of a large wall are the only visible evidence of what once was a 540 acre estate and seed company, owned by David Landreth. 8. Resource Name: Maple Beach (20th century) Study Unit: Residences Municipality: Bristol Township Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: Site of a 1920's real estate development which included more than 20 houses by the 1950's. Most have been de- molished for industrial expansion, and the area may be potentially significant for future archeological inves- tigations. 9. Resource Nam: Sorobia (19th century) Study Unit: Residences Municipality: Bensalem Township Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: The mansion "Sorobia," some outbuildings, and tenant houses once stood an state property, but have been demolished. An 1891 atlas refers to the area as "Hazel- wood," but it waspart of the Iogan Estate. 10. Resource Name: The State in Schuylkill (third location) Study Unit: Private Institution Municipality: Bensalem Township Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: Cne of the oldest social and fishing clubs in the country used this site for its third home until it burned in Deceuber 1980. An atlas from 1891 refers to the property as "DeX7M. 11. Resource Nam: Ferry Site (1697) Study Unit: Transportation Municipality: Bensalem Township (Bridgewater) Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: Called "Shaminy Ferry, ", this is one of a few ferries crossing a secondary stream, in'this case Neshan"Liny Creek. 12. Resource Name: Grist Mill Study Unit: Industry or Mercantilism/Commerce Municipality: Morrisville Borough Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: Little is known of this mill. 13.- Resource Name: FerrySite Study Unit: Transportation Municipality: 1@brrisville Borough Source: Bucks County Conservancy Description: Little is known about this site, but it probably repre- sents the Lamberton Ferry established in 1770. 14. Resource Name: Ferry Site Study Unit: -Transportation A-46 9AT'41eTroods sT sTq4 4tOM'd 'We '4rq 'Lln-W90 tR8-E 8q4 ux bur .qsnTa uT P94POOT uaaq aseq 04 umc)tD[ 'P-TOa A;DTsUMS 9tp 04 PUCdSG_7UOC) Aum suTra atU. ,eaxe axp go aouessTleumoaa e BUT=V pa:pu exam sLuT .pTTncr4m IRTm asncq e uaaq atxq o4 savadde -4P'Pk JO saam4pag Tejnqort-T4s xaw-Ro, pue suo-r-4ppmoa :toT-4dT-ms9a COad MIOZ TF4sPQD ZlOg Katam BuT-inp paxaAwsTa : ao-inoS (BuT-qsn-Ea) dT qsw@qj umTesuag :)4TTedToTurw -4Tun I I saouapTsad . Qn-4s 94TS P9T9T4u9PTufl :au2N aO-u'Ds;Ekl '61 aTFS sT qq -4nocre umom[ sT ;qT-4-4-.L-j :uoT" -r osaa ADUeAa-asucrj 4url@o S.)Prta :9oanos dT qstu4qL sTTPJ :F4TTledT-OTurW 90xawMD/ws-FT-r'4UeOa-aW -'sa0u9PTSEU :4Tua A714S laaFTa Pue 94e4sa S, uTAI :aueN 90m"Os9H *8T uwxi5rm sT Te-E qu;gqod Teo-rboToaqO_7M qtR PUe '9ATtUM SbUTPTTrq ON 'T9@4S 'S*fl Aq paTdmoo mou -s-r, pue"[ atT4 se Isdum 4xmoqx uo avadde ,40U Seop 4T IUMO-4 samfaom L, w-,aq a&,eq Cr4 PaA9T[9g : XIOT44=Saa FummiaesmD 14unco s3prtg :aaxnoS drqstg4ql s-El-ea :Aq-rTpd-EOTuruA O=am3cO/u'sTTTqueOx-W -swu9PTsGU :4Tua APM4S ;9TTTMPTTS. :G=N 90-InOsEkl *LT -SUPT-TO-4 q TeOOT Xq PaE>P9TmOu3P'e axe ;9-4TS sTtr 4 iog sm-v -mbuoT ou s-r ppoo-E aTcrFssod aAL qup,-Pm '4T '4,nq 'pa-Te 9q4 u-F qsa-rTasai aqq go auo s-r asnaq sTt;l :uo-r OsacI qdT-l AOMA-msucO k4unco mptia :ao-T'nos dTqsu%Cl sTTPa :A4TTed'rOTur'JA saouapTsau :-4Turl Apn-4s asncH s9TTEI umTTTTM :awN 9=nOssld *9T *PueTsI s9TT9 uO bu-rPueT Lxaag: s-rLr 4 qnoqe uwU5[ ST ;DT44TrI : UOT'4dT=Saa ,@oueAxasucc) Aiun@o sxms :aainos dT qsw4QL STTea :A4TTPdTOTunW uoTqeqaodsue.@L .: -4Turl Apn-4S 94TS L=9a :9MN 9=nOs9U 'ST 'SL91 Paqs'rTql?'4s;D luoqua-;i woa.; Li-Tag ..,49aaqs A-uaa. w4 xo-; buTpue-i atR 9q Aem 4T 4W4 :ld9Ox9 94TS ST :mT:;dTmsea .q4 "4nOqe W50M[ ST 9T44-PI koumaasucC) A,4unco sXorig :aoanos 46n=Oa aTT-rAST.=CW :A4T .TPdTOTUrN Historic Resources Resource Name: Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge Property Class Type: Bridge Study Unit (s) Transportation Municipality/Neighborhood: Morrisville Borough Street Address/Locat-lon: Delaware River, just south of Rt. 1 Source/Status: NR, PI, BCR Cammts: c. 1903. This stone arch bridge is 1080 feet lcng. Work began in 1901. Looking: SE The bridge is still used for both freight and canmter service and has had virtually no structural changes since its construction. (NR) 2. Resource Name: Calhoun Street Bridge Property Class Type: Bridge, automobile and pedestrian Study Unit (s) Transportation Municipa.lity/Neigbborhood: Marrisvil 1 e Borough Street Address/location: Delaware River and Trenton Avenue Source/Status: NR, PI Corm-ents: Looking: NE 3. -Resource Nalm: Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal Property Class Type: Canal, locks .Study Unit(s) : Transportation MunicipalitY/Neighborhood: Bristol and Falls Tbwnships, Morrisville & Tullytown BS Street Address/locat-Ion: Forns western boundary of Coastal Zone Source/Status: NR, NHL, PI, BCR Ccmneftts: Completed in 1837. 60 mile canal run from Bristol to Easton. (PI) 4. Resource Name: Andalusia (Nicholas Biddle Estate) Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) : Residences MunicIpality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/Location: State Road Source/Status: NR, NHL, PI, BCR Ccuments: late 18th century. Greek Revival building created out of earlier 18th century structure. A-48 5. Resource Name: Pennsbury Mlanor Property Class Type: Detached house. Study Unit (s) : Residences Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Falls Township Street Address/location: Pennsbury Pd. and Delaware River Source/Status: NR, PI Comrents: 1939 reconstruction of William Penn's hame based on Penn's letters. Original built in 1682. 6. Resource Name: Housesnear Wheat Sheaf Property Class Type: Detached houses Study Unit(s) : Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Falls Township Street AcUj@ess/Locaticn: Wheat Sheaf Lane and Route 13 Source/Status: PS Comrents: Eight houses and bar ranging in date from. early 19th to early 20th.century. Integrity poor to good. @7. Resource Name: Bristol Pike Property Class Type: Highwey Study Unit(s): Transportation MLInicipality/Neighborhood: Street Address/location: U. S. Route 13 (partially) Source/Status: PI Comments: c. 1675. Oldes pike in Bucks County. Laid out along an old Indian Path. 8. Resource Name: Historic Radcliffe Street Property Class Type: Houses, shops, canTercial buildings Study Unit (s) : Residences; Mercantilisrn/Commerce Municipality/Neighborhood: Bristol Borough Street Address/Location: Mill St. to Bristol St. Source/Status: PI, Act 167 Historic District Comments: Street contains. nmy of oldest houses in the Borough which was chartered in 1720. A-49 9. Resource Name: Morrisville Island Property Class Type: Single, twin detached houses Study Unit (s) Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Morrisville Borough Street Address/T-ocation: Central and Park Avenues Source/Status: WS Comments: Central Ave. looking: NE 10. Resource Nam: Delmorr Avenue Ferry House Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit(s) : Transportation, Residences 111unicipality/Neighborhood: Morrisville Borough Street Address/lOmtion: S. Delmorr Ave. and Green Street Source/Status: WS Con1ments. Two,and one-half-story, 2-bay stone house with.2 1/2-story, 3-bay stone Looking: W addition. House is boarded up but under restoration. Appea s to.be eligible for the National Register. Resource Name: post Road Ferry House Property Class 7ype: Detached house Study Unit (s) Transportation; Residences MLIniciPalitY/Neighborbood: Falls Township Street Addrl@ess/10mticn: Post Rd., east of Pemsylvania. Ave. IA `11 1-1 P Source/Status: ws Ccmrents: Two and on-half-story, 2-bay brick house with 2 1/2-story, 3-bay brick addition. House is occupied, in good condition and has good integrity. Appears to be eligible. for the National Register. 12. Resource Nam: Morrisville Grove Property Class Type: Single, twin detached houses Study Unit (s) Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Morrisville Borough Street Address/1-ocation: District between-Gallen and Moreau, Source/Status: WS Comments: Area includes late 19th century Looking: N single and twin frame-houses. A-50 Resource Name: Victorian House Property Class Type: Detached house Study unit (s) Residences mimicipality/Neighborhood: Morrisville Borough Y. Street Address/Locat.10n: Harrison & S. Penna. Aves. SW crnr k Source/Status: WS Cam-ents: c. 1870. 2 1/2-story Victorian Gothic with stucco scribed to re- Looking: S semble cut stone. Appears to be eligible for the National Register. 14. Resource Name: William Perm Inn Property Class Type: Restaurant Study Unit (s) Public Acconrodations Ylunicipality/Neighborhood: Falls Township street Address/tiocatinn: Pennsbury Rd., south of man Source/Status: M Cmmmts: Building vacant. Good condition Looking: S but is deteriorating. 15. Resource Name: Tulleytown District Property Class Type: Ccmnercial, detached twin/single hs Study Unit (s) Residences; Mercantilism//C=rerce Municipality/Neighborhood: Talleytown Borough Street Address/Inmtiai: Along main St. & Trenton Ave. to Source/Status: ws Martins Crk. Ccmnents: Mostly single and twin detached Store at Main St. & 19th century houses, rany a in River Rd. Looking: S excellent cmdition and some are being renovated. Appears to be eligible for the National Register. 16. Resource Name: Coates House Property Class Type: Detached house Study LTnit(s): Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Bristol Township Street Address/lOmtjon: Coates St. and Pitt (3rd) Ave. Source/Status: WS Cznrents: c. 1800. Stone Georgian farrdmuse.-' Excellent conditicn and integrity. Looking: W 2 1/2-story, 5-bays. Appears to be eligible for the National Register. Irr A-51 17. Resource Name: Fruithouse Wharf Property Class Type: Detached house, outbuildings Study Unit(s): R@esidences Municipality/Neighborhood: Bristol Township Street Address/iocatj -on: North of Landreth & Radcliff Sts. Source/Status: WS at river Comments: c. 1869. Italianate riverfront E nmsion. Excellent condition. Appears to be eligible for the National Register, individually or as part of a riverfrant country house theme. 18. Resource Nam: Pine Grove section of Radcliff St. Property Class Type: Attached, detached houses Study Unit (s) Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Bristol Borough Street Address/location: Radcliff St.,. Bristol to Filmore St. Source/Status: WS _0 Cara-ents: Mostly residential. Single and twin Lookincr: S detached 19th century houses. Pos- sible extention to Radcliff Street*Historic District. 19. Resource Name: Lower Trenton Bridge Property Class Type: Auto/ped. bridge Study Unit (s) Transportation MunIcipality/Neighborhood: Morrisville Borough Street Address/location: E. Bridge St. & Delaware River Source/Status: Ccmnents: Appears Looking: W to be eligible for the National. Register as part of a Coastal Zone bridges them. 20. Resource Name: Phila,. Electric Co. (PECO substat@_ Property Class Type: Utility building Industry Study Unit(s) : Municipality/Neighborhood: Morrisville Borough n- Street Address/Locaticn. NK of Green St. and S. Penna. Ave. WS Source/Status- Comments: Appears to be%eligible for the National Register as part of an looking-:- -W- electrical, facilities theme. A-52 21. Resource Name: Tuu Crazy Brick Houses Property Class Type: Detached houses Study Unit (s) Residences Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Bristol Borough Street Address/Location: W. side of Radcliff St., s of Taylor, Source/Status: WS Comments: c. 1950. Two houses using same an- Looking: NW dom. brick bonding pattern. Both appear to be eligible for the National Register. 22. Resource Name: Mill Street Business District Property Class Type: Attached shops., commercial buildings Study Unit (s) Mercanti-lism/Conuerce 6(Si Municipality/Neighborhood: Bristol Borough .Street Address/Location: Mill St. , Del. R. to Pond St. Source/Status: VE Ccmnents: Potential- 'hain street" historic Looking: NW district. Most storefronts have the typical commercial alterations; a few have been drastically altered. The streetsc'ape is.uninterrupted. 23. Resource Naim: Bristol College Property Class Type: Attached row house, wings with 1 Study Unit (s) Resdncs; Priv. Thst.. center bldg- Mmicipality/Neighborhood: Bristol TWp. a Street Address/Locaticn: Shadyside AVe. e. of China L & Source/Status: WS Cedar La. Cannents: c. 1835. Built on the grounds of Looking: NW the former China Retreat. Both China Retreat and Bristol College buildings used for a hospital during the Civi I War and later as a state school. Center section of Coylege in poor condition. Wings used as apartments. (WS) Appears to be eligible for the National Register. 24. Resource Nam: Newpartville District t.7 Property Class Type: Detached/Attached houses Study Unit (s) Residences; mercantilism/Commerce Municipality/Neighborhood: Bristol -Ib-,mship Street Address/location: Iouler Road Source/Status: WS Comments: Looking-. S A-53 25. Resource Name: Maple Beach Property Class Type: Detached houses Study Unit (s) Residences M municipality/Neighborhood: Bristol Township Street Address/location: Just north of Burlington-Bristol Br Source/Status: WS ConTnents: A 1920's subdivision. Never ccm- Looking: NW pletely built, the area is slowly being acquixed by adjacent Rohm and Haas who has demolished many of the single family houses. (WS) 26. Resource Name:- Burlington-Bristol Bridge Property Class Type: Autoimbile bridge Study Unit(s): Transportation Municipality/Neigbborhood: Bristol Township Street Address/location: Route 413 Source/Status: WS Cannents: Center section is raised via counter weighted Tmcbanisrn for river traf f ic. Looking-. SE Appears to be eligible for the National Register as part of a Coastal Zone bridges them. 27. Resource Name: Dunk's Ferry Inn Property Class.Type: Detached house Study Unit(s) Public Accommodations; Tran 47 Municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/Locatiai: Dxik's Ferry Rd. at Neshaminy St. Pk Source/Status: WIS Ccmrents: c .1790. Inn is now used as resi- Looking: N dence for Neshaminy State Park supervisor. Appears to be eligible for the National 1@_-_gister. 28- Resource Name: Sarobia Property Class Type: Barn, walled garden, outbuildings Study Unit (s) : Residences Mulucipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/tocation: Neshaminy State Park Source/Status: WS Comnents: Mansion demolished. Barn, out- buildings and walled garden remin. Now Neshaminy State Park. L" ;-W. @Iiw_ A-54 29. Resource Name: Brander property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) Residences 4, 11, Municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalexn Township W 1, -@'l z Street Address/Tocation: East of State Rd. & Ash Ave. '71 Source/Status: WS -- Comments: Appears to be eligible for the National Register as part of a Looking: N riverfront country houses theme. 30. Resource Name: Columbus Country Club Property Class Type: Detached houses, lodge, cottages 46 Study Unit(s): Private InstitutiCn; Residences VIV Municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/Ijocatijon 2909 State Rd., n. of Echo Beac Source/Status: WS Comments According to local infomnantf U.S. Go-@@t owned site during WWI Loo]@@g; W and improved dock facilities. Knights of ad-umbus purchased after the War and began erecting cottages. Club has prepared a booklet on site history. (WS) Appears to. be eligible forthe National Register. 31. Resource Nam: Farmhouse Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit(s) Residences/ Agriculture MunicipalityMeighborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/Locatim: East of state and mill R)ads Source/Status: WS Comments: Letter "c" in north gable end. Looking: S 32.1 Resource Name: Grist & saw mill, Lumber Yard Property Class 7@@: Frame Wilding Study Unit (s) Industry 4", 1 @ T-W'@i MM cipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/T State Rd.,, n. o4 Poquessing Creek Ocaticn: WS Source/Status: Camlents: One building remains. Abandoned, poor condition. Looking: NW 4, 11 @Wir_l A-55 33. Resource Name: Edgewlood Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) : Residences MunicipaLlity/Neigbborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/Iocation: East of Midvale and Elgin Avenues Source/Status: WS CcnTnents: c. 1810. 1'3/4 story Federal house Looking: NW in rrliddle of late 1950's subdivision. Good condition 34. Resource Name: The Dell Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) Residences Municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Tlownship Street Address/location: T@ennis Avenue Sourc&/Status: Ws conn-ents: c. 1860. Italianate, emellent con- looking: W ditian and integrity. Appears to be eligible for the National Register, individually or as part of a riverfront country house them - 315. Resource Nam: chestnut,wood #1 7. Property Class Type: Detached house Study Lbit(s): Residences 4unicipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Thwnship Street Address/Locatlon: Chestnut Wood Iane Source/Status: WS _7 Ccoamts: c. 1853. Identical to Resource #36; Looking: both built swre year. Appears to be eligible for the National Register, individually or as part of a riverfront country house them. 36. Resource Name: chestnut Wood #2 Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit(s) Residences Municipality/Neighborbood: Bensalem Township Street Address/locatmon: Chestnut Wood lane Source/Status: ws CcniTents: c. 1853. Appears to be eligible Looking: N for the National Register, individually or as part of a riverfront country house them- N A-56 .37. Resource Name: The State in Schuylkill Property Class Type: Meeting/club house Study Unit(s): Private Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township man Street Address/Location: Chestnut Wood Iand, s. of King Ia. Source/Status: WS Camients: Mansion on site was used by t1lis Loo N Philadelphia Yen's Club. It burned to ground in 1980. Club building on site moved from forn-er location along Schuylkill River. (WIS) Appears to be eligible for the National Register. 38. Resource Name: Farmhouse and Barn Property Class Type: Detached house, bank barn Study Unit (s) - Agriculture Municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Street Address/Location: State Road and King's Lane Source/Status: WS Cam-ent.: C. 1830. Brick, stucco farmhouse and frame bank barn. Appears to be Looking: S eligible for the National Register. 39. Resource Narm: House on Chelwood Estate Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) Residences OT Municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township T . L@ Street Address/Incation: South of Philadelphia Source/Status: WS Ccuments: c. 1910. Appears to be eligible Looking:' SE for the.Naticnal Register as part of a. riverfront country houses theme. 40.- Resource Name: Chelwood _4 Property Class Type: Detached residence study unit (s) Residences MunIcipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Township Street Address/Location: hm-ediately south of Andalusia Source/Status: WS CcmTents: appears to be eligible for the National Register, individually or Looking: NW as part of a riverfront country houses theme. A-57 41. Resource Nam: Pen Eff@, Chestnut Grove property Class Type: Detached house, barn Study Unit (s) : Residences municipality/Neighborhood: Bensalem Tbwnship Street Address/Location: Gravel Pike Source/Status: WS Camlents: Appears to be eligible for the Ing: National Register, individually or as part of a riverfront country houses theme. 42. Resource Name: Otto Grup House (school), Property Class Type: Twin house Study Unit (s) Public Institution Municipality/Neighborhood: BensaleTn Township Street Address/location: Street Road Source/Status: WS c=pnts: Appears to be a school building converted to two apartments. (WS) Looking: NW 43. Resource Nane: Ben Franklin's Daughters House Property Class Type: Detached house Study Unit (s) : Residences Municipality/Neigbborhood: Bensalem Tbwnship Street Address/Locatian: Street Road Source/Status: WS Ccmments: House is being renovated and alter- ed. looking: W A-58 j-F44 A0 W 3 3 V" 'Nljg@ Lv- X %Ji Q 27 `40 A" VI- :Opts".,- 2 A 2 /A @i- '0 -l @y "A 6 . .... ..... . J9, 4 @-X 4 IT A, ks el 17 D V 6 01 iT 4- 7-7 lv, ml -l, q, -4j i k 7 Z l'q -lul X` 41 j Legend: Prehistoric Archeological Resource PF-Utt: Sites Pennsylvania/Delaware Rim Historic Archeological Prehistoric and Histoi Sites Historic Archeological Areas/Districts nnsylvano Historical & Muse Historic Sites Bureau for H Historic Areas/Districts Cee Jay rr-r-e-d in association withJohn --- ---- ---- . . . .. .... P@ A, 4 -NX s", 44@ J T 4V n q, 00" Ae H tWiCk, Hun Y W, Y irl V i 44 1 LUITIOK A" ww, j f N N-IVO j, j pj,@ V -q, '41 7, -4 y@- gl' - , , - ", @1: @ g_- , -: "r- i " p 4@ _4 'NQW IQ 'A, ...... .... . . .. wd'-, k A i"2" ;3 :77 in 7-- X, p 110 . ..... . . .. `U@ Ct '0 ilx- X-M.-O "N, I V 6. 2, @K --p ME 'k e M: _7 Ab@2i,* 4 4 lbieek 4ft 0, tee k P G -M4 Xz Y- '-p V, A n VII I I . .. . .... in VIR Ail,- @-Maiftn K '41 Wf, in 6 r W I inch 1 mite Legend: 0 0 1/2 1 2 Historic Shorefines and i ieswimces.- Protecuon Plan 5@ Streams Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastai Zone I Ma&,& Land. Historic and Contenrl3orary. Landforms Key map: Natural Solis IRR"; prepared for Hydraufic Fill Pennsylvania Historical & Museum ComrTission Figure Nufter- Bureau for Historic Preservation prepared by Cee Jay Frear@lerick Associades in association withJohn Milner Associates Base Map Source. De aware Val- ley Regional Planning "ommiss* ------- ------ ------ Nq q, Run u 66rs Run n The ''Dock AM6 7% Hay Creek IX WindrnillIand 00* Legend: FjeSoUrrNm Prot KStDriC Shorelines and ' %Oqw FU Stream Pennsylvania/Delaware 19 Made Land Historic and Conternpoi Natural Soils Hydraulic Fill Pennsylvania Historical & Muc Bureau fol Cee Jay Fir in association with JOIV 'd -4 V@ r M T- WM4 -Io 14, k 2- Z I T 'J- "Z:,@' IN J! -5 S'N "!v5 i .. ....... .... 'd, K" -2 'e" . ......... T ICA' r; E N. N@n Z,q k 77 7, A j d .2 o4 1 inch 1 mile 1 0 1/2 1 2 ,.ction Plan ver Coastal Zone I Me- Key Map: 3ry Lai 11UMOM prepared for Dum Commission Figure Number: Historic Preservation prepared by Oetick Associates Base Map Source.- Delaware Va I - A5 Milner Associates ley Regional Planning Commission ----------- ------ 14 A' A 4r XV A @4 % C4, N 77 -I", @4, -,c, V, NI Z N -v 0/ ... .... -,fN' W "K, 'V -reekI,- - N@ N2 I Addth -Q7 reek. 'N- All V A e --k .............. 7 SN 7 ""i N, W" A` x p< J, gp, N, X 'N N "INN J N, k WOEOEEMEIR@ Legend: %source Prote Historic Shorelirm and Streams Pennsylvania/Delaware Rim Made Land Historic and Contempora Natural Soils NEN rennsylvania Historical & Muse Hydraulic Fill Bureau for H Cee Jay Fre in association withjohn Survey Forms APPENDIX B B-1 National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form. B-2 PHMC Historic Resource Nomination Form (Pennsylvania Inventory) B-3 Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey Form B-4 Pennsylvania Archeological Site Survey Form B-5 Philadelphia Historical Commission Register of Historic Places Form B-6 Bucks County Conservancy Register of Historic Places Form Fo No. 1.0-3@00 kikem. 10.-1 Ar) Page 1 of 4 UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENTOFTHE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE B-1 TIONAL REGISTER OF FUSTORIGPLACES INVENTORY NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS I N HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS NAME HISTORIC AND/OR COMMON SLOCATION STREET& NUMBER -NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT -VICINITY OF STATE CODE COU NTY CODE IMCLASSIEFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENTUSE -DISTRICT -PUBLIC -OCCUPIED -AGRICULTURE -MUSEUM _BUILDINGISI -PRIVATE -UNOCCUPIED -COMMERCIAL -PARK -STRUCTURE. -BOTH -WORK IN PROGRESS -EDUCATIONAL -PRIVATE RESIDENCE -SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE -ENTERTAINMENT -RELIGIOUS -013JECT _JN PROCESS -YES. RESTRICTED -GOVERNMENT -SCIENTIFIC -BEING CONSIDERED -YES. UNRESTRICTED -INDUSTRIAL -TRANSPORTATION -NO -MILITARY -OTHER: [3OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME STREIT 11 NU MBER CITY. TOW N STATE, VICINITY OF BLOCATION OF IXGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEM-ETC STREET& NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE 13REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE ,DATE -FEDERAL -STATE -COUNTY IOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS CJTY, TOWN STATE UDESCRIPTION Page 2 of 4 CONDITION CHEC K ONE CHECK ONE -EXCELLENT -DETERIORATED -UNALTERED -ORIGINAL SITE -GOOD -RUINS -ALTERED -MOVED DATE -FAIR -UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Page 3 of 4 8 SIGNIFICANCE Page 3 of 4 PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW -PREHISTORIC --ARCHEOLOGY-PRE HISTORIC -COMMUNITY PLANNING -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -RELIGION -1400-1499 --ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC -CONSERVATION -LAW -SCIENCE -1500-1599 --AGRICULTURE -ECONOMICS -LITERATURE -SCULPTURE -1600-1699 --ARCHITECTURE -EDUCATION -MILITARY -SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN -1700-1799 --ART -ENGINEERING -MUSIC -THEATER -1800-1899 --COMMERCE -EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT -PHILOSOPHY -TRANSPORTATION -1900- --COMMUNICATIONS -INDUSTRY -POLITICS/GOVERNMENT -OTHER (SPECIFY) -INVENTION SPECIFIC DATES BUILDER/ARCHITECT STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 9 MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Page 4 of 4 10 GEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY UTM REFERENCES A B ZONE EASTING NORTHING ZONE EASTING NORTHING C D VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES STATE: CODE COUNTY CODE STATE CODE COUNTY CODE 11 FORM PREPARED BY NAME / TITLE ORGANIZATION DATE STREET& NUMBER TELEPHONE CITY OR TOWN STATE 12 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CERTIFICATION THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS: NATIONAL STATE LOCAL As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665). 1 hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNATURE TITLE DATE FOR NPS USE ONLY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ATTEST DATE KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER GPO 892-453 Rx GPO 892-453 Page 1 of 4 B-2 OFFICIAL USE ONLY ennsylvanid Histdrk'al and Museum Commission Pi Historic Resource Nomination PR N R SEE INFORMATION SHEET BEFORE FILLING OUT FORM PLEA�*E -TYPE TORICAL NAME OF PROPERTY: LOCATION: STREET CITY TOWNSHIP COUNTY 7 Congressional District CLASSIFICATION: PRESENT USE ATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS -Agriculture __IMuseum district _ private - occupied. -Commercial --ftrk budding(s) - public - unoccupied -Educational _-Private Residence structure - both work'in progress -Entertainment -Religious site -Government -Scientific object PUBLIC. ACOUISITION ACCESSIBLE -Industrial -Transportation t - in process - Yes: restricted -Military -Other - being considered - Yes: unrestricted No 'OWNERSHIP: 1 ME STREET Y,TOwN STATE ZIP LOCATION of LEGAL DESCRIPTION: URTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC. REET CITY, TO" COUNTY REPRESENTATION in EXISTING SURVEYS: LE OF SURVEY: ,tTE OF SURVEY; FEDERALE7 STATEO LOCAL C3 'dix Pa te n n SJ FH I S @A I VL 0 [POSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS: STATE Page 2 of 4 DESCRIPTION Architectural Description: A written description including features such as stories in Check One height, length and width, number of bays, alterations and additions to the main.structure, type of roof, windows. door, chimney design and placement. materials and style of Original Site construction; and a floor plan. if possible. Moved [I Date Page 3 of 4 Statement: Write in your own words a brief statement of significance for each area SIGNIFICANCE:- checked. ERIOD Date of construction: 1600 - 1699 1800-1899 architect: 1700 - 1799 1900 - Present builder: REA - ARCHEO LOGY-PRE HISTORIC - EDUCATION POLITICS/GOVERNMENT ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC - ENGINEERING RELIGION AGRICULTURE - EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT - SCIENCE - ARCHITECTURE - INDUSTRY - SCULPTURE ART - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN COMMERCE - LAW - THEATER COMMUNICATIONS - LITERATURE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING - MILITARY OTHER (SPECIFY) CONSERVATION - music ECONOMICS - PHILOSOPHY Page 4 of 4 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DATA: L's' major books and documents consulted to write the invveentorry I'A GEOGRAPHICAL DATA: Acerage of NOMINATED PROPERTY UTM REFERENCES All I JJJJJ_]J I I I I I I I B I ZONE EASTING NORTHING ZONE EASTING NORTHING C1 I I I I L-- I -A I II I I I I 1 1-1 D I I I I J-J I I I I Verbal boundary description and justification FORM PREPARED BY: NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE (if any) STREET CITY STATE ZIP DATE SEND COMPLETED FORM TO: It Office of Historic Preservation Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission P. 0. Box 1026 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Page 1 of '2 T e,,aj-X 7. Local survey organization PNNSYLV41A HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY FORM OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Box 1026 PA HISTORICAL 8, MUSEUM COMMISSION IlrrIsbwO, PA 171`20 a 8. property owners name and address 9. tax Parcel number other number 10. 4 -IJ 11. status (other surveys, I ists etc.) usgs Sheet: 12. classillcatlon 13, datelsl lhow detrm,nedl 15, style, design or folk type 19. original use site I ) structure obiect building I ) 14. period 20. present use in N.R. district yes no I 16. architect or engineer 17. contractor or builder 18. Primary building mat./construction 21. condition ntegritV 23. site Plan with north arrow 0 !Q 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BLACK ANO WHITE PRINT(S) 3Y." x 5" enlargement or medium format contact . . . . . . . . . . . note location of negative in block 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. photo notation 25. f1le/locatio 26. brief description (note unusual features, integrltv, environment, threats ond associated buildings) 0 (continue on back if necessary) 0 27. history, significance and/or background (continue on b ck if necessary) 28. sources of information 29. prepared by: (continue on back if necessary) 30. date Tevision(s) Page 2 of 2 AM AODITIONAL OATA/PHOTOS 4. survev code number all continuations from front EVALUATION EVALUATOR(S) Appaidix B-4 Page 1 of 2 PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION SITE NUMBER SITE NAME MAJOR CULTURAL PERIOD(S) TYPE OF SITE PUBLISHED REFERENCES COUNTY TOWNSHIP NEAREST TOWN OWNER ADDRESS TENANT ADDRESS MAP REFERENCE: MEASURE IN CENTIMETERS FROM THE BOTTOM PRINTED EDGE UPWARD, AND THE RIGHT PRINTED EDGE ACROSS. 7.5 QUAD NAME EDITION UP ACROSS U.T.M. COORDINATES ZONE NORTHING EASTING PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCr. TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING MAP ELEVATION SLOPE DIRECTION AND DEGREE. SOIL TYPE IMMEDIATE VEGETATION CULTIVATION. NEAREST WATER (DISTANCE) NAME SOURCE SECONDARY DRAINAGE PRIMARY DRAINAGE TESTED (X) - EXCAVATED BY STRATIFIED (X) YES NO UNKNOWN DEPTH OF STRATA FEATURES COLLECTION LOCATIONS AND INFORMANTS CRITERIA FOR NATIONAL REGISTER INCLUSION POSSIBILITY OF DESTRUCTION SUBMITT ED BY ADDRESS PATE P.A.S.S. REMARKS (OVER) Page-2 of 2 SKETCH MAP OF SITE (WITH SOME POINT OF REFERENCE: HOUSE, ROAD, ETC., WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE 7.5 MIN. U.S.G.S. MAP, INCLUDING A SCALE AND APPROXIMATE ACREAGE). LIST SPECIFIC CULTURAL COMPONENTS AND THE PRIMARY IDENTIFYING ARTIFACTS FOR EACH. SKETCHES (WITH SCALE) OF MAJOR OR REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTILE POINT SHAPES. LITHIC MATERIALS REPRESENTED AT THE SITE. Page 1 of 4 FOR PHC USE 9NLY lAppendix B-5 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FMCEIVED REGISTER OF HISTORIC PL,ACES IP149' FNTERED SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS UNAME HISTORIC AND/OR COMMON BLOCATION STREET& NUMBER -NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT -VICINITY OF STATE CODE COUNTY CODE OCLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE DISTRICT -PUBLIC -OCCUPIED -AGRICULTURE. -MUSEUM- -BUILDING(S) -PRIVATE -UNOCCUPIED -COMMERCIAL -PARK -STRUCTURE -BOTH -WORK IN PROGRESS -EDUCATIONAL -PRIVATE RESIDENCE -SITE PUl BU C ACQU ISITI ON ACCESSIBLE, -ENTERTAINMENT _REU "IOUS r -OBJECT _JN PROCESS -YES: RESTRICTED -GOVERNMENT -SCIENTIFIC- -BEING CONSIDERED -YES: UNRESTRICTED _JNDUSTRIAL -TRANSPORTATION -NO -MILITARY -OTHER: [3OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME STREET & NUMBER CjTY. TOWN STATE VICINITY OF BLOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE REGISTRY OF DEEMETC. STREET& NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE 13 REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TME DATE -FEDERAL --STATE -MUNTY -LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEYRECORDS CITY. TOWN STATE Page 2 of 4 JUDESCRIPTION COMM tOW CHECK ONE CHECK ONE -EXCELLENT DETERIORATED -UNALTERED ORIGINAL SITE -GOOD __WINS, -ALTERED -MOVED 0 -FAIR -UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESE14T AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWNI PHYSICAL APPEARANCE SIGNMICANCE Page 3 of 4 PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW -PREHISTOHIC -ARCH EULUGY-PREHISTORIC -COMMUNITY PLANNING -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -REUGION -1400-1499 -ARCH EOLOGY-HISTORIC -CONSERVATION -LAW -SCIENCE 1500-1599 -AGRICULTURE -ECONOMICS -LITERATURE -SCULPTURE -1600-1699 -ARCHITECTURE -EDUCATION -MILITARY -SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN -1700-17*99 --ART -ENGINEERING -MUSIC -THEATER -1800-111911 -COMMERCE __EYPLORATIOWSETTLEMENT -PHILOSOPHY, -TRANSPORTA nON _1900- -COMMUNICATIONS _JNOUSTRY -POUTICS/GOVERNMENT -OTHER iSPECIFY) _JNVENTION SPECIFIC DATES BUILDER/ARCHITECT STATMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE. Page 4 ofA MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES MGEOGRAPHICAL DATA. ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY QUADRANGLE: zNAME QUAORANGLC- SCALF- UTM Rr=FMRENCF-S A I t B L,_j L I I t 1. 1 1 1 1 1 ZONE EASTING NORTHING .ZONE' EA5TINC3 NORTHING cl I LL I - 6L-Lj El I I F-1 i I I f I I k GLLJ H I --L-L@ I I H Lj-Lj LL-L- I VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LISTALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES STATE CODE' COUNTY CODE STATE CODE COUNTY CODE WORM PREPARED 13Y NAME/ TITLE ORGANIZATION DATE STREET& NUMBER TELEPHONE CITY OR TOWN STATE Page 1 of 4 Appexlix B-6 BUCKSCOUNTY REGISTER OF. HISTORIC PLACES CONSERVANCY I I North Main Street, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901 =345-7= .L Propeftv Name 2. Tax. Map Nuryber (Common name, builder's name, name of longest owner 2E (Obtained at the Sucks County Board of Assessmeaft) present owner) 3. Location. Municipality Address Number Street Name Town/City 4. Ownershp Name Street Phone city State, zip 5. Submitted B@j Name Street Phone City State zip Organization Date REVIEW BOARD USE Fee $ r7 Photos Date Received Board Action; Date APPROVED: NOT APPROVED: Notification letter., Date Mailed Plaque Number Page 2 of 4 6. Architectur-al Description Type of structure (Original use@ Date of Construction: PRE-1 700 =1701-1750 =1751-1800 =1801-1850 =1851-1900 r__I1 901 -Present Associated buildings. e.g. Barns, Carriage House, Spring House, Corn Crib ... with brief description of each. This description should include: building materials (foundation, walls and roof), number of stories, general dimensions: length in bays (number of window and door openings), depth in pyles (rooms), sections in which it was built (sketch of fl6orplan is excellent), additions, window and door placement, chimney placement, original exterior features, original interior features, etc. The -description should be complete enough that the building is not confused with another. Use extra sheets if necessary. 7 Historical Significance State any facts of historical interest locally, county-wide, state-wid6 and nationally. As this is a county register, emphasis is placed on local and county-wide significance. You should consider the building for its architecture, how it served the community (mill, school, shop), notable events which took place in the building, notable persons who lived, worked or stayed in the building, community legends involving the building, and community traditions which the building represents. Some catagories to consider: archeology, architecture, agriculture, commerce, education, engineering, industry, landscape architect- ure, military, religion, transportation, etc. Use continuation sheets if necessary. Page 3 of 4 Start with present owner and go back. Use extra sheets if necessary. Refer 8. Title Record to Terry McNealy's "A Guide To The History of Old Houses in Bucks County". 1975. Available at the Bucks County Historical Society. Page 4 of 4 9. Photographs Submit at least two (2) black and white standard size photos of different views of the exterior. It is preferrable to have pictures taken at opposite comers of the building show 'ing two sides each. A photograph of each exterior facade and of notable interior features (mantle, paneling, doors, hardware, etc.) is ideal. All photos must be labeled with property name and location, tax map number, date of photo, name of photographer, location of negative and description of picture. 10. Fee A fee of $5.00 for individuals, $ZOO for organizations, is required to cover the cost of processing the application. The Bucks County Conservancy is'a non-profit organization, whose major sources 3f revenue are memberships and fund raising activities. Thank you. Criteria For Evaluation The criteria applied to evaluate properties for possible inclusion in the county Register are listed below. These criteria are intentionally worded in a. subjective manner to provide for the diversity of resources within the County. The quality of sign- ificance in the County and National history, architecture, archeology and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, struct- ures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: a) That are associated with events that have made sign if icant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction:or d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information in pre-history or history. The Conservancy understands that the listing on an historic register does not impinge upon the rights of ownership of a prop- erty nor limits the right of an owner in the maintenance, modification or sale of his property. The continuation on a register will depend upon its maintaining historical or architectural integrity. The County Register of Historic Places is the first step in giving special recognition to an individual property. Another, more- detailed form (available at the Conservancy) must be completed to nominate a property to the State Inventory of Historic Places. The Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation selects from the Inventory those properties which should be nominat- ed to the National Register of Historic Places and prepares the forms from the information submitted on the State Inventory f orm. In addition to registers of selective properties, the Comprehensive Statewide Survey of all buildings over fifty years old is being conducted by the Conservancy in Bucks County. This survey, which includes a photograph, brief description and map location on a card, is used for planning purposes and Environmental Impact Statements conducted on the federal, state and county levels and is a valuable tool for protecting historic structures. .4- 0.0 1 44, V .2 :5 A I 'EOGRAPHY C. BIBIL C-1 Cultural Resource Management C-2 Federal P%@-aticns and Guidelines C-3 Prehistoric Archeology of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone C-4 Historic Archeology of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone C-5 Historic Resources of the Pennsylvania/telaw-are River Coastal Zcne C-6 Cultural Resource Survey and Documentation Guidelines C-7 Maps and Atlases C-8 Archeological References Cited C-1 Cultural Resource,Management Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, A Report on Historic Preserva- tion. 1969. An early nanual outlining preservation programs and options among can- munities in the Delaware Valley. Published in conjunction with an historic resource inventory. King, Thomas F., The Archeological Survey: Methods and Uses. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1978. A manual for the layman in which methods and techniques of archeological s urv ey are discussed. King, Thcms F. 1, Hickman, P. P., and Berg, Gary, Anthropology in Historic Preservation:_ Caring for Culture's Clutter. New York: Academic Press, 1977. outlines an integrated approach for involving the archeologist and anthropologist more actively in the historic preservation movement. McGimsey, Charles R., III, Public Archeology, New York: Seminar Press, 1972. Although somewhat outdated, it is nevertheless quite useful in its detailed treatment and listing of state and local legislation affecting archeological resources. It also outlines a plan for the design of state archeological research programs. McGimsey, Charles R., III, and Davis, Hester A. (eds..), The Managerent of Archeological Resources. Special Publication of the Society for American Archeology, 1977. Fran the viewpoint of the archeological community, this publication offers guidelines on a number of concerns-regarding cultural resource management, including minimal criteria for the preparation and evalua- tion of archeological reports. Miner, Ralph W., Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources. American Society of Planning Officials, March 1969. A concise treatmentof problems, issues and approaches to historic preservation planning. Discusses various preservation tools and includes appendices on historic resource evaluation. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources Manage- ment, Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program Technical Record. Harrisburg, December, 1978. The definitive statement on the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program for both the Delaware Valley and the Iake Erie Shoreline. Con- tains land use and environmental and socio-ecanamic statistics and out- lines the management.objectives of the program in both areas. C-1 Pennsylvania State Planning Board, Choices for Pennsylvanians: Challenge and Opportunities in Economic Development and Cam=ity Conservation for the 1980's. Harrisburg, Novenber, 1980. Outlines Pennsylvania's basic econcmic problems associated with the flight to the Sunbelt, energy and environmental resources, and ccmuunity ccnservaticn. An initiative of the nbrnburgh administration, it represents "a policy decision framework for the future." Schiffer, Michael B., and Gumerman, George J. (eds'.), Conservation Archeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. New York: Academic Press, 1977. A. comprehensive sourcebook on the design and execution of archeological investigations under existing cultural resource and historic preservation legislation. U. S. Department of Cawerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Inproving Your Waterfront: A Practical Guide. 1980. Prepared as part of the Coastal Zone program, it documents existing ccnd3-tlcns within the.coastal areas of the United States and, using case studies, discusses management structures, planning techniques, and both public and private programs and opportunities. It generally addresses problems within the older urban areas. U. S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and.Recreation Service, Archeological and Historical Data Recovery Program. Washington, D.C.4, 1978. A good summary document concerning the programs and services of the HCPS Interagency Archeological Services. Uses numerous case studies and documents the relative federal legislation. U. S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Cultural Resources in Massachusetts: A Model for Management, U.S.G.P.O., 1979 (19@Ts@ed 1980). Prepared in conjunction with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, it is cne of the initial applicaticns of the Resource Protection Planning Process. U. S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Ccnservation and Recreation Service, Resource Protectim Planning Process. Septenter, 1980. This is the official document of the HCRS Resource Protection Planning Process. Williamson Design Group, The, A Citizen's Guide to Creating Historic Districts. Institute for Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, N. J., 1976. Although this was developed for the New Jersey Department of Conumnity Affairs, it is applicable to most historic district planning situations. It outlines the process fran the initial survey and documentation, to the developuent and mplimentaticn.of an historic district program. C"2 wrem, Tony P - and Ylulloy, Elizabeth D. , America I s Forgotten Architecture. National Trust for H3_StOr3_C Preservation, 1976. This has become the classic National Trust publication on histori c preser- vation. Its e=ellent use of photographs and case studies roakes it a useful imtj-vaticn tool as well as an important source book. C-3 C-2 Federal Fegulations and. Guidelines Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Protection of Cultural Resources: An Outline of the Process Established by "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties." 36 CFR Part 800, Washingtcn, D.C., 1979. This document outlines the inportant "Section 106" review procedures established by theVatlonal Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Treatment of Archeological Proper- ties: A Handbook. Washington, D.C., 1980. A guide to the principles, procedares and methods for the treatment of archeological properties in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Andrus, Cecil (former Secretary of the Interior) , The Naticnal Historic Preservation Policy Plan Washington, D.C., This document outlines the camprehensive federal historic preservation policy and philosophy of the Carter administraticn. Ccnrad Baker Foundation, Preservation Riles and Regulations. Evansville, Indiana, 1980. A reference book which compiles all statubes, regulations, guidelines and executive orders which affect all aspects of historic preservation and cultural resource nianagerent. C-4 C-3 Prehistoric Archeology of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal zone Kent, Barry C., Discovering Pennsylva@ials Archeological Heritage. Pennsyl- vania Historical and museum Commission, Harrisburg. 1980. General reference which outlines the prehistory of Pennsylvania in such a way to be understandable by the layman. Kent, Barry C., Smith, I. Y., III, and McCann, C. (eds.), Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Cmmission, Anthropological Series No. 1, Harrisburg, 1971. Ccniprehensive reference work which reprints a series of important early papers on the prehistory of Pennsylvania. Kinsey, W. Fred, III, Archeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Pennsylvania Historical- and Museum CcnTnission, Anthropological @@ @ies No. 2, Harrisburg, 1972. Cbnprehensive work which outlines the results of many years of archeo- logical TA;ork in the Tocks Island vicinity. Kraft, Herbert C. (ed.) Delaware Indian Symposium. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Ccumission, Anthropological Series No.. 4-1 Harrisburg, 1974. An anthology of papers presented by noted scholars at a symposium on the Delaware (lenape) Indians held in 1972. Myers, Albert Cook (transcriber), William Penn: His Own Account of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware Indians. Moylan, Pennsylvania: A. C. Myers, 1937. An admirable transcription of Penn's first-hand account of the Indians, c-cuplete with annotations and illustrations. Newcomb, William W., Jr., The Culture and Acculturation of the Delaware Indians. Anthropological Pappers No. 10, Museum of Anthropology, Univer- gir-t-yof Michigan, 1956. General ethnological work on the Delaware (Lenape) Indians. Newron, Walter S. and Salwen, Bert (eds.), Amerinds and their Paleoenviron- ments in Northeastern North America. Volume 288, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New YoFk-, 1-977. Comprehensive anthology of scholarly papers on paleoenvironmental. recon- struction for various locales in the Northeast. Ritchie, William A., A Typology and Nmmclature for New York Projectile Points. Bulletin No. 384, New York State Museum and Science Service, Albany, 1961. Identifies all the major projectile point categories applicable not only to New York, but Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well. C-5 Smith, Ira F., III and Herbstritt, JanLes T., A Status Report on the Pennsyl- vania Archeological Site Survey. PennsyiU@ia @Histc=cal 7and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, 1977. On a township by township, basis, this report lists the number of pre- historic sites recorded in the P.A.S.S. files for each county in Penn- sylvania. Volk, Ernest, The Archeology of the Delaware Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Auerican Arcbeology and TL-chnology, Harvard University, Volume 5, Cambridge, 1911. Early survey of the prehistory of the Delaware Valley which provided an admirable foundation for later studies. Wallace, Paul A. W., Indian Paths of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, 1971. A general historical and ethno-historical treatment of all known Indian trails in the Ccnvonwealth. C-6 C-4 Historic Archeology of the Pennsylvania/Delaw-are River Coastal Zone Becker, Marshall J., Summary Report on the 1976 Excavations at Governor Printz State Park, Essington, Pennsylvania. (36 DE 3), MS on file at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum dammission, 1977. Report detailing the results of excavations at the Printzhof in Essington, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Becker, Marshall J., Report of the 1978 Excavations at Pennsbury Manor. (36 BU 19), MS on file at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1978. Report detailing results of excavations in the vicinity of Pennsbury Manor, Falls Tlownship, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Cosans, Betty J., Franklin Court Report, Vols. 1 - 6. MS on file at Indepen- dence National Historical Park, 1975. Comprehensive series of reports detailing the results of excavations at Franklin Court, in the vicinity of Miird and Market Streets, Philadelphia. Cotter, Jolm L. and Orr, David, Historical Archeology of Philadelphia Historical Archeology 9:1-10, 1975. A brief treatise outlining many of the historic archeological investi- gations wbich have been undertaken in Philadelphia over the years. Hunte r, Charles E., The Archeology of High ward,-Philadelphia, PhD. disserta- tion, The Ameri7c-an University, Washington, D.C., 1979. Detailed account of excavations undertaken in a series of cellars in the vicinity of Front and Market Streets in Philadelphia. John Milner Associates, Historical and Archeological Survey of Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia Report prepared for the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, 1979. Comprehensive report on an historical, architectural, technological, and a heological investigaticn of the nineteenth century Frankford Arsenal in Phi-ladelphia. Liggett, Barbara, Archeology at New Market: Excavation Report.. Philadelphia: The Athenaeum, 1981. Detailed report presenting the results of extensive excavations at New Market, in the Society Hill section of Philadelphia. Noel Hume . Ivor, His torical Archeology. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1968. A comprehensive guide written for the layman to the methods and tech- niques of.excavating historic archeological sites. C-7 Roberts, Daniel G. , and Cosans, Betty J. , The Archeology of the Nineteenth in the Ninth Ward, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for the Market Street East Develognent Corporation, John Milner Associ- ates, 1980. Report detailing excavations of nineteenth century features in the vicinity of Eleventh and Arch Streets, Philadelphia. C-8 C-5 Historic Resources of the Pennsylvania/Delaware River Coastal Zone Bucks County Conservancy, Bucks County Register of Historic Places. The Register is maintained in the Doylestown office of the Bucks County Conservancy. Bucks County Conservancy, Preliminary Research Report for Historic Sites Survey of Bucks County. Doylestown, Pennsylvania, 1979. This history of Bucks County is available at the Conservancy's office in Doylestown. It was prepared as part of the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey in Bucks County, Delaware County Historical Society, Historical Landmarks and Map.of Chester, Pennsylvania. Chester, 1926. A concise guide and map to same of Chester City's historic sites. Pre- pared.in 1926, many of the buildings listed therein have been demolished. Delaware County Planning Department, Preliminary Research Report, Comprehen- sive Historic Resources Survey for Delaware County, Pennalvania. July, 1980, Available at the Planning Department's offices in Lima, this history was prepared as part of the Pennsylvania,Historic Resource Survey in Delaware County. Delaware County Planning Department, Preliminary Survey Checklists: Lower Chichester, Upper Chichester, Marcus Hook, Trainer, Upland, Nether Providence. 1981. These checklists consist of an annotated inventory of known historic sites prepared prior to the field-survey conducted under the auspices of the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey in Delaware County. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, History of*Development in the Delaware Valley Region, Year 2000, Report #1. September, 1976. A concise history of the Lower Delaware Valloy prepared as part of the DVITC Year 2000 Comprehensive Planning Program. Due to its planning orientation, the history is principally concerned with the economic and land use history of the region and the development of transportation systems. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Inventory of Historic Sites, Philadelphia, 1969. This is an annotated inventory of known historic sites in the nine- county Delaware Valley Region in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Many more sites were added in a 1975 update, which was never published. Environmeantal Research Group, The, South Philadelphia Historic Sites Survey. September, 1980. C-9 This history and analysis of the development of the South Philadelphia area east of Broad Street was prepared as part of the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey in Philadelphia. It includes the historic resource survey and recommends sites, districts and thematic iiomina- .tions as eligible to the National Register. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places. A list of sites on the Pennsylvania Inventory is available by county frcin the Bureau for Historic Preservation in Harrisburg. The criteria for the Inventory are now more uniform and require documentation similar to that required for nanination to the National Register. Philadelphia Historical Ccmmission, Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Documentation now required for the Philadelphia Register is the same as that for the National Register. Information on registered sites is available at the Historical Ccomission office. T-eitelman, Wward and 1mgstreth, Richard W., Architecture in Philadelphia: A Guide. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1974. This is an excellent quide to Philadelphia's buildings that includes both historical and ocntmuporary architecture. U. S. Department o f the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. washington, D.C., 197 6. This is an annotated listing of all properties on the National Register. New listings appear monthly in the Federal Register and are compiled in the January edition for the previous year.. Webster, Richard J., Philadelphia Preserved: Catalogue of the Historic American Building Survey Philadelphia, 1976. Many new listings were added to the HABS during the preparation of this catalogue. Includes introductory histories to each area of the city and a detailed architectural description of each building surveyed. Works Progress Administration,, Survey of Historic Sites (Delaware County) 1936. A TATA survey prepared for Delaware County that provides very brief de- scriptims of each site's historical and/or architectural significance. Mre than half of the bui.1dings surveyed within the Coastal Zone have since been demolished. It is available at the Delaware County Planning Department Office. C-10 C-6 Cultural Resource Survey and Documentation Guidelines Blumenson, Jolm J. G. , Identifying Azerican Architecture: A Pictorial Guide to Styles and Terms, 1600-1945. American Association for State and Iocal History, 1977. An easy-to-use quide to architectural styles and terminology. It is well illustrated and includes a pictorial glossary of architectural terms. Poppeliers, John, Chanioers, S. Allen and Schwartz, Nancy B., What Style Is It? Reprinted from Historic Preservation, the quarterly magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.: The Preser- vation Press, 1977. A more general guide to architectural styles, it traces the historical development of architecture in America and is illustrated with classic examples of each style. , Rifkind, Carole, A Field Guide to krierican Architecture, The New America Library, Inc., 1980. Well illustrated with architectural drawings and some photographs, this quide traces the construction techniques and architectural styles of American buildings by building function, s.e.-residential, eccle- siastical, civic, commercial and utilitarian. U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Archeologyand Historic Preserva- tion, Guidelines for local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. November, 1977. A detailed quide to planning, conducting, evaluating and publishing an historic resource survey. U. S. Department of the Interior, office of Archeology and Historic Preserva- ticn, How to Complete National Register Forms. Washing-ton, D.C., JanuarYr 1977. This guide provides detailed information on the documentation of buildings, sites and districts and the completion of National Register Mmdnation Form. C-11 C-7 Maps and Atlases Delafield, Richard, Sketch of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers in the Vicin- ity of PhiladelpEa Exhibiting the Changes Caused by Alluvian Deposits at the Muth of the Schuylkill about Fort Mifflin and League Island "917-nce 1809. Map on file at the Philadelphia Free Library, n.d. Sketch map taken from Hill's rap of 1807. Changes caused by alluvial deposits near mouth of the Schuylkill River added by author. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Survey of the Delaware River, Sheets 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Philadelphia to Marcus Hook. Office of the District Engineers, Philadelphia, 1954, 1958, 196"67- Series of maps depicting the river channel and coastal zone area, including locations of hydraulic fill deposition. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 'Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA to Trenton, NJ: @.U= -of 1565'. Office of the District Engineer, Philadelphig, 1965-. Series of maps depicting the river channel, and coastal zone area, including locations of hydraulic fill deposition. @ Department of the Army, Corps of'Engineers, Map of the Delaware River Surveyed for 35 Foot Channel. 1909. A series of very large-scale reps compiled by the corps for early twen- tieth century dredging purposes. Quite useful in that they provide contour intervals for the river bottom, indicate in some detail the ea ly 20th century shoaline, and show hydraulic deposition. Department of Wliarves, Docks and Ferries, Map of the Delaware River District from Trentcn, N.J. to Wilmington, DE. Phi-ladelphia, 1929. Charts and maps include existing shoreline (as of 1929) along Philadel- phia waterfront, bulkhead and pierhead lines and information on types of existing bulkheads and piers. Also unimproved waterfront properties Easburn, Benjamin, A Plan of the City of Philadelphia, the Capital of Pennsyl- vania. 1776. Early map, of colonial city of Philadelphia. Area of Coastal Zone covered includes Callowhill Street to just south of Christian Street. Everts and Stewart, Delaware County, 1875 Clontdnation Atlas. 1875. Con-bination Atlas showing buildings, ownership and land developnent in Delaware County, including entire coastal zone in Delaware Caunty. Faden, William, The Course of the Delaware River from Philadelphia to Chester. Map on file at the Philadelphia Free =aTy, 1785. Plan made for the King of England, showing the course of the-, Delaware River, including island (somewhat distorted), and lower part of the C-12 Schuylkill River. Faden, William, A Plan of the City and Environs of Philadelphia. Map, on file at the Philadelphia Free Library, 1777. Projected plan of the develoFrent of Philadelphia, including street layout of historic city. Fischer IJoshua, A Chart of Delaware Bay and River, Containing a ... Description of.the Shores, Creeks, Harbours, Soundings, Shoals, Sands, and Bearings ... from the Capes to Philadelphia. 1776. Sketch map &owing shoreline configuraticn. of Delaware River. Detail is lacking and, accordingly, its usefulness is limited. Harper and Brothers, Birds-Eye View of Philadelphia. Supplement to Harper's Weekly, May 27, 1871, from sketches drawn by Theodore R. Davis, 1876. Remarkably detailed. "bird's-eye" map of 19th century Philadelphia, showing all bui 1ding standing at the tine in sketch form. HazelwDod, Cmnodore, Engagement at Red Bank. 1777 (rnap), Accompanying his Letter of 1779. Sketch map acccnipanying a letter describing scuttle of 1777.. Map shows position of islands near the mouth of the Schuylkill River (scne@vdmt distorted) and ships involved. in the engagenent. Hexamer, Emest, and Locher, William, Map of the City of Philadelphia." 1857. Ranarkably detailed map of the entire City of Philadelphia, which occurs in a series of plates for the various parts of the City. Quite useful in determining configuration and other details of early buildings standing in Philadelphia in 1857. Hills, John, Plan of the City of Philadelphia. 1796. Map showing area of the city of Philadelphia bounded by Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers, including streets, wharves and scne topography. Hills, Jchn, Plan of the City of Philadelphia and Environs. 1807. Useful and fairly accurate early map showing city, Schuylkill and Dela- ware Rivers, including islands and creeks, scoe topography and land ownership. Holm, Thomas, A Mapp of Improved Part of. Pensilvania in America, Divided into Countyes, Tbwnships and Lotts. 1687. Early map showing counties, townships, land ownership, creeks and islands for entire coastal zone area (reproduced on front cm-er). Hopkins, G M, , Atlas of Delawa. re Count y, Philadlephia, 1870. C-13 Atlas showing land ownership, creeks and islands for entire coastal zone in Delaware County. Tiindes-U-Zin, Peter, Americae: With an Account of the Delaware Indians Based on Surveys and Notes 1654 1656. Translated fran Original Manuscript with Notes, Introduction and Appendix of Indian Geographical Nanes with their Meanings by Amandus Johnson, Swedish Colonial Society, 1925. Earliest detailed map of the entire lower Delaware River, useful in correlating earlier place names with known contemporary names. Area covered includes Delaware Bay to Trenton. Philadelphia City Archives, Warrants and Surveys of the Province of Philadel:. Etj@@. 1682-1759. Survey book with all the early surveys and warrants in Philadelphia. Many are, at a large scale, but unfortunately, lack required detail in most cases due to the less-than-accurate recording practices of the day. Philadelphia Port Corporation and World Trade Division of the Delaware River Port Authority, Ports of PhiladelphiaI Philadelphia ... Anerica's Industrial. Center, Waterfront Facilities. (Aeria-1 photographs of the Port of Phila- delph-17a 1975. Aerial photographs showing the Port of Philadelphia in detail, including most of the coastal zone in Philadelphia County. Pollock, Willim Wilson and Myers, Albert Cook, Philadelphia as Willim Perm Knew It - 1684. 1932. Rough-drawn map showing early land grants and original shoreline in Colonial Philadelphia. Coastal Zone area covered includes Vine Street south to.Cedar Street. Sanborn Publishing Company, Insurance Map of Philadelphia. 1908. large-scale rrap of entire City of Philadelphia, showing location and configuration of buildings in detail for the turn of the twentieth century. Sanborn maps frequently are published for smaller communities, as well as large cities. Scott, J. D., Bucks County Ccmbinaticn Atlas Map. 1876. Combination atlas showing buildings, ownership, and land developTLent in Bucks County. Includes the entire Coastal Zone portion of Bucks County. Smith, Benjamin H., Atlas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Containing Maps Exhibiting the Early Grants and Patents Compiled from Official Records Ether with a Flistory of the Land Titles in t1in County. 1880. Map showing ea ly grants and patents in Delaware County. Coastal Zone area covered includes the Schuylkill River to the Delaware state line. C-14 Smith, E. W. and Canpmy, Fa3n and Borough Atlas of Delaware County, Phila- delphia, 1892. Atlas showing land ownership, creeks and island including the coastal zone of Delaware County. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Chester and Delaware Counties. Pennsylvania, 1963. Soil maps, useful for distinguishing Urban or made land from natural soil fommations in the coastal zone of Delaware County. U* S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Bucks and Ph- lphia Counties. Pennsylvania, 1975. Soil maps,'useful for distinguishing Urban or Made land from natural soil formations in the coastal zone of Philadelphia and Bucks Counties. 0-15 C-8 Archeological References Cited Becker, Marshall J., S Report on the 1976 Excavations at Governor Printz, State - Park, Essington, Pennsylvania (36 DE 3) . MS on file at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Cammission, 1977. Becker, Marshall J., Report of the 1978 Excavations at Pennsbury Manor (36 BEJ 19).., MS on file at Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Com- mission, 1978. Becker" Marshall J., European Trade in the Delaware Valley in the Seventeenth @je@n: A Note on Routes from the Susquehanna River to the Dela- urcm-e Ov-er with a Map Suggesting the Locations of Colonial Construc- tions. Unpublished MS on file at West Chester State College, 1980. Bucks County Conservancy, Preliminary Research Report for Historic Sites Survey of Bucks County, Pa., as of a Ccnprehensive State-Wide Historic Sites @'U= Program for the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Z!_a@ssicn. MIS on file at the Bucks County Conservancy, Doylestown, Pa., 1979. Carroll, Marion M., and Moak, Jefferson M., Recreation land and Energy Related Industry. MS on file at the Philadelphia Historical Cminission, 1980. Cosans,Betty, Interim Report: The 8 South Front Street Site..MS on file at the Philadelphia Historical Ccmmission, 1976. Delaware County Historical Society, The First Arrival of William Penn in Penn- sylvania 1682-Chester, Pennsylvania, 1934. Delaware County Institute of Science, Report of a Cam-nittee of the Delaware County Institute of Science cn the Great Rainstorm and Flood which Occurzed inthat County cn the Fifth of August, 1843, with a map of the County. Chester, Pa., 1844. Delaware County Planning Department, Preliminary Research Report, Carnprehensive Historic Resources Survey for Delaware County,_Pennsylvania. Media Pa., 1980. Hood, Graham, Bonnin and Morris of Philadelphia, The First American Porcelain Factory, 1770-1772_. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1972. Hunter, Charles Edward, Archeology of High Ward, Philadelphia. PhD. dissertation, The American University, Washington, D.C., 1979. Hunter, Charles E. and Levy, Herbert W., Report on the Archeological Salvage Excavaticn on the Northwest Side of Market and Front Streets, Phila- delphia, Pa. Report sutmitted to the Penng7l-vania Department of Transpoi@ticn, 1976. John Milner Associates, Historical and Archeological Survey of Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. West Chester, Pa.: John Milner Associates, 1979. C-16 Kenyon Jeff L. Hunter-, Stan M., and Schenck, Helen, Basic Historic Research and Archeological Feasibility Studyof Bartram Park. Museum Historic Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, lT7-5-. Liggett, Barbara, The Dock Project, - Philadelphia: Artifact methodology. ms on file at the Philadelphia Historical Commission, 1970. Liggett f Barbara, Excavations at Fort Mifflin.. MS on file at the Atwater- Kent Muse=, Philadlephia, 1977. Liggett, Barbara F Excavations at Fort Mifflin. Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Vol.11 no. 4, 19 79. Liggett, Barbara, Archeology at New Market, Excavation Report. Philadelphia The Athenaeizn, 1981. MacReynolds, George, Place Names in Buck s S@A@ty, Pennsylvania. Doylestown, Pa.: Bucks County Historical Society, 1976., McKearin, Helen, Bottles, Flasks and Dr. Dyott. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1970. Mid-Atlantic Archeological Research, Inc., Archeological Data Recovery Cperations at the Morton Homestead. Report subadtted to Betz Environmental Engineers, Plyrmuth Meeting, Pa., 1978. Parrington, Michael, Excavations at the "Seed House" at Bartram's Garden. Philadelphia-,-1979. Parrington, Michael, Archeology at Sansom Street, Area F, Philadelphia Museum Institute for Conservation Archeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1980a. Parrington, Michael, Salvage Archeology at Area F, PhiladelE!2ja. Museum Institute for Conservation Archeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1980b. Parrington, Michael, Medical Archeology in Philadelphia: A Study of Early Twentieth Century Medicine Bottles Excavated at Bartrain's Garden. Expedition 23(3): 34,;.38, 1981. Rivinus, Willis M., Early Taverns of Bucks County. New Hope, Pa. 1965. Shoemaker, Am G., The Red Man in Bucks County.. Manuscript, Doylestown, Pa., n.d. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, Hearing Before the Cbmnittee on Cbmnerce, United States Senate, Sixt- @-fif@th Congress, Third Session (detailed description and account of the Hog Island Shipyard 1919. websterF Richard,. Philadelphia Preserved: Catalog of the Historic Anerican Buildings Survey.. Philadelphia, 1976. C-17 :3 6668 141010860