Rockingham Meeting House, Rockingham, VT

The Rockingham Meetinghouse  was begun in 1787, dedicated in 1798.

 After some preliminary analysis of the design and frame I realized in 2014 I needed to see it. I wondered if it would be as spare as the Rocky Hill and Sandown meetinghouses which preceded it.

It is.

 

 

 The site, on top of a hill with a view all around, emphasizes the simplicity of the structure. One can only come to it from below, and like many 18th c. New England buildings it sits upright and confident. It is very impressive.

I returned in 2018 and early 2020,  I updated the geometry as I learned more. I revised the drawings again when I gave a Zoom presentation in spring, 2021. What I first saw as a complicated geometry became simple and direct. 

This is not a dramatic design created by a London architect like Robert Adam to wow his rich patrons. It is a meeting house for a rural community. It is a straightforward layout planned by master builder, John Fuller, for a simple timber frame to be erected by a crew of local citizens.


The Town Fathers specified a building 44 ft. by 56 ft. The HABS drawings read 44'-4" x 56'-6". The difference could easily be the addition of the sheathing and siding to the frame. The porches (the end staircases) are square: 12'-2" x 12'-2". 
The difference could also be that the rule used then and the one we use today differ slightly. I am not sure they had a 'rule'. Poles of various lengths, 4ft., 5 ft., 10 ft., are in some illustrations.

 

'General' John Fuller, the master builder, was also the architect, engineer, framer. He knew the meeting house required an open space in the middle so everyone on the floor and in the balcony could see the preacher in the pulpit - and be seen by him. The pulpit was centered high on one wall, a window behind,the balcony on 3 sides.

 

He laid out a 3/4/5 rectangle. noted here in red. Then he laid out a square in the middle which defined the open space and divided that into thirds to set the columns for the balcony and the posts for the frame. See the black square and columns.


He extended the column spacing - the dashed black lines - to place the posts on the front and rear walls.This made the balcony the same depth all the around.
The porches are squares set in the middle of the west and east walls. The exterior posts were set at the porch corners, not at the 1/3 points of the wall. This also allowed for 2 windows on each side of the porches. 

 

 

 

Those 4 closely spaced posts in the center support the 4 attic trusses which are braced together to span the width of the church and allow the center of the meetinghouse to be an unobstructed space.

Walter Wallace, standing in the joined trusses under the ridge, gives a sense of how big the framing is.

 

 

The HABS prints of the End Elevation and the Interior Section for the Rockingham Meeting House are hard to read but their basic dimensions are clear.

The End Elevation is composed of 2 squares. The roof is framed using the 3/4/5 triangle. 

The notation to the right of the rafters says the pitch is a 9/12, modern language for the same thing.

 

 

The porches, the name for the stair towers, are set in the center of the end walls. The diagram shows that if the overall width of the wall is 8 modules (each square divided into 4 equal parts) the porch  is 2 modules wide.  

The proportions are 3-2-3, a graceful rhythm. If instead the massing had been 3-3-3 - all the widths equal - it would have felt dull. 

John Fuller, Master Builder, understood how to create with those simple shapes.  

 

 

The Interior Section shows the roof trusses, all using the 3/4/5 geometry. I've highlighted them in black for visibility

The meeting house height is divided in half horizontally. The columns which support the balcony divide the width of the meeting house in thirds.

If those columns has been the posts in the exterior walls only 1 window would have been possible on each side of the door. As I described above, the posts in the exterior walls were set differently (the black dot/dash line). 

 

 

 

 

With his frame laid out, John Fuller now needed to place the windows. The 6 posts on the front elevation were fixed. To allow any visual space* between the 2 windows on either side of the main door had to framed against the posts.  Here you can see how they were placed; there is no room for casings. 

* 'Visual space': the windows needed to be viewed as separate shapes, not as pairs.    

 

 

 

The red lines on the front elevation show the locations of the 6 bents for the meeting house.

 

One more window was needed on either side of the main entrance.

Where would they fit so that they were part of the whole, not call attention to themselves, and enhanced the main entrance ? 

Fuller used geometry to place the outer windows in relationship with the others. 

On the right side of the entrance is the front elevation as it was built.

On the left the outer windows are shown set in relationship not to the posts, but to their next closest windows and the left side of the elevation. The entrance is flanked, but not crowded by the windows.

 

 

The 'empty' wall to the left becomes part of the geometry. It shares the  proportions, being 1/4 of the wall. It is not 'left over'.

 

You can see the design succeeded. The uneven spacing between the windows is interesting and enlivens the facade, but it does not detract from the main door with its pediment. On either end the stretches of wall without a window anchor the meeting house to its site. 

 

 

Here is the main door. Its height is the determining dimension. Half the height is the radius for a circle and its square, drawn in red. The rotated square is drawn in black. The intersections determine the width of the architrave, the columns. The location of the plinth blocks and the depth of the moldings in the architrave, over the door are governed by the sides of the smaller square to the original circle.

The pediment follows Serlio's instructions:
 half of the width dropped below the base of the pediment - black lines - becomes the point for an arc whose radius -dashed red line - is the distance to the edge of the pediment. The dropped line is extended up to the arc; that marks the height of the pediment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This way of laying out a pediment is shown in Asher Benjamin's 1797 pattern book:

 

 

The door itself came after the frame was in place. It was built to fit the opening. 

First the door's rails and stiles were laid out. 

Then the Rule of Thirds divided the remaining space in half and sized the panels and the stiles between the panels.

 

 

 

 

Last picture: The windows on the sides of the meeting house were framed against the posts as they also were on the front and rear elevations.

Just as at the Rocky Hill Meeting House in Amesbury, MA, the eaves on the porches bump into those windows. Neither master builder had solved that problem.

 

For excellent information about trusses in meeting houses and churches see Historic American Roof Trusses, Jan Lewandoski, et al., published by the Timber Framers Guild, 2006. www.tfg.org.

The Rockingham Meeting House is not included but the theory, practice, and evolution of the trusses used for similar meeting houses is laid out with clear photographs and Jack Sobon's drawings.

If you do not know how to use of the 'Rule of Thirds' square as a design tool, see: https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2020/08/lesson-6-rule-of-thirds-part-1_21.html 

The Vail House, c. 1805, Bennington, Vermont

 

The Vail House was deconstructed this past summer for repair and reconstruction in another town.


 

It was once one of the most stylish houses in Bennington, its architraves and columns more complex than most local houses, its fanlight and surround unique to this part of Vermont. 
Similar details exist on a few houses across the border in New York.

The Victorian updating can be seen here - the double windows on the first floor, right, and the porch with curly brackets   Well executed at the time and then let go.
  I measured and photographed it about 4 years ago. I wish I had documented it more carefully. I have no image of the front of the house!

On September 16, I will include its  geometry as part of my presentation  'Practical Geometry' for the Bennington Historical Society lecture series at the Bennington Museum.

The family wanted a broad front hall with space for a sweeping staircase. This was the new style. The framer's answer was to  add 1/3 of the width to each side. The red square in the center shows how this worked. It was divided into 3 equal parts using the Rule of Thirds.
The house was to be 3 parts  deep and 5 parts wide. 


As you can see the division into 3 is not quite where the posts and beams are.
While the size was set by an addition of proportional lengths, the rooms were set by a different application of the Rule of Thirds . I call it 'Crosses Squares' .
 Each side is a square, the Rule of Thirds applied to each side makes the front rooms square, the back rooms long and skinny, The posts and beams are set where the walls will be. 
Usually the front hall will be the width of the extra third. Here you can see that it is wider.  Or perhaps the house is wider... slide those 
squares on each side towards each other about a 12" and the  crosses squares would mesh.

The floor plan is traditional for this part of Vermont: 2 square front rooms, a long skinny space in the back divided into smaller rooms, the plan of a salt box. I wrote about this in an earlier post:  http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2016/06/the-persistence-of-saltbox-floor-plan.htm





 This is the west elevation. The shutters are a later addition.

Here is the Practical Geometry: a square in the middle, with the left and right sides 1/4 of the whole. The Lines locate the windows' size and placement. The sash themselves are squares, which is in keeping with the layout. The  decorative architrave's height is determined by the half of the square.

As I did not measure the exterior extensively I have not tried to layout the geometry of the corner boards or the frieze.
The photographs show that I have not accurately located the quarter circle vents in the eaves.  They are farther apart than I drew them, The proper location is probably on the 1/4 line of the square.
I think the roof pitch matches the Lines which divide the square into quarters - or the dash dot line I use to call out the left quarter of the house. This would be a logical choice:  a natural choice, using proportions the framer already is working with and also complementing the design of the house.  

The Old First Church Geometry - the Floor Plan - Part 4

 I first wrote about the geometry of the Old First Church in Bennington, Vermont, in September, 2012, focusing on the 2nd floor windows with their round tops.
http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2012/09/geometry-of-old-first-church-bennington.htm

I will not repeat that post and the ones that followed -  just expand upon it here.

As I studied how the church was designed I saw that the window design was the logical extension of the basic design.

This spring the full window design and then the geometry of the floor plan - which had eluded me - became obvious.

The circle geometry which determined the curves in the half round top also determined the size of the window itself and muntin pattern  in the lower section.
The completed circle of the top half intersects with the circle which begins in the lower sash. The circles divided in 4 determine the size
of the window panes.




The panes themselves are not quite square because of the thickness of the frame.

The pattern in the rounded top is made by 7 intersecting circles. The window itself is 2 intersecting circles.

I have called these 'rolling circles' because visually they seem able to roll one way or the other. Perhaps in a church the circles roll toward each other and meet..
It would be fitting symbolism for Old First Church whose covenant says the members hope to " ... become a people whom the Lord hath bound up together... "









Here is this geometry:
looking at the windows in the balcony in the church,

Here is the floor plan, measured and drawn in the 1930's by Denison Bingham Hull, the architect who supervised the church's restoration.

I superimposed a circle with its rectangle marked in red which  matches the circles that define the east interior elevation and the exterior front elevation.










This is what I had not seen before -  how the geometry of the floor layout uses the same forms as the windows. Both are 2 intersecting circles.


The rectangles laid out by the circles determine the size of the sanctuary. The diamond shape where the 2 circles cross, the center of the church,  is the  location of the dome -an acoustic device - a technological tour-de-force in 1805. The narthex fills and over flows the lower quarter of the circle. The depth and width of the front bay is determined by the arc of the circle's perimeter.









Expanding the circles in the way that the window design    'roll'  I saw that Lavius Fillmore, the master builder, did not need divide his circles into daisy wheels to locate columns and determine proportions.


This relationship of one circle to another in a linear (up and down, side to side) pattern rather than relating one circle to the next by moving around the perimeter is seen in all the elevations and plans for the Old First Church.










In the drawing to the left I have added small circles at the intersections of the arcs which mark the lines of the columns, the corners of the front bay and intersect with the perimeters of the circles at the 4 major columns - the black squares - which run from  piers in the basement through the sanctuary into the attic to anchor the trusses which carry the roof and the trusses from which the dome is suspended.

Fillmore need not have drawn a daisy wheel with its 6 petals to refine his design.
He might just have rolled his circles.


In many ways these different approaches to 'basic geometry' - as Asher Benjamin calls it - cross-reference each other. The daisy wheel and the rolling circles are variations of the same proportions.
My 'aha' moment is when I find for one way of working that is clean, simple and 'obvious'.

Here are the earlier posts about the church geometry. Each one was posted when I learned (taught myself) more about how circle geometry can be used for design. Part 1, therefore. is a preliminary understanding.  

Part 3     http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/11/old-first-church-and-daisy-wheel-part-3.html
Part 2     http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/01/old-first-church-and-daisy-wheel-part-2.html
Part 1     http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2013/01/old-first-church-and-daisy-wheel.html

.

Jackson, NY, House, Introduction, 2 of 6 posts

A report from this summer - when I first explored the house - to accompany the geometry of the previous post.


Today the house is being dismantled, piece by piece - see the end of this post -

I have watched this small house for more than 10 years, hoping its Dutch framing and Federal style would endear it to a new owner. Its shape and proportions, its entrance, frieze and rake are beautiful. I am delighted it has been purchased.

 I explored it twice inside and out, basement to attic framing, and herein share what I saw.

The house was added to an earlier home, now gone, which then became the service wing.  The stone foundation for the first house exists as does a partial roof and ‘ghost marks’ and well as doors connecting the new and old wings.

 The original home, which faced south, included the kitchen and bath.

The frame on the east side is exposed. Brick nogging used as fire stopping and insulation is visible as is a solid post and beam system, approximately 3 ft. on center, with intermediate studs.  

The southwest corner of the 2^nd floor  appears to be an H-bent – a traditional Dutch method of framing.  The roof frame is pegged common rafters.  Dismantling will show more.

The wall and ceiling plaster was applied to split lath:  ½” wood planks forced apart with a hatchet so that the spaces in between would hold the plaster.

                                                                          

The foundation is local stone. There is no basement fireplace, just support for the one above. The photograph shows the mortise and peg on one end of the beam supporting the stone hearth in the living room.

The north side of the basement, beyond the stair, is a crawl space. Some floor joists have been somewhat compromised by the intrusion of plumbing and heating systems. These will be repaired.

In 1790, the house faced the main road between Lansingburg, NY, and Rutland, VT, 2 growing commercial centers. Many people would have passed by, traveling about 5 -7 mph on foot or  in a wagon, 12 mph if on a ‘Trotter’, a fast horse.


No one traveled so quickly that they would  not have noticed and admired the front door with its entablature and columns, its frieze and rake at the eaves, and even the ¾ rounding of the corner boards.

The bead on the corner boards is a typical detail in this area when the house was built - here shown on another house. Those on this house are too worn to be salvaged. The original door has been lost.

The windows were once the height of the front door. The short sections of siding above the modern windows indicate the original size. The exterior window casings would have been flat boards with banding. The header protruded to shed water and protect the window. The sills appear original. The sash was double hung, maybe 8/12 or 12/12 panes.





The interior door’s lights and the transom window’s proportions will help determine the right pattern.

    

                                                                      

The fireplace has a stylish Federal mantle like those seen the patterns books of Asher Benjamin and Owen Biddle. The marble surround is typical for the area. The bricked-in firebox is a Rumford – modern for the time - designed to radiate the heat of the fire into the room.  

By 1830, cast iron stoves were widely used. The chases for stove pipes are visible in the bedrooms.

                                                                                                                                            

The cupboards on each side of the fireplace were for dishes, herbs, spices and medicines as well as books and writing supplies. Notice how the modern, short window is an uncomplimentary shape.

The door and window casings are as elegant as the front door. The window casings are original, but were cut down when the windows were resized.  I have taken profiles for reference.

Dismantling the house may uncover traces of a wall separated the living room from a front hall with its stair case anchored by a graceful newel, well scaled to the small space.

The oval rail fits well in the hand.

 Square balusters march up the stairs and around the hall above. To turn 40 balusters by hand for the railing and have them all match would have been a tour de force in 1790. However a cabinet maker could readily turn one newel post.  It, like the front entrance, is Neo- Classical, the emerging style c. 1800.

                                                                       


For over 200 years people have lived here, loving the house, adapting it to their needs. Their footsteps have worn away the door sills.

The house itself is still strong.  I am happy to help send it to a new owner. Here it is coming down, board by board, brick by brick.

previous post:  http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2015/12/a-jackson-ny-carpenter-used.html

The link to  the men who took down and repaired this house, Green Mountain Timber Frames:  https://www.greenmountaintimberframes.com .