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 

East Hoosuck Quaker Meeting House, 1786

Update: 10/25/2017
To check the reliability of the HABS drawings  I measured the Meeting House this month. Yes, the drawings used here are accurate.




This Meeting House for the East Hoosuck Society of Friends (Quakers), built in 1786, is now a museum in Adams, Massachusetts. It sits high on  a hill in its cemetery, looking east over the Hoosic River to the Berkshire mountains. This is its west side.

As I was creating a handout for the guides about the scribe rule markings visible on the frame, I wondered what the geometry might be. Quaker communities existed nearby in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. We knew Quakers migrated up the Hudson River watershed from Rhode Island and Nantucket after the  Revolution. Would I see similarities to other frames I had measured?
I did see similar ways of laying out a frame. However, without more research I cannot say these layouts were particular to Quakers.



The Friends Meeting would have told the master carpenter how large the building should be,  that windows were needed for light and ventilation, fireplaces for warmth. These Friends knew that the door should face south,  that the wind here came around the mountain from the northwest, that a chimney is best supported by bringing it through the roof at its peak.

The framer would have began with the floor plan; so I did too.  He made the meeting house 28' wide on the west end; the posts set in the corners.

 He laid out a square from the inside of the posts and marked locations for  posts on the corners.*

Why would he have begun his layout on the inside edge of the posts?

Perhaps because the trench in which to place the footings for the posts would be outside the line. The ground under the frame would not need to be excavated.

The plan could also be trued from the interior edge of the posts much more easily than from the exterior when the posts were in place: the diagonals would be made equal across the rectangle. Contractors today still 'true' foundations by pulling lines.



His center line located the middle posts on the north and south walls as well as the 8 sided posts that are located between the pews.

Using the Rule of Thirds, he laid out the eastern end. The location of the eastern wall posts is 1/3 the width of the main square beyond the square.
  I have marked the 1/3 of the square and the extension with arrows in red.

The center line running east west determined the post on the east wall.






His post locations set, the framer laid out the 4 bents. This is the eastern exterior bent.

It uses crossed squares with the side of the square the height of the wall from floor to plate.
Even the braces follow the geometry.






The height of ridge of the roof, and thus the pitch  of the roof, was set by the intersection of the arcs of the height of the wall.


This way of finding a ridge was also used in the Hartford, NY, barn I measured in  2014.    http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/12/a-hartford-new-york-barn-was-carefully.html

The window placement was determined by the same crossed squares geometry.
The 4 sides of the windows are determined by the geometry.
I have drawn the lower window only. The upper window requires more lines which are hard to read at this scale.









The south facade of the meeting house is 2 squares wide.







Quakers worshiped together, men and women, and children.

Their  Meetings for Business were held separately: women on the left, men on the right, with a wall between them which could be raised or lowered as needed. Thus the two doors which sit neatly within one quarter of the square.

The window sizes on the south side do not fit the geometry. They were probably enlarged  when the men's stair was added.
Both scribe and square rule framing details as well as joist pockets without joists indicate renovations.

For me it's fun to see how the first floor windows are located at the bottom of the stairs, where light would be needed for safety.




*The hybrid barns  in New Jersey which I looked at earlier were also laid out based on dimensions measured between the posts: http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2017/06/practical-geometry-for-hybrid-dutch.html

For more information about the Meeting House and the Quaker community in Adams please see:

www.adamshistorical.us/collections/quaker_house/index.html

Basic geometry - Sandown Meeting House revisited

I have just revised the post I wrote on the Sandown, NH, Meeting House.
 http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/02/sandown-new-hampshire-meeting-house-1773.html

I have learned a lot more about early New England geometry since I wrote about Sandown in February. I have been in the Sandown Meeting House, sat in the pews, climbed among the trusses, stood at the lectern in the pulpit. I have visited and explored the geometry of the Parson Capen House, 1683; and the Rockingham, VT, Meeting House, 1785-1800. I am reading Palladio's 4 Books.
I revisited the Sandown measured drawings, found simpler, cleaner geometries which could have been employed.
A new post would have let the old diagrams remain. They are better discarded. I really didn't want anyone to come across the old post through an internet search.  So I redrew and rewrote it.


People had looked at that post 84 times before I revised.
If you are one, please go back and read the new version.


Some of what I learned:

 - How to divide a square into halves; more importantly, why.
Follow the progression on the graph paper here: #1-#2-#3-#4 - counter-clockwise.
I saw how that geometry informed the Parson Capen House.

- What patterns happen when the square in question is divided both horizontally and vertically - see A, B, C, D, E.
- And all the diagonals added.
- And then, imagine 2 squares overlapping! Since this happens at all 3 of the meeting houses I've studied, I needed to think about it more carefully - see F, G.

- And if overlapping is reasonable, how about turning the square 45*, on its point?  See H. The circle surrounding the square is really unnecessary, and, I think, probably not used. Imagine G or H with all its diagonals as in F!
I presented some of that in my diagram for the doors of the Rockingham Meeting House.

Finally I have been trying to understand the influence of Palladio on American vernacular architecture before the 1820's in terms of geometry.
We seem to use squares as a base in New England, and daisy wheel circles in New York. We use 3-4-5 triangles, especially when building an addition. About 1800 the more urban builders seem to begin to explore the Golden Section and less traditional ways to use geometry.

Currently, I do not see builders north of Boston using circles before 1790.
And I will now be skeptical when I see what appears to be a Golden Section. The turned square - H above - uses diagonals just as does the Golden Section. But within the confines of the square, not as an extension.

Sandown, New Hampshire, Meeting House, 1773

UPDATE, July 31, 2025

I substantially revised this post on April 18, 2014.  

11 years later I am rewriting it again. 


Timothy Palmer is listed as the master builder of this meeting house, built in 1773. 12 years later he built the Rocky Hill Meeting House in Amesbury, MA., which I wrote about here:  http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/02/rocky-hill-meeting-house-amesbury-ma.html

I was curious to find out if the geometric language used to design the Rocky Hill Meeting House could be seen here as well.
I knew of the Sandown Meeting House but had never seen it.
Luckily HABS drawings of the Meeting House are on-line. This photograph is part of that record. I borrowed it through wikimedia. A detailed history with photographs can be found at http://www.colonialmeetinghouses.com/mh_sandown.shtml.


I thought I'd just see what Timothy Palmer built, and how he evolved as a master-builder - simple.
Instead I found a larger fascinating history.
 But first: the geometry of the Sandown Meeting House.

Start with the simple geometry, the square.
Here is the front elevation - 2 squares side by side. I've crossed the one on the left side with both diagonals, but only drawn one diagonal for the square on the right side. The squares determine the size of the front and the structural dimensions: they include the sill and the top plate


The window placement is also simple:
On the right side I have divided the square - see 'a-a-a-a' - in half vertically and then drawn the diagonals for those rectangles. The intersections are at the edges of the windows - see 'c'.  The windows themselves are 2 squares. See the diagonals in the window upper left corner.
Then I've rotated the square to show how the line determines the location and width of the entrance - see 'b-b-b-b'.

 

I have not yet figured out why the door is off-set. Maybe the space needed for the stairs to the balcony threw things off.
Note how the symmetry of the windows is so strong and the triangular pediment such an 'eye catcher' that one has to pay attention to see that the door really isn't centered! 




Where did Palmer begin his design? The church committee overseeing construction would have told him approximately how big to make the building. How did he determine his layout?

I think he began with the pulpit.
Here, as in the Rocky Hill Meeting House the pulpit with its sounding board is the centerpiece of the church. Not only is it ornate and dramatic, it surrounds, protects and presents the preacher and the Bible. The book would be laid out, open, on the lectern. And the lectern is precisely at the crossing of the squares.   (Here I think I need to add a picture of the pulpit.)

 One square begins on the right of the pulpit and extends to the left; the other begins on the left and extends to the right.

I have blacked in the columns as the design locates them. Here the lower edge of the squares runs through the columns which support the balcony. The center the squares locates the columns in the open space  - both, however, in only one direction.
The left and right sides of the squares are the locations of the posts on the north and south walls and the roof trusses above. See red lines on either side of the main aisle. 





The length of the diagonal of the square is also the width of the meeting house itself.  I have used that diagonal to draw a square inside the frame of the meeting house. It extends outside the building at the entrance and the pulpit. Where it crossed the outside walls is the line which determines the posts on each side of the central aisle. See the green square set as a diamond and its left and right green triangles.
The final columns are those on either side of the east and west entrances. The triangles noted in green also mark off the 2 squares on either side of the central aisle. When those squares are subdivided, the subsequent intersections determine the columns - see the small squares and their diagonals on either side of the left (west) door.

 The West Elevation - Interior shows Palmer again using the crossed squares. The diagonals are also the position of mortises in the roof trusses. The extension of either interior diagonal  lands on the top of the brace.






Timothy Palmer did not use circles with 6 points (the daisy wheel). He did use the square 'flat' and 'rotated', and its 8 points to design the entrance. I just needed to determine his basic length: the radius of the circle.


The first dimension I saw was the distance between the center of one pilaster and the other - the horizontal line in the middle of the circle. I deliberately white washed the extensions of that line to show the circle divided into 8 segments and the distance between the pilasters.
Then I realized that that length is also the height of the columns from the pedestal to the capital. Hmmm....
That length is also the radius of the circle that encloses the entry from the peak of the pediment to the bottom of the door.
The width of the pediment is determined by the circle's upper spokes. The height of the pedestals is set by the lower spokes. Perhaps Timothy Palmer's own history accounts for this.
He was apprenticed to Daniel Spofford, an architect and millwright in Newburyport, MA. Some records say he also learned shipbuilding  from Ambrose Spofford. He seems to have been responsible, at age 23, for building this meeting house. Perhaps he also built the pulpit.
His other responsibility was to span the open interior space of the church. He would have know what was necessary to frame a boat hull - which is in some ways an upside down roof.

At the Rocky Hill Meetinghouse he used other geometry: a circle with 6 spokes or petals: a daisy wheel, a much more complex double square, and the 3-4-5 triangle.
In 1792 he quit building churches and became a bridgewright. He built many bridges including 4 across the Merrimack River, and the Market Street Bridge in Philadelphia. For more information see Frank Griggs' excellent well illustrated article:  http://www.ce.memphis.edu/3121/stuff/general/timothy_palmer.html