GaT Preservation Blog

Strummin' on the Porch, a Free Outdoor Concert

2011-10-10T12:21:00.000-07:00

Friday | October 14th | 6 p.m.

Please join us for Strummin' on the Porch,
a free outdoor concert on the front lawn of Rhodes Hall. The concert will feature local Macon artists, Sterling Waite & the Cotton Avenue Hustlers. Free food and a beer tasting will be provided by The Wrecking Bar Brewpub.

Tell a friend to tell a friend to come out and enjoy an evening of fun and great music
under the stars.

This event is free and open to the public.

Would you like to join the Trust? Become a member for only $15 during this event.

Member Spotlight

2011-09-26T08:46:00.000-07:00

In this Member Spotlight, The Trust would like to highlight Judith L. Hughes, of Peachtree City. Judy, a longtime active member of the Trust, also serves as President of The Colonial Dames of America, chapter XXIV - Atlanta which has graciously provided a grant for Georgia Trust staff members to attend the upcoming National Preservation Conference in Buffalo, as well as last year's conference in Austin. The Trust is grateful to Judy and The Colonial Dames of America XXIV Atlanta for their commitment to education. We are proud to shine a spotlight on Judy and her diligent work in historic preservation.

TGT: How did you first become involved with the Trust?

JH: My cousin told me in 2005 I should join The Georgia Trust since I loved history, preservation, and have been involved in genealogy since I was a young woman. I joined immediately. Unfortunately my cousin could not be with me for my first Ramble, so I attended the Ramble alone in Greene County. I was hooked and have only missed one Ramble all these years.

TGT: What do you find compelling about the mission of the Trust?

JH: That the entire staff, volunteers and donors are focused on Reclaiming, Restoring or Revitalizing historic properties across our state. All of them wish to save and preserve the rapidly disappearing physical remnants of Georgia’s historic landscape. Historic preservation, like history in general, must speak to the present. As Georgians we need to know and understand our past, and historic preservation will foster that.

TGT: What committees or organizations do you serve on?

JH:
The Colonial Dames of America, Chapter XXIV-Atlanta - President

The Georgia Society, Colonial Dames of XVII Century - State Chairman.

The Georgia Society, Daughters of the American Revolution - Volunteer Genealogist and Field Genealogist.

Fayette Starr's Mill Chapter-NSDAR – Chapter Chairman

Fayette County Master Gardener Association - Co-chairman of Hospitality, Garden Tour volunteer.
First Baptist Church of Peachtree City – Flower Committee

TGT: Are you a native of Georgia?

JH: Although born in Tennessee, I am descended from six generations of Georgians and proud to be a member of First Families of Georgia.

TGT: Hobbies?

JH: Genealogical Research, gardening, designing floral arrangements for my church, traveling to see museums and historic properties, and collecting early American cooking utensils.

TGT Preservation Tip: A tip in which anyone can play a role (large or small) in historic preservation.

JH: Anyone can join or donate to Georgia Trust. Organizations and societies that want a project that will make a difference in the field of historic preservation should be aware that the staff of Georgia Trust needs to attend The National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference from time to time, but the cost is prohibitive. Donations or a grant in aid will make this possible. The Colonial Dames of America have given a grant for two years during my administration to enable two staff members to attend the conference each year. Continuing education aids preservation tomorrow.

Georgia Theatre- Congratulations!

2011-08-02T08:56:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to the Georgia Theatre on last night's successful kick-off of their 2-week grand opening celebration!

In just over two years, the owners of the historic Georgia Theatre in Athens completely rehabilitated the theater that was gutted by a devastating fire. Their tireless hard work was aided by the support of music and Georgia Theatre fans from across the country who made donations to save the theater. To date, over $250,000 has been donated to support the building's rehabilitation.

If you're worried that you missed your chance to donate, don't be. The Georgia Trust is still accepting donations for the Georgia Theatre Rehabilitation Fund to help pay some of the costs associated with this massive rehabilitation project. Or, you could bid on this awesome guitar!

Sustainability

2011-07-21T10:23:00.000-07:00

It aint easy being green, but you can help us go greener. Over the past several months, The Georgia Trust's sustainability task force, through a partnership with Southface, has dedicated time and resources to develop a certification program that recognize green rehabilitation projects in Georgia. We are very excited about this initiative and look forward to launching a pilot program soon.

In the meantime, you can help! We know that many aspects of preservation are inherently green, but we want to hear from the good folks out there who work hard everyday to rehabilitate and preserve Georgia's historic resources. Now is your chance to tell us a little bit more about what you do, where you do it, how you do it and what you would like to see us offer. Just follow these 3 easy steps to participate in a brief online survey:

Send an email to Kate at kryan@georgiatrust.org with 'Go Greener Survey' as the subject
Tell Kate who you are and if you are a architect, developer, preservation professional....
Click on the survey link when Kate emails you back

We greatly appreciate your valuable input which will help guide this program!

AND, if you worked on or know of a really great project (green or otherwise), don't forget to nominate it for a Preservation Award. Our 2012 Preservation Awards nomination form is now available on our website here--> Awards

Georgia Theatre Update

2011-06-28T10:53:00.000-07:00

As many of you will recall, the Georgia Theatre, Athens' beloved live music venue, suffered a devastating fire in June 2009. From the earliest days following the fire, it was made clear that the owners' intentions were to preserve what could be saved of the building and fully rehabilitate the historic theater. Through its Preservation Partners program, The Georgia Trust consulted with the theater's owners and established the Georgia Theatre Rehabilitation Fund. Organizations, businesses, groups and individuals from all over the country have donated money to the fund to be used solely for the rehabilitation of the Georgia Theatre. These generous donations have provided nearly $240,000 in support of the theater's rehabilitation, and have directly contributed to the theater's ability to celebrate its grand re-opening this summer!

Here's an update from the theater's owner, Wil Greene:

It's not too late to donate! Click HERE for more information about the Georgia Theatre and how YOU can make a tax deductible charitable donation to the Georgia Theatre Rehabilitation Fund!

Member Spotlight

2011-06-20T06:54:00.001-07:00

In this Member Spotlight, The Trust would like to highlight Joe and Evelyn Adams, of Macon. Joe, a prominent artist, serves on the Hay House Board of Trustees. Recently Joe and Evelyn opened their lovely 1854 cottage home as a ramble site for the 2011 Spring Ramble in Macon. The trust is proud to feature the Adams, and their work in historic preservation.

TGT: How did you first become involved with the Hay House?

J&E: Evelyn and I first became involved with Hay House when we came up with the idea for the first Stanislaus/ Hay House Garden tour and ask Hay House to join us. My first memory of Hay House is from childhood. I grew up in the neighborhood and went to Whittle School at the bottom of the hill. I remember going to Hay House to "Tricker treat". I think Chester answered the door.

TGT: What do you find compelling about the mission of the Trust?

J&E: Evelyn and I love the Rambles. We have met many nice people through the Trust and love seeing the homes that are opened through the Trust. The trust does a great job in educating the public on the importance of preservation.

TGT: What committees or organizations do you serve on (at the Hay House or other organizations)?

J&E: I have just become a trustee and look forward to serving on Christmas at Hay House. I helped last year with the decorations. I am also interested in the ongoing preservation and restoration efforts at Hay House.

TGT: Please list any recent awards.

J&E: Evelyn and I are involved with Historic Macon Foundation and Evelyn is currently a board member. I was recently a trustee. We recently received a preservation award for our home on College Street that was recently on the Spring Macon Ramble. We have had several gardens on Garden tours.

TGT: Are you a native of Georgia?

J&E: Evelyn and I are Macon Natives.

TGT: Hobbies?

J&E: Evelyn and I love to garden and I paint. We also collect antiques and some people accuse us of collecting houses.

TGT: Preservation Tip: A tip in which anyone can play a role (large or small) in historic preservation.

J&E: Seek help of preservation experts BEFORE undertaking a preservation/restoration project.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-06-01T13:33:00.000-07:00

This will be my final posting as part of the Elizabeth Lion Fellowship. I wish to provide some final thoughts and reflections on the Fellowship.

When I began researching how textile mill’s changed in Georgia, I quickly realized I had to ground myself in the entire history of Georgia’s textile industry. Although I knew a fair amount about the place of the textile industry in Georgia, and how the industry’s rise coincided with the state’s gradual movement away from agriculture, to a manufacturing society, I was; however, unaware of the sheer importance of the textile industry. The rise of the textile industry in Georgia and the broader South, between the 1880s and the mid-1920s, dramatically transformed the areas were mills decided to locate. Although the paternalism of most mill companies dissipated almost half-a-century ago, and many of the mills are no longer in operation, their effect on the society remains apparent.

Although there has been a significant amount written about the rise of the textile industry, there is far less known about the textile industry and textile mills after World War II. When I began digging into this time period I expected that the decrease in Georgia’s textile industry, in terms of employment and operating mills, would surely begin shortly after World War II. In reality I found that the textile industry in Georgia continued to grow after World War II, although slowly as part of the overall manufacturing economy, until the 1970s. Georgia is unique, in that textile employment generally hovered around 25-30 percent of total manufacturing employment until the mid-1970s whereas other states Southern states saw more precipitous decline, although today, admittedly, Georgia’s industry is a shadow of its former size. In states like North Carolina and South Carolina, where textile employment was as high as 60 percent, these states witnessed an almost constant precipitous decline as early as the early 1960s. However in this decline, there was a great deal of change and adaptation by the mills. Mills invested heavily in new equipment, new buildings, dismantled much of their corporate paternalism, and constantly struggled to cut costs and introduce new products. These aspects of the post-War textile industry were some of the key findings of my work.

I hope my work has assisted in uncovering some of the reasons that mills in Georgia underwent widespread changes. Once additions are understood and quantified, then preservation issues around these additions can be considered in context. Many of these additions are currently outside of the 50 year benchmark, but some are not, and are already historic based simply on their age. Many additions or mills that are not currently within the 50 year benchmark will very shortly fall within this key timeframe. The more mills and their respective additions are understood, in theory, the less issues may arise with the preservation of mills. When mills are being preserved it is essential to look at the entire complex, not just the original mill, as all additions on a mill display something about the changes in the textile industry and changes in mill construction, and are thus historic and important when viewed in the appropriate historic context.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the many people who helped me with this project. First I would like to thank the numerous individuals who allowed me to survey their properties, and numerous others who tried to put me in contact with the appropriate parties. I would like to thank both the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation and the Georgia Historic Preservation Division, and the numerous individuals within these organizations who offered assistance and comments on my work. Additionally I wish to thank The Center for Public History at the University of West Georgia, and my professors who assisted me in greatly in completing this project. I would also like to thank Carol Griffith who introduced me to various preservation networks in Georgia and commented on my work. Finally I would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Lyons, for allowing me do to this project, and hope that I have contributed to the understanding of Georgia’s textile mills and how they changed following World War II.

Steven Eubanks is a graduate student at West Georgia University and recipient of the 2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship. The Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship provides financial assistance for projects that acquaint undergraduate and graduate students, and young professionals with preservation programs and practices.

2011 Historic Preservation Month

2011-05-19T08:42:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder about the Rhodes Hall windows? Why would Amos Rhodes, who was a young boy in Kentucky during the Civil War, commission these windows for his 1904 Atlanta residence?

Join us at Rhodes Hall this evening to hear Dr. Gordon Jones, Senior Military Historian and Curator of the Atlanta History Center, speak about the Rhodes Hall painted glass windows. Learn about the Civil War scenes that are depicted, the men whose portraits are represented in the windows and the Lost Cause.

Click here for more information--> Preservation Month Events

The video below takes as interesting look at what 150 years can do to a battlefield as reenactors visit grounds that have since been developed.

2011 Historic Preservation Month

2011-05-11T13:29:00.001-07:00

Thursday, May 12, 6:30 p.m. | Rhodes Hall, Atlanta | Directions

Georgia's Mid-20th Century Mills Steven Eubanks, Recipient of the 2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship FREE. Come early. Reception will begin at 6 p.m. RSVP >>

Explore Georgia's mid-20th century industrial mill buildings through the eyes of Steven Eubanks, a graduate student from West Georgia Universy and recipient of the 2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship. Learn about the history of its workers and associated communities and the changes that influenced the transformation of Georgia’s industrial heritage from the 1950's to the present. Sponsored by the University of West Georgia, Center for Public History

2011 Historic Preservation Month

2011-05-04T13:34:00.000-07:00

2011 Preservation Month Lecture Series

Thursdays in May at 6:30 p.m.

Rhodes Hall, Atlanta

Directions

Tomorrow night, May 5, 6:30 p.m.

Identifying & Preserving Mid-20th Century African American Schools

Lecture by Jeanne Cyriaque & Steven Moffson of the Georgia Historic Preservation Division

RSVP >>

Equalization schools were built in Georgia during the 1950s and 1960s to create school facilities that were "separate but equal" for whites and blacks. Nearly 400 schools were built, and additions were made to over 100 existing equalization schools for African Americans in Georgia alone. Hear amazing success stories and incredible people who work to preserve and find new uses for these endangered yet historic treasures.

Lecture is FREE. Come early and enjoy light refreshments at the reception, which begins at 6 p.m.

RSVP >>

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-04-25T08:54:00.000-07:00

Tallapoosa Cotton Mills

Throughout the course of this project I have been surprised by a number of my findings. In researching Tallapoosa Cotton Mills (still in operation and currently known as Venus Thread Mill) in Tallapoosa, GA I believed that the mill, built in 1907, had no significant additions, and therefore I did not initially conduct an in-depth survey of the mill. Upon having the chance to return and examine the mill on April 12^th with Dr. Keith Hebert, Co-Director of the Center for Public History and Assistant Professor at the University of West Georgia, it became apparent to Dr. Hebert that the mill had been significantly altered. Upon further research it was clear that the original mill existed, but that it had been encased on two sides by a large L-shaped addition which although largely expanding the mill, did not change the overall shape of the mill.

Figure 1: Tallapoosa, ca. 1915. Tallapoosa Cotton Mills. Tallapoosa, Haralson County. Hrl026 Photo Courtesy of Vanishing Georgia, Georgia Division of Archives and History, Office of Secretary of State.

Tallapoosa Cotton Mill had many of the typical features of a turn-of-the-century cotton mill. (See Figure 1 Above) Upon initial examination, both in paper and with a windshield survey, it appeared that the mill had no significant additions, because aerial views or footprints of the mill, which did not indicate its scale, hid the size of the mill and its expansion. (See Figures 2 and 3 Below) The addition added in 1948, simply encased two sides of the original mill, and had an L-shape, and it took careful study to realize that the mill had indeed been expanded.

Figure 2: Sanborn Map. Tallapoosa Jan. 1930-Dec. 1939 update, Sheet 7 Accessed through Proquest, Digital Sanborn Maps 1867-1970.

Figure 3: October 11, 2010 Aerial View of Tallapoosa Cotton Mills Courtesy of Google Earth. Notice the similar footprints of Tallapoosa Cotton Mills both before and after its 1948 addition. Without knowing the correct scale, the mill appears largely unchanged. The addition surrounded the original mill, covering the north and west facades.

The addition at Tallapoosa Cotton Mills clearly fits into the transitional period of mill additions. The addition is multi-storied and built directly onto the original mill, and simply added space for additional spinning equipment, as the mill only spun fiber and never wove fabric. The windows on both the original 1907 mill and the 1948 mill are bricked in, which gives the mill a deceptively coherent look. Additionally a large air cleaning unit and a central tower were added on the area where the two additions meet, covering much of the original mill, and hiding the differences in the original mill and the addition.(See Figure 4 Below) The 1948 addition was built with large, rectangular windows, indicating that natural light was still used widely in the late 1940s, even though interior lighting had improved, largely negating the use of exterior windows.(See Figure 5 Below) Due to limited interior access it is unclear if the addition was open to the rest of the mill, but it is known that the addition had the ever typical steel framing.

Figure 4: Photographer facing west. Notice the 1948 addition at the right of the photograph and the original 1907 mill, barely visible, to the left./ Photograph in possession of author, taken 4/12/11

Figure 5: Photographer facing south./ Photograph in possession of author, taken 4/12/11

Tallapoosa Cotton Mills shows the importance of carefully examining Georgia’s cotton mills to determine how they changed following World War II. Even after studying how Georgia’s mills changed following World War II for the better part of two semester I still expected to see mill additions that looked a certain way, or clearly indicated significant changes. Even so, Tallapoosa’s addition reinforces the transitional period in mill additions, whereby mills in the years immediately following World War II chose not to move away from multi-storied additions that relied on expansive windows, but instead they incorporated construction techniques that allowed windows to comprise most of the exterior of textile mills, highlighting the conservative nature of Georgia’s textile mill.

**May is National Historic Preservation Month and The Georgia Trust is recognizing the month with a Thursday evening lecture series. Join us on the evening of May 12th for a presentation by Steven Eubanks. Click HERE for more information about the May's events.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-04-05T12:13:00.000-07:00

The Threat of Fires to Georgia’s Textile Mills

On March 24^th, 2011, a devastating fire destroyed Macon’s Atlantic Cotton Mills (See Figures 1-3 Below). According to Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the mill was under construction in 1889 and was largely unchanged at the time of its demise. As part of my survey work, I studied Atlantic Cotton Mills on February 1, 2011. Although my project’s chief focus has been to determine how and why Georgia’s textile mills changed architecturally, one issue that became apparent throughout my project is that many mills did not expand or add additions, but chose to only invest in newer machinery and equipment in order to stay competitive. Such was the case with Atlantic Cotton Mills, and why I had the pleasure of surveying the mill property while in Macon investigating another mill.

Figure 1: Hines, Lewis. “Going Home from the Manchester Cotton Mill, Macon, Ga. ” January 1909. Photograph Courtesy of Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 1 April 2011. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ncl2004001418/PP/. (accessed 1 April, 2011) Atlantic Mills was known as Manchester Mills at the time of the photograph.

Figure 2: Photographer facing southeast, Photograph of Atlantic Cotton Mills north façade, Macon, GA. Photograph in possession of author, taken 2/1/11.

Figure 3: Bennett, Josephine. “Fire Destroys Historic Macon Cotton Mill,” 24 March 2011. Photograph Courtesy Georgia Public Broadcasting News. http://www.gpb.org/news/2011/03/24/fire-destroys-historic-macon-cotton-mill. (accessed 1 April, 2011)

The conflagration at Atlantic Cotton Mills does illustrate some key historical issues. The chief danger for a textile mill, especially those built around the turn-of-the-twentieth century, was fire. Mills were ever cognizant of the danger of fire, and undertook a number of precautions to avoid catastrophic blazes. The presence of heavy cotton dust in cotton mills, made the threat of fires ever present. Crude sprinkler systems designed to extinguish fires were in use in New England’s textile mills in the early-to-mid 1800s. Gas or diesel fired generators saw widespread use in Southern mills, and allowed water to be more forcefully pushed through the mill, speeding reaction time to fires in addition to putting more water into a burning mill. Thus fire suppression systems were an integral part of mill construction, and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps document these complex fire suppression methods in detail. Take for instance the information provided in a 1962 Sanborn Map for Pacolet Manufacturing’s New Holland Mills, located near Gainesville, GA (See Figure 4 Below). The Sanborn Map designates how many people are on site when the mill is closed, the main power source for the mill, the types of sprinklers used, method of water delivery, water pressure, pipe capacity, where water comes from, and finally the types of fire repellants available to workers inside the mill. The information on how well a mill was prepared for a fire carried more weight than the actual mill footprint, which is of such great value today. New Holland’s mill is still owned and operated today by textile giant Milliken.

Figure 4: Sanborn Map. Gainesville June 1930-Feburary 1962 update. Sheet 26. Accessed through Proquest, Digital Sanborn Maps 1867-1970. The Sanborn shows New Holland Mills, in addition to the fire suppression system information, which has been enlarged for increased readability.

The threat of fires directly affected how the vast majority of Georgia’s mills were built. The construction method of choice for Georgia’s built in the late 1800s and early 1900s was a system known as “slow burning construction,” sometimes known simply as “mill construction.” Slow burning construction employed heavy use of interior wood framing, placed in such a fashion that in case of a fire, the wood would char, and not burn thru, thereby maintaining the rigidity necessary to sustain the weight of the mill machinery and not collapse. Slow burning construction also called for the use of self contained horizontal compartments that were separated from other compartments by closable fire doors. Thus, if a fire began in a mill, it could be contained in a single sealed compartment, and as it burned, it would not destroy the ever important wood columns or detract from the overall structural integrity.

Fires are still an issue for textile mills even after manufacturing ceases and although mills may stand vacant for years slowly deteriorating away, many suffer a fiery demise. Many Georgia mills have recently suffered the same fate as Atlantic Cotton Mills. Columbus’s Bibb Mill, a massive structure measuring nearly a quarter mill in length, burned in October 2008, halting plans to adaptively reuse the mill. Another Columbus mill, Jordan Hosiery Mill burned in October 2005, while plans were being formulated to redevelop the property. Some fires do not result in total loses but are nonetheless devastating. Atlanta’s Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills suffered a severe fire in 1999 while the property was being converted into lofts. The damage was not catastrophic and the outer shell survived. Numerous other mills have burned in Georgia recently while still housing production. Examples include Aragon Mills in Polk County which housed limited production when it burned in 2002 and LaGrange’s Valway Rug Mills, which burned in 1995, but was rebuilt by its parent company Milliken in only 6 months.

These are only a few select examples of the current danger of fire in Georgia’s mills. Many more mills simply fall into states that negate their use for anything other than scrap. The historical significance of the textile industry, in not only the state of Georgia but the broader South, calls for careful preservation of mill structures. The widespread conversion of many mills to loft or housing, may assure that these structures will remain viable landmarks to a proud industrial past, an industrial past that Georgia is not all that far removed from. In the past two decades a significant number of mills in Georgia have closed, putting a number of structures at risk. Although the fate of Atlantic Mills looked bright in the weeks before its destruction, because preservation efforts were underway to redevelop the mill into lofts, a bleak fate seems assured for many mills across the state of Georgia, unless preservation of mill prosperities becomes a priority, or at least a significant focus of preservation efforts. Georgia’s textile mills, although certainly not as aesthetically pleasing as the finest houses in Atlanta’s Inman Park, do carry a deep historical significance and a have distinct presence where they exist, making their preservation understandable and warranted.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-03-23T07:18:00.000-07:00

Apparel Manufacturing Plants

The significance of the textile industry in Georgia is evident. It dominated the state’s manufacturing economy for more than half a century. The industry benefited from the state’s transition from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy, moving into portions of the state that had a large potential labor pool. The effects on the society at large were immense making arguments for the preservation of these structures based on their social significance valid. Many textile mills also have a certain aesthetic appeal, making preservation based on pure aesthesis and character understandable. There is also a certain level of cultural awareness for many people about textile mills, and what they symbolized. The argument for the preservation of apparel manufacturing plants is slightly more clouded.(Apparel plants refers to buildings involved in the cutting and sewing of apparel)

One issue that needs to be addressed is how a discussion of apparel plants relates to textile mills. Above I mentioned the social impacts of the textile industry as a major argument for their preservation. There has always been a small segment of Georgia’s manufacturing economy involved in manufacturing apparel. With hundreds of textile mills making the necessary fabric in Georgia, apparel manufacturing fit nicely into the state’s textile complex. Apparel manufacturing until the mid-1950s lagged far behind textile mills in Georgia, in terms of total employment. In 1950 Georgia’s textile mills employed approximately 35 percent of all manufacturing employees whereas apparel plants employed only about 8 percent. A decade later, in 1960, textiles employed about 26 percent of Georgia’s manufacturing jobs (a decline of 10 percentage points), and apparel manufacturers employed about 13 percent of Georgia’s manufacturing jobs (an increase of about 5 percentage points). Apparel manufacturers made gains by pushing into areas, like the west Georgia and north Georgia regions that still had a significant labor pool. Apparel manufacturing is even more labor intensive than textile mills and generally paid lower wages, making areas that have a large potential workforce attractive to apparel manufacturers. Apparel manufacturing locating in an area was significant, if somewhat less pronounced than the entrance of textile mills in an area, as these areas generally had little to no industry before the arrival of apparel manufacturing. Apparel manufacturing was in reality doing in the 1950s and the 1960s what textile mills had done half a century before. There were differences. Apparel “villages” were not built and plants did not generally require thousands of workers like textile mills. Apparel plants were generally small, with many hiring extremely small workforces. When apparel plants closed, however, their closure could affect a community as traumatically as the closure of a major textile mill.

Above: Photographer facing northeast, Photograph of Sewell Manufacturing’s apparel plant in Bowdon, GA, This windowless plant was built in the late 1960s and housed cutting. The plant still conducts cutting today, but on a much smaller scale/ Photograph in possession of author, taken 3/17/11

Architecturally, apparel plants followed similar trends to textile mills.(See Above) Apparel plants built in the first half of the twentieth century where similar to textile mills, having brick veneers and broad window bays. In the 1950s and 1960s apparel plants look striking similar to mill additions and new mill construction. Technological improvements allowed textile mill structures to take on a very utilitarian look, similar in many ways to apparel manufacturing plants. Most plants and mills built in the 1950s or 1960s were windowless, or had few windows, were brick veneered, with non bearing concrete block walls, and interior steel framing. The preservation of these vernacular structures is rarely a priority. Although many of these structures are less than fifty years old, some are approaching the fifty year benchmark for National Register Nomination, which with the societal impacts of the apparel plants, makes a strong case for the preservation of these structures. Post-World War II mill additions and apparel manufacturing plants, although not always the most striking structures had a distinct and undeniable effect on the communities in which they were located, especially apparent today after many are no more. Additionally both textile industry and apparel industry share a similar story of rapid decline, making these once important industries shadows of their former selves.

Can you hear me now?

2011-03-08T12:54:00.000-08:00

One of the many intriguing sites included in this year's Ramble through Macon is the Telephone Exchange Building (c. 1904). The building has since been converted into fabulous lofts that are conveniently located in Downtown Macon.

The building features fine brickwork, terra-cotta trim and copper detailing on both façades on the corner lot. The three-story Italianate design copied a Bell Telephone Company structure in Richmond, Virginia, now demolished. Along with the four-story addition (c.1926) that adjoins it on Second Street, the building housed the operations of the Southern Telephone and Telegraph office until 1942. During the 1970s the Macon Technical School had space in the building. Unfortunately, the structure remained vacant beginning in 1980 and slowly deteriorated. The property was purchased in 1999 by Macon Heritage Foundation, now Historic Macon Foundation. After a new roof stabilized the building, Al and Kay Gerhardt bought it at the end of 2005. Work began in late 2007 using construction loans from the National Trust and the Georgia Cities Foundation. The building will be sold as condominiums, with residential use for the upper floors and commercial uses on the first floor.

To tour one of the great lofts in this building, join us for the 2011 Spring Ramble. Visit http://www.georgiatrust.org/historic_sites/rambles/ramble.php.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-03-08T07:55:00.001-08:00

The Ever Changing Textile Process

Discussions about how textile mill construction and architecture changed following WWII can be very interesting and relevant because of the number of mills that expanded in this period. At its heart though, a mill is simply a place to house a production process. A textile mill might be built with modern construction techniques, such as steel interior supports, concrete floors, non load bearing brick walls, and such, but the machinery inside the mill was what truly made a modern mill, modern. In this post I will step away from talking about changes in mill architecture and briefly focus on the changes in textile mill technology. The changes underwent by textile mill machinery in the decades following WWII could fill several books, so only the broad changes will be focused on. The textile process is best visualized and textual representation of the process could never do it justice.

---

The process that turns fiber to fabric is an ever changing and complex process. We are only a few centuries removed from when a single worker would labor for hours, days, or weeks, to manufacture enough fabric to make a piece of clothing. It took hundreds of man-hours to create a single yard of fabric, with every step in the process, including the cleaning of the cotton (or wool), straightening the fibers, the making of the yarn, and finally the making of the fabric, being extremely tedious and labor intensive, and the final product far from perfect. Today the number of man hours it takes to make a yard of fabric is minuscule, because technology has improved and sped the process up tremendously. The process has undergone a number of significant changes since WWII, making a mill and an individual worker ever more productive.

What changed to allow this increase in productivity? One trend allowing for increased production following WWII, was the combination of steps and machinery. There are three main processes that turn a fiber (cotton, wool, or manmade) into a fabric. The first step is the cleaning and straightening of the fibers, the second step involves the spinning of the fiber into a single yarn, and the third major step is the making of the fabric. The first stage (cleaning and straightening) is an excellent example of the combination of processes. When cotton arrives at a mill it has been ginned to remove the seeds and large pieces of trash, but it is still very dirty. The process in the 1940s-1950s involved the cotton being opened and blended manually and fed by hand into a system that used air to propel the cotton to be picked, where excess trash was removed. Following picking the cotton still had to be carded (which produced a thick cotton lap, similar to a thick mat of cotton), doubled (where multiple laps are combined), and combed (which turned the multiple laps into a thick cotton sliver, similar to a thick piece of web like yarn). Today these processes are largely combined into one fluid step, where the cotton is manually blended, compelled by air to the carding equipment, with no separate picking operation required, and off of the carding machines comes the thick cotton sliver.

The spinning process also underwent a number of significant changes. The spinning process involved a complex set of steps that turned a thick cotton sliver into a compact piece of yarn. Following the combing process, multiple slivers are combined into a single large sliver. This sliver is then placed on a slubber (where the sliver is drawn out and placed on bobbins), then a roving frame(See Photograph Below) (where the material is starting to take on a yarn like consistency), and finally placed on the spinning frame (See Photograph Below) (where the yarn receives the appropriate twist and a final drawing out process). This multi-stage process, while still used in some form for finer yarns, was rendered mostly obsolete(except for the drawing process) with the introduction of open end spinning(See Photograph Below). Open end spinning combined roving, spinning, and winding(which was an additional process that combined multiple bobbins onto a large spool) onto one piece of machinery. Open end spinning works along the same lines as pulling clothing out of a running clothes dryer. The continuous spinning of the dryer will give the clothes a twist as you remove them. Open end spinning was a simple premise that dramatically revolutionized the spinning process in textile mills.

Above: Photograph of Roving Frame at Lawrenceville Cotton Mill. 1920s, Lawrenceville, Gwinnet County. gwn 241. Photograph courtesy of Vanishing Georgia.

Above: Photograph of spinning frame at unidentified LaGrange Mill. 1930s. LaGrange, Troup County, trp251. Photograph courtesy of Vanishing Georgia.

Above: Modern open end spinning frame used at Trion’s Mount Vernon Mills, which combined the processes done on the above photograph roving and spinning frames. Photograph taken January 17^th. In possession of author.

Once the fiber is prepared into yarn, it is not yet ready to be woven. The yarn has to be warped (whereby many fibers are laid parallel onto a single beam) then slashed (whereby multiple warper beams are combined and chemicals are added to strengthen the fiber), in some cases depending in the end use dyed, and finally if dyed rebeamed (which involves relaying the fibers parallel on a single beam). This final beam is ready to be woven. These steps have remained largely unchanged, in principle, but are now much more efficient. Weaving however has undergone a dramatic change since WWII. For generations, a loom relied on a shuttle to convey a weft thread back and forth through the warp threads. The adoption of shuttleless looms revolutionized weaving. (See Photograph Below) Removing the shuttle dramatically increased the productive capability of weaving. The weft thread in shuttleless looms is conveyed back and forth by air in air jet looms, which are the most popular, or water, in water jet looms. The speed of these looms was far greater than looms with shuttles.

Above: Modern shuttleless air-jet loom used at Trion’s Mount Vernon Mills. Photograph taken January 17^th. In possession of author.

As steps are being combined, the overall process is also being sped up. The proliferation of air conditioning, which allowed for a consistent moisture content in the fibers, reduced breaks, further increasing production speeds. Increasing productive capability, and combining processes could free up a great deal of space within a mill, allowing for the installation of even more equipment. There are also many small improvements to machinery that could increase speed as well as reduce downtime. There were also improvements in other phases of textile production, including the dying, bleaching, or finishing stages, which further improved the ability to get the product to customers faster. Thus the ability to improve technology and utilize new machinery benefited textile mills in a plethora of ways.

The above discussion is based on three key sources as well as a January 17^th site visit to Trion’s Mount Vernon Mills:

“A Bird’s-Eye View of the Manufacture of Cotton Cloth” from The ABC of Textiles form Raw Material to Finished Fabric Cotton, 1938. Located in Debbie Curtis Toole, editor, Cotton Mills, Planned Communities and the New Deal: Vernacular Architecture and Landscapes of the New South. Athens, GA: Green Berry Press, 1999), 126-127.

United State Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Technology and Manpower in the Textile Industry of the 1970’s. Washington : Government Printing Office, Bulletin No. 1578 August 1968.

Zeisel, Rose N. “Modernization and Manpower in Textile Mills” Monthly Labor Review. June 73 (Vol. 96 Issue 6), 18-25.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-02-25T06:28:00.000-08:00

Why Textile Mills Expanded

One important issue to address is why textile mills expanded. In previous posts, I have laid out how individual mills expanded, the materials used in expansions, and the construction techniques used in additions. In this post I will discuss the reasons that textile mills expanded, something that should have been in an early post but it is only after “seeing” (in paper or in person) a number of mills that I could make this assessment.

---

It may be obvious, but textile mills expanded to increase productive capability. New machines needed new floor space, but these types of additions are only part of the story explaining why textile mill added additions.

If a textile mill wanted to utilize cotton and manmade fibers together, in bulk, as a part of its finished product, it was cost efficient, not to buy a manmade fibers from other mills, but to construct a synthetic mill directly onto the main mill. This however required separate space because the cotton production process is very dirty and dusty, whereas manmade fibers create less dust, making it impractical to produce both cotton and rayon in the same plant without subdivided space. An example of a plant utilizing both manmade and natural fibers at the same mill, with each requiring their own production space is Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company’s plant in ATCO (now part of Cartersville) which was built in 1904, and made tire fabric.(See Aerial View of ATCO’s Mill Below) In 1952 the mill constructed an addition in order to utilize rayon. Rayon, a manmade fiber derived from the cellulose of wood pulp or cotton linters, was a very common fiber utilized in the decades following WWII. This 1952 addition does provides information on the various aspects of post WWII mill construction, because it was one story, windowless, and very wide because textile mills no longer had to be narrow in order for light to illuminate the production space. ATCO’s mill used cotton in addition to rayon in order to produce cordage. The rayon mill simply allowed Goodyear to utilize both rayon and cotton (although each within their own space) under one roof ,with both materials part of the final product.

Above: Aerial view of ATCO’s mill courtesy of Google Earth, with north being top of aerial view. The original mill is the narrow structure running north to south in the center of the view. The large rectangular structure at the bottom of the view is the early 1950s addition built to utilize rayon.

This idea of bringing multiple stages of the textile production within one mill was a common theme in the post war period. A factor pushing these developments was the wave of mergers and acquisitions sweeping the textile industry in the decades following WWII. The textile industry after WWII, consisted of a large number of small operations, operations that generally only conducted limited stages of the textile process. A mill might be able to spin and weave its product, but then relied on a finishing operation to complete the process before the product was sent to a customer, such as an apparel manufacture. This was inefficient, it limited the economies of scale, placing smaller mills at a disadvantage because they could not invest capital dollars in new equipment or development, and increased fees needed to utilize additional external operations. Larger companies could solve this problem by merging with companies who completed additional processes, a move known as a vertical merger. For instance a company owning mills that could only spin and weave, would acquire plants that could finish and dye. This affected individual mills in key ways. A mill having only one part of the textile process could seldom afford to invest in larger expansions. If a smaller mill was bought by a larger company, the larger company could then afford to spend the money to expand a plant, making it more self contained. Hawkinsville’s Cotton Mill is an excellent example of this occurrence. Hawkinsville’s Cotton Mill remained a smaller textile concern until purchased by Opelika Manufacturing Company, an Alabama based textile company, in 1951. Although Opelika would increased the spindles through adding additions, a significant addition added allowed the mill to bleach and finish goods. This large addition and others, were built directly into the original mill. Mills all over Georgia grew vastly in size because areas to accommodate finishing and dying were added, in many cases, directly into the main mill, and Hawkinsville’s mill is only one of many examples.

Mills also added a number of auxiliary buildings, meant to hold maintenance space, shops, tanks for chemicals, electrical equipment, or other non-production processes. These additions did not always require an engineering firm to construct, and could in many cases be built by mill staff. Variety is the key factor in these additions. Some of these additions were integrated into the overall interior space, in other words they opened into the main mill, while others were simply tacked on, with no entryway into the main mill provided. Most, if not the vast majority, of these mill additions are small subdivided spaces, built solely for one purpose. These auxiliary additions were by no means a post WWII occurrences. For instance, Atlantic Cotton Mills in Macon, GA,(See Sanborn Insurance Map Below) had a number of auxiliary buildings added onto its eastern end. It was common to cluster these (mostly single story)buildings in one area, so as not to block access to light.

Above: Macon 1924-February 1951 vol. 2, 1924-February 1951, Sheet 229. Sanborn Map. Accessed through Proquest, Digital Sanborn Maps 1867-1970. The Sanborn shows the collection of auxiliary structures added onto Atlantic Cotton mills by 1951. Most additions which included the boiler house, waste house, and machine shop, were present in 1924.

Although the uses may differ, with few exceptions these additions were built with steel frames, were windowless, had concrete floors, and were single storied when possible. The reasons for mill expansions provided above are only a few of the diverse and varied reasons textile mills decided to enlarge and grow following WWII.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-02-09T10:27:00.000-08:00

Dixie Mill

On Thursday, February 3, I surveyed Dixie Mills in LaGrange, GA . In addition to examining Dixie Mills, I was also able to investigate Kex and Unity Mills, two former Callaway Mills, operated by Milliken at the time of their closure. I will focus mostly on Dixie Mills in this update, because it does have a number of additions, and a decent amount of information exists on what the additions were for, as well as when they were built. Unity Mills had no significant post WWII additions, although the interior had been modernized, and Kex only had a couple of additions. I would like to thank John Knox who owns the three mills for letting me spend the time looking at the mills, as well as Mike Joyce, who took the time to show me around the complexes, even as the rain was turning to sleet.

---

Dixie Mills was built between 1895-1896, as the first major textile mill in LaGrange. The mill, when first constructed was built with a construction system designed by Charles A. M. Praray. The system allowed the outer wall to be built on a separate foundation, apart from the foundation of the interior structure. This made the outer walls non-load bearing and allowed for these walls to have large expanses of uninterrupted windows, allowing a great deal of light to pass into the mill. The mill no longer has these outer Praray designed walls, which had a very distinctive triangular look, but Douglasville, GA’s Western Georgia Cotton Mill, also designed by Praray, maintains this outer wall design, and even though the windows are covered the structure is still striking in appearance. Dixie Mill probably lost this outer wall during a major renovation in the 1940s.

Above: Photographer facing southeast, Photograph of Dixie Mill’s north façade, Mill façade and most of the 1940s additions are obstructed by air cleaning systems, company offices, and occupational health offices./ Photograph in possession of author, taken 2/3/11

Above: Photographer facing southwest, Photograph of Dixie Mill’s east face, The large addition on the front is an air cleaning system. Just behind that is the 1941 addition, which will built directly onto the main mill. The main mill is denoted by the bricked up windows to the left of the photograph./ Photograph in possession of author, taken 2/3/11

Dixie Mills has a series of additions on the front façade, which obstruct the original façade.(See Photographs of Dixie’s Front Façade and 1941 Addition Above) The additions along the front face were added in 1941 and 1945, and were simply meant to add additional floor space or if needed, house specific processes . The 1941 addition is two stories in height, mirroring the original mill and held carding.¹ The only clear identifiable difference in the interior of the mill, is that instead of the massive wood beams, steel beams are used as roof supports. The same features apply to an addition added along the front face in 1945, except that they held intermediate processes between carding and spinning. Even though one story mills were already being built in Georgia in the 1930s, there is a transitional period during the decade of the 1940s, during which older textile mills continued to expand using multi story additions as the standard form of expanding. When Monroe Mills in Monroe, GA chose to expand in 1949, the addition they built looked very much like the original mill, except for interior steel supports.(See Photograph Below) The stylistic features of these mill additions could differ from the original mill on which they were added. For instance Swift Mill’s, in Columbus, weave shed (See Photograph Below) completed in 1945, takes on the International style, which allowed for broad window bays, very different from the original mill and its pre-war additions, which generally have the typical arched windows, but the addition is still multi storied. Although one story mills came into use, and steel was a worthwhile investment, the change from multi to single story additions did not occur overnight, and many mills continued to use multi story additions.

Above: Photographer facing southwest, Photograph of Monroe Mill’s 1949 addition. The addition was built to fill in space between the main mill and areas were weaving was done. The addition is multi storied, with window bays much like the original mill. The addition has been covered with an elevator shaft, toilet tower, and an air cleaning unit./ Photograph in possession of author, taken 1/18/11

Above: Photographer facing east, Photograph of Swift Mill’s weave shed added in 1945. This addition, built with a steel frame, is similar to many International Style buildings, and even though it is multi storied, it looks very different from the older portions of Swift Mill./ Photograph in possession of author, taken 1/27/11

These assorted 1940s addition were not the only additions added at Dixie Mills. The ever present air coolers and cleaners were added to the front façade of the mill. The slasher building on the rear south face of the mill was expanded at various points, and appears to have undergone a very recent addition as noted by exterior concrete block walls. This feature in textile mills is very uncommon, because in many cases textile mills would place a brick veneer over these non loading block walls. There was a proposed expansion of Dixie Mills in the late 1990s which would reportedly “double the capacity of the plant…”² Another addition included a more modern loading dock on the western face. The look of the building was not the only thing changed. The mill converted to rayon in the late 1940s, but at some point switched back to cotton as its main product.³ Dixie Mills, like many textile mills in Georgia, grew throughout its history, as needed to expand or adapt to new opportunities in the market.

¹ “Addition Is To Be Built On Dixie Mills Costing $25,000.” Lagrange Daily News, 1 September, 1941, 1. and “West Point Manufacturing Company: La Grange, GA” Insurance Map by Associated Factory Mutual Fire Insurance companies, 18 February, 1947, in Dixie Mill Vertical Fill, Troup County Archives, LaGrange, GA.

²”Dixie Mill Expansion to add capacity, jobs.” LaGrange Daily News, 11 October, 1998, 8.

³”Dixie is No Cotton Mill, Makes Nothing But Rayon.” LaGrange Daily News, 1 September, 1950, 1

Steven Eubanks is a graduate student at West Georgia University and recipient of the 2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship. The Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship provides financial assistance for projects that acquaint undergraduate and graduate students, and young professionals with preservation programs and practices.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-01-27T10:57:00.000-08:00

Trion’s Mount Vernon Mills

On Monday, January the 17^th I visited Mount Vernon Mills in Trion, GA. I was originally scheduled to visit the mill during the week of Georgia’s inclement weather, and thus this update is late in coming. I would first like to thank Ms. Jennifer Cox who was very helpful in scheduling the first visit, and then rescheduling so quickly following the snow and ice. I also sincerely appreciated Mr. Don Henderson’s willingness to spend the entire day showing me around the mill, and maybe more importantly answering my questions. His insight into the textile industry will also be invaluable to this project. Since I acquired so much interesting information about the mill, I will spend less time talking about the architectural qualities of the mill additions and focus on what I learned overall.

-----

Trion’s mill was first built in 1845. The mill was one of the first in the state of Georgia, and was assuredly the first textile mill built in Northwest Georgia. The mill survived William T. Sherman in 1864, but like many mills suffered a devastating fire in 1875. The mill was quickly rebuilt and this 1875 mill houses the core production processes today, containing carding, spinning, warping, some weaving, as well as many other smaller processes.(See Photograph Below) The mill made a variety of products, prior to getting into the denim business in the 1970s. Denim today is the mill’s major product, and the mill takes raw cotton and converts it into massive rolls of denim which are shipped off to apparel manufacturers to be cut into blue jeans or other denim based products. If you own a pair of Wrangler jeans or a Carhart product, there is a good possibility it came from Trion’s mill.

Above: Mount Vernon Mills, Trion, GA. Photographer facing northwest. Most of the southern facade of the mill is obstructed by large three story mill additions, added prior to 1900. These early additions are in turn covered by a number of exterior buildings, such as air cleaning units, power units, and other auxiliary structures built after WWII. Many of the windows have been bricked in, but the façade is still visible./ Photograph in possession of author taken 1/17/10

Since the mill has been active for such a long period of time there are additions that date to the mid 1990s, including an enormous distribution warehouse. This warehouse shows how much even cotton mills (those that remain) are changing today. This newer warehouse, which was built on the northeastern corner of the mill, is eighty feet tall and several hundred feet long. Once rolled denim is finished and moved by conveyor to this distribution warehouse, no person physically has to touch the denim until a forklift driver puts it in the shipping container. In other words, eighty foot tall robots and conveyors do all the appropriate moving. These robots are used because they are easier on the rolled denim and cause fewer defects. These automated systems are just one of the many modern aspects of Trion’s Mount Vernon Mills, and examples of how this successful mill continues to remain competitive and modernized. Modernization is a dominate theme in the post WWII period. Those mills that did not spend the capital dollars in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were almost assuredly doomed to failure. There was a rapid advancement in technology between the 1960s and 1980s, and thus it was very difficult for Georgia’s mills to spend the required money to install new and faster equipment.

The mill does have a very nice addition added on the northern face of the 1870s mill. The addition was added in stages in the 1960s and 1970s.(See Photograph Below) The addition now serves as additional weave space and houses slashing and some of the finishing operations. Although the addition is two stories, it has the standard construction technique seen in most post WWII mill additions. The mill has a concrete foundation in addition to steel columns and roof supports. The addition has non-load bearing concrete block walls with an exterior brick veneer. The addition was built in divided sections, and these subdivided sections now house separate processes. This is just one major addition, as there are so many others in this mill

Above: Mount Vernon Mills, Trion, GA. Photographer facing west, At the far left of the photograph, the northern facade of the original mill is visible. The addition connects the main mill with a white dye house on the right, which was built in the 1990s. Completed denim leaves this addition via conveyor belt, which can be seen at right of picture, and takes it to the distribution center./ Photograph in possession of author taken 1/17/10

Trion’s mill is the only working mill I have surveyed so far during this project. Seeing the process in action was well worth the visit, but more importantly seeing the modern machinery and how efficient it was, provided a clear indication of the advantages of modern technology, and how those mills that did not modernize would surely be left behind.

If you are interested in getting more information on Trion’s mill, visit the websites below:

CNN did a piece covering Trion’s mill.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/30/blue.jeans.mill/

The company website has some very interesting information, including a plant tour, and a pretty detailed timeline.

http://www.mvmdenim.com/plant_tour/index.html

January 2011 Member Spotlight: Chris Lambert

2011-01-21T11:01:00.000-08:00

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we are thrilled to focus on Georgia Trust Trustee and avid preservationist, Chris Lambert of Madison, Georgia.

Chris has been involved in the Georgia Trust since soon after the Trust’s creation when she and her husband Roy generously hosted a dinner for the Trust at their home. The couple went on to become loyal members with Roy serving on the Board of Trustees from 1981 to 1988 and as President in1984 and 1985. Chris has been a Georgia Trust Trustee since 2010.

In addition to her work on the Trust’s board, she is also heavily involved in Madison where she serves on various committees with the Madison Morgan Cultural Center and Chamber of Commerce. She is also a board member of Madison Green Space Commission, The Morgan County Foundation for Excellence in Public Education and The Morgan Fund Advisory Board for the Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta.

Chris became interested in historic preservation after witnessing the loss of significant resources in Madison. She believes that it, "is important to take note of your surroundings and the things that bring you joy. Don’t take for granted that they will always be there. Be willing to support efforts to preserve irreplaceable treasures in your environment."

The Georgia Trust is extremely grateful to have dedicated board members like Chris. We look forward to working with her in protecting and preservating Georgia's historic treasures.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2011-01-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

Controlling the Air in Textile Mills

The ability to control the temperature and quality of air in a textile mill, had significant implications on textile mill architecture. Additionally, controlling interior air also provided increased production capabilities and human comfort for mill workers. Regulating the air within a textile mill, did not just mean solely controlling the temperature, it also meant assuring that the air inside the mill was cleaned. It is in the late 1940s and early 1950s that many textile mills began to install air coolers and washers. In some cases mills were not conditioned entirely at one time, but were conditioned over time, with many mills remaining unconditioned even until the late 1960s. There was not one standard way to condition mills, although there was a system that became common. This involved the installation of windowless towers which housed the air cooling and air washing systems. Although adding air conditioning systems did not increase factory space, they do significantly alter the façade of a textile mill and were incredibly significant to the textile industry.

Two mills which have these air cooling and air washing towers added immediately on the original
facade are Dunson Mill in LaGrange, GA and Habersham Mills in Demorest GA. Dunson Mill, which was built in 1911, was not fully air conditioned until the early 1970s. (See Photograph of Conditioning Tower at Dunson Mill Below) In addition to adding cooling and washing towers, the windows at the mill were bricked in. The use of artificial lighting negated the need for windows in mills, and most mills found ways to fill or cover existing windows. On the front façade of Dunson Mill, there are six of these large cooling and conditioning towers which greatly alter the mill facade. Habersham Mills in Demorest, GA also had cleaning and cooling towers added.(See Photograph Habersham Mills Conditioning Tower Below) Habersham Mills production space was constructed in two main building campaigns, with the conditioning tower below added in the early 1960s to a major 1930s mill addition. At both Habersham Mills and Dusnon Mills, these conditioning towers were added to achieve the similar goals of cleaning and cooling the air inside of a cotton mill, even if the additions look very different.

Above: Photograph of Dunson Mill in LaGrange, GA. Photographer facing north, Photograph of air washing and cooling tower. Cooling tower is in left center of photograph, to right of the conditioning tower is the original mill façade with bricked in windows/ Photograph in possession of author taken 11/16/10

Above: Photograph of Habersham Mills in Demorest, GA. Photographer facing east, Photograph of red brick addition added to house air washing and cooling system. To the left of the red brick addition, is the main mill which has been covered with corrugated metal/ Photograph in possession of author taken 12/9/10

One note is that not all mills added cooling and conditioning towers directly on the mill
facade. Martha Mills in Thomaston, GA added air washers to the interior of the mill, but also had some conditioning equipment set off a great distance from the main mill, with no significant additions added directly on the exterior of existing mill buildings to housing air conditioning equipment. A number of mills kept parts of their coolant systems detached from the mill buildings, while still have some housed in additions added directly to the mill. In most cases though, mills tried to avoid using existing interior floor space for anything other than production equipment. Also, newer mills built with steel frame construction were able to utilize roof space to hold large coolant systems.

The ability to control air was extremely important for textile mills. When mills were built from
the ground up with air conditioning systems they were worthy of praise. A textile trade journal article title praised a mill in Cornelia, GA built in 1946-1947 as a “Modern Mill Building” which “Features Control of Air”.1 The air conditioning system could reportedly “change” the air fourteen times per hour.2 The ability to control and regulate the air made this mill unique, modern, and worthy of attention in the textile mill community, displaying how revolutionary and important air condition was in the years following World War II.

In my next blog posting I will discuss what may be my most exciting site visit yet, although
all the mills I have studied (In person or on paper) have been interesting and enlightening. On January 11th I am scheduled to tour Trion’s Mount Vernon Mill. Trion’s Mill is undoubtedly the oldest mill in Northwest Georgia, and may be the oldest operating mill in the state of Georgia. The mill produces denim fabric and is a testament to the versatility and durability of Georgia’s textile mill buildings and proof that there still is a textile industry in Georgia.

1 “Modern Mill Building: Features Control of Air” Textile World Vol. 97 No. 1, 121-121.

2 Ibid., 120.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2010-12-02T10:16:00.001-08:00

Clarkesville Mill

Clarkesville, GA

On November 11^th, I surveyed Clarkesville Mill located in Clarkesville, GA. The mill, built between 1950 and 1951, used rayon to produce fabric for curtains. The mill closed in 2001 and has since been converted into a mixed-use building called the Old Clarkesville Mill, housing a number of commercial ventures.

Above: Undated photograph of Clarkesville Mill from Genealogy Room at Clarkesville-Habersham County Library, Photograph probably made soon after the mill was completed in 1951, as there are no additions to the mill.

When Clarkesville mill was first constructed, it looked entirely unlike mills built a half century before. For example, compare the above picture of the original unaltered Clarkesville Mill, with a photograph of Sachem Mills in Winder, GA (Pictured Below). The mill in Winder, built in the late 1890s-early 1900s, looks like a typical Georgia cotton mill. Sachem Mills is multi storied, has detached warehouses, a detached weave shed, a boiler house denoted by its tall smokestack, direct railroad frontage, and so on. Clarkesville Mill when it was first constructed had few of these characteristic.

Above: Photograph Courtesy of Vanishing Georgia, Sachem Mills, Winder, Barrow County, Georgia, 1948,

The most startling difference between Clarkesville Mill and earlier mills is that Clarkesville Mill is one story. Although there were one story mills built prior to WWII, one story mill construction was the proscribed method of mill construction following WWII. One chief reason was the ease of alteration. Clarkesville Mill currently has a number of additions added on to the original structure, which clearly illustrate this point. Clarkesville Mill is built with steel support columns and steel roof beams, as well as non load-bearing concrete walls. The concrete block walls could be removed as needed to allow for greater uninterrupted spaces. The expansion process is understandably more complex with a multi storied mill.

A single story mill could also reduce cost. When Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, located in Atlanta and constructed like a typical multi story mill with a sprawling complex, was celebrating its 100^th anniversary in 1968, Textile Industries carried a brief history of the mill. The magazine related that “one of Fulton’s young industrial engineers” was heard telling a visitor: “Just imagine what you could do with this if it was all on one level.”¹ The magazine also reported that “Management readily admits that the physical layout of the plant raises materials handling costs and causes more than a few production headaches.”² Although multi storied mills which stretch on for hundreds of feet may be impressive, this may also be that mills biggest weakness. Additionally, it is not just the external physical appearances that differ between older and newer textile mills. One figure that illustrates the difference between newer and older mill is that in the mid 1960s, to make an older mill suitable for new machinery, it could cost as much as 80 to 85 percent the cost of a brand new building.³This also helps explain why mills chose to add additions with newer construction, as they allowed for greater future flexibility.

I would like to thank Mr. Otter for allowing me to survey the building, as well as Gail and Ms. Wineland for providing me with a tour, photos, and information about the site.

I would also like to thank Mr. D’entremont who used to work at Clarkesville Mill, and offered over an hour of his time explaining the production process at the mill.

¹“Part 2: Fulton’s Management and Marketing Concepts Today” from “100^th Anniversary: Fulton Cotton Mills.” Textile Industries, Vol. 38, No. 12. (December 1968), 67.

²Ibid., 67.

³Simpson, William Hays. Some Aspects of America’s Textile Industry, With Special Reference to Cotton. Columbia, SC: Division of General Studies, University of South Carolina, 1966, 63

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2010-11-19T10:50:00.000-08:00

Martha Mills

Thomaston, GA

Above: Aerial view of Martha Mills complex from Google Earth/ View is aligned with north being the top of the picture

On Thursday November the 11^th I surveyed Martha Mills in Thomaston, GA. I want to thank Matthew Molenkamp for showing me around and allowing me to document this amazing (and vast) site.

Above: Photographer facing west, Photograph of main mill’s east façade, Added during 1929 main mill expansion/ Photograph in possession of author, taken 11/11/10

Martha Mills was constructed in 1926 to make cotton tire cord for the B. F. Goodrich Company. In 1929 B. F. Goodrich officially bought the mill, which had been operated by the owners of Thomaston Mill and in that same year the mill grew in length, with the original three story mill receiving wings on the west side and east side . The mill continued to receive various additions prior to WWII on the north side of mill, which formed an L, with some of the L completed in the late 1960s. The L portion is no longer extant, but was three stories in height, like the main mill. These additions were easily integrated into the mill because raw product could enter on the west east side of the mill, pass through the appropriate processes and exit on west side. A series of covered walkways and breezeways allowed for the movement of products between the appropriate areas. When Martha Mills chose to expand in the late 1960s, they built a one story weave mill, and warehouse to the south. This addition is not directly connected to the main mill, but it does have a series of passageways, some of which could be sealed if needed. This addition is built with a steel frame, whereas the majority of Martha Mills has cast iron columns, with wood columns only receiving minimal use. The west portion of the addition was designated as a weave mill, which added loom capacity to the mill, and the east wing was designated as a warehouse, with both the weave mill and warehouse under one continuous roof. This addition may have somewhat altered the product flow, because on the east side of the warehouse, there was an all-steel building (no longer extant) built in the 1969, and housed a process which was made the product last longer. There was also a warehouse built in the 1970s just south of the all-steel building, which was used to store finished goods. Did all the products now leave the southeast corner of the mill, instead of on the west side, where a concrete loading dock was located? It is conceivable that some, and not all synthetic products had to be treated before the production process was complete, whereas cotton products required no such process. Martha Mills did start producing a variety of synthetic materials, as it attempted to remain competitive.

Above: Photographer facing north, Photograph of weave mill and warehouse exterior with main mill rising behind the one story utilitarian building, Weave Mill and warehouse constructed in 1969/ Photograph in possession of author taken 11/11/10

Above: Photographer facing west, Photograph of weave mill interior, Weave Mill constructed in 1969/ Photograph in possession of author taken 11/11/10

Although the weave mill and warehouse additions bring new questions to light, they do illustrate some key points about what was becoming standard in post WWII construction. Steel columns and steel framed buildings were the norm as steel offered greater strength and increased resistance to fire. The concrete block interior walls with brick veneer were also becoming common. Most additions, or new mills, were one story and windowless due to the increased potential to expand a one story mill and the ease of product flow. Mills could be windowless because of artificial lighting and the increased availability of air conditioning which increased human comfort and the production capability of the machines. These are just a few, of the many points about post WWII textile mill construction demonstrated by Martha Mills.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2010-11-04T12:31:00.000-07:00

The Quest for Open Space

The ability for textile mills to maximize and use all available floor space was a key concern as textile mills expanded following World War II. Improved technology allowed for the construction of large open areas.

Photograph 1: Second floor interior, Building #5(1955 Addition) at Puritan Cordage Mills, Clarke County, Georgia, Photograph taken 6/25/1995 on file at Georgia Historic Preservation Division

Photograph 2: Exterior,Building #5 (1955 Addition) at Puritan Cordage Mills, Clarke County, Georgia, Photograph taken 6/25/1995 on file at Georgia Historic Preservation Division

Photograph 3: Interior, Building #4 (1922 Addition) at Puritan Cordage Mills, Clarke County, Georgia, Photograph taken 6/25/1995 on file at Georgia Historic Preservation Division

Photograph 4: Exterior, Building #4 (1922 Addition) at Puritan Cordage Mills, Clarke County, Georgia, Photograph taken 6/25/1995 on file at Georgia Historic Preservation Division

Even though the 1955 addition (Photographs 1 and 2 seen above) at Puritan Cordage Mills near Athens, GA is two stories with an arched roof, the possibilities provided by one story open space textile mills were immense. The absence of supporting columns allowed for greater internal flexibility. An industry trade journal in 1948 believed that the increasing size of textile machinery would make columns a great hindrance and that in any progressive mill it would be “…almost impossible to predict in advance what column space will fit the machinery of the future.”¹ Portions of Puritan Cordage Mills constructed in the early 1920s (Photographs 3 and 4 above) relied on long rows of wooden columns as part of a post and beam roof system. When compared to the completely open spaces of the 1955 addition, the obstruction caused by long rows of internal supports is clearly displayed. In the late 1940s the textile industry generally believed that there was little to impede its growth and that future growth and modernization needed open space construction. This does not mean that all mill additions built after World War II utilized construction techniques allowing for large unbroken space and the industry would continue to find innovative ways to create open spaces, some of which were quite radical.

Jefferson Mills located in Jackson County, Georgia after having already added typical additions on a cotton mill built in 1899, decided to construct a completely new building (Seen below). This building, completed in 1966, utilized an exterior system of tension cables, like those on a suspension bridge, to hold the weight of the roof and negate the use of interior columns. Even though architecturally very different from the 1955 addition at Puritan Cordage Mills, it is all part of the attempt to open up work space and increase the flexibility and adaptability of Georgia’s textile mills.

Image from John Linley’s The Georgia Catalog: Historic American Buildings Survey: A Guide to the Architecture of the State, 233.

In my next posting I will have an update from an upcoming site visit to Martha Mills in Thomaston, Ga.

¹Ewell, David. “One-Story Mill Trend Backed By Sound Reasons” Textile World Vol. 98 No. 11, 105.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project Update

2010-10-21T13:38:00.000-07:00

Georgia’s Textile Industry in a Global Context

Are closed textile mills in Georgia, like the shuttered Goodyear Clearwater Mills in ATCO, shown below, a sign of progress? [Photographer Unknown]

Countries and regions have consistently turned to the textile industry to spark growth and modernize an economy, but time and time again the industry falls into decline. Britain’s textile industry lead the way during industrial revolution in the late 18^th and 19^th century, and textiles became one of Britain’s chief exports, making a world superpower even more powerful. As late as the early 20^th century Britain was responsible for as much as 70% of the total world textile trade, but currently its employment and output remain in a decade long decline. The New England states turned to the textile industry to help it move away from agricultural and farming, thus sparking industrial growth in the early 19^th century. In an attempt to lower labor cost, the northern textile industry began shifting south in the late 1880s, and by the mid 1920s the South surpassed the North in number of operating spindles, and the United States as a whole was becoming ever important on the worldwide textile market. (Operating spindles are the most consistent measure of strength and size of the textile industry) By the mid 1930s; however, Japan, which had turned to the textile industry in an effort to modernize, was the leading exporter of textile products in the world. Following World War II it appeared that the United States, with its textile industry strongest in the South would take prominence on the world textile stage, even helping Japan rebuild its war torn textile industry, but the US’s predominance would not last. Although the decline has been gradual, the United States (and for the purpose of this project the South and Georgia), lost most of its competitive advantage in the textile and apparel industry in the decades following World War II to developing countries in Asia and Eastern Europe, who have themselves turned to the textile industry to drive improvements and modernization, just as Britain, the northern and southern states, and then Japan had previously done.

Even though there has been decline, there is, however, still a textile industry in Georgia. The 2002 Economic Census reported that 75,753 individuals worked in the textile industry, equaling about 16.7% of manufacturing employment (These numbers may be lower today with textile interests continuing to shutter). This however is a shadow of the 103,325 people employed in the textile industry in 1950, which accounted for 35.4% of manufacturing employment. Why the decline when the economy through this same time period generally improved? The textile industry is such that with advances and success in the industry and economy comes improved machinery and processes which improve manufacturing capabilities and thus decrease the amount of labor needed. Thus textile mills must be ever cognizant of improvements in technology, and if improvements are too costly as they often are, then closing may be the only solution.

For this project, the additions and alterations I will examine are generally part of modernization or diversification meant to improve a mill’s competitiveness or increase efficiency, and thus placing Georgia’s mills in a global context is essential.

Member Spotlight

2010-10-20T11:11:00.000-07:00

In this week’s Member Spotlight we are thrilled to highlight Merribel McKeever, Research Intern for The Georgia Trust. A true preservationist in training, Merribel is currently perusing her graduate degree in Heritage Preservation at Georgia State University. Merribel is working on gathering information for The Georgia Trust and Southface Institute for the purpose of starting a new green renovation program geared toward historic structures, as well as creating criteria for cemeteries to be used by the Atlanta Regional Commission.

Merribel serves as Treasurer for Georgia State University’s Heritage Preservation Society. Somehow, in her limited spare time, she likes to express her artistic abilities through, writing, drawing, and playing music. Merribel also bakes delicious cupcakes, which have been used to fuel the Georgia Trust staff. Thanks Merribel!

Merribel’s preservation tip:

Educate! In general people have greater appreciation for things they understand and are knowledgeable about. To the average person a structure built in 1900 might seem like just another old building, but if they knew that someone extremely influential grew up there, or that is was an important gathering place for the community or that a famous architect used a design that would later become the basis for modern architecture, they’re more likely to want to protect that resource and share the story with others.

The Trust is grateful to have exceptional members, volunteers and interns such as Merribel, whose diligent work stresses the importance of historic preservation.

2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship Project

2010-10-07T07:07:00.000-07:00

Although a great deal is known about pre-World War II textile industry structures in Georgia, little is known about the industry and the structures which were built and modified in Georgia after the War. In conjunction with the Georgia Historic Preservation Division and The Georgia Trust, I am working to develop a historical context for these post war structures. To keep those who may be interested in the topic updated, I will post an update twice a month on my progress. The project will last until May of 2010. Also if anyone has any information on the topic, it would be greatly appreciated. Since this is my first blog posting it will be a little lengthy, and I apologize for this.

In many Georgia towns, small and large, you will find nondescript industrial buildings which were once part of Georgia’s vibrant textile industry. Although some of these structures may be in use today producing textile products or in an adaptive use such as apartment housing, many sit dormant or unused. The little that is known about the post World War II textile industry focuses on the decline of this industry. This decline was not precipitous and immediate, but slow and gradual. As a result of this drawn out decline, construction and alternations continued to occur within the textile industry, and many of these structures or changes remain in Georgia today.

An example of post war expansion in Georgia is seen fifty miles to the west of Atlanta in the small town of Bremen. Although Bremen does not look like an economic powerhouse, Bremen in the 1950s and 1960s was known as the “Clothing Capital of the South” due to an incredible concentration of apparel makers, in and around the town. One structure, just to the east of downtown Bremen, displays some key points (and questions) which this project will address. The structure (shown above) was constructed by Hubbard Pants Company in the mid 1960s, with an official dedication occurring in December of 1965. Hubbard built this International style structure to keep up with an increasing demand for the pants and slacks that it produced. The structure was initially built as a stock room and warehouse. Some limited production did initially occur in this structure, such as cutting and waistband manufacture, but after Hubbard was bought out in the early 1990s, most of the companies’ production moved from another building to this three story structure. The production process began on the top floor and proceeded downward via chutes. The building would not get air conditioning until the 1990s, and was vacated after Hubbard went out of business in 2002. This structure raises many important questions. Is this post World War II industrial textile structure like others in Georgia? Is this structure different because it produced apparel, as opposed to working with cotton or hosiery? How do post WWII additions compare to buildings constructed from the ground up? These are a few questions that will hopefully be answered by looking at and studying the Hubbard buildings and others like it.

My next blog posting will discuss the international context of Georgia’s textile industry

Steven Eubanks

jeubank4@my.westga.edu

GaPA Update

2010-09-28T10:11:00.001-07:00

On July 30^th, preservationists cheered as the CLEAR Act passed the House and moved to the Senate. The Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act includes important language for full and permanent funding of the Historic Preservation Fund, as well as the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This would make $150 million available to fund historic preservation each year!

Earlier this month, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, in an address to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, reinforced his support of historic preservation and highlighted the important role preservation plays in our nation’s past and future.

Read Secretary Salazar's inspiring Remarks to the ACHP

Support the Coalition for Full Funding

Georgia Theatre Update

2010-08-31T06:54:00.000-07:00

Thanks in part to many generous donations, the rehabilitation of the Georgia Theatre is underway!

Check out theater owner Wilmot Greene's interview on CNN:

Click HERE for the full story and more great pictures.

The Georgia Theatre's rehabilitation still needs your support. To learn more about the Georgia Theatre and how to contribute to the Georgia Theatre Rehabilitation Fund, Click HERE!

Member Spotlight

2010-08-16T08:03:00.000-07:00

In this week's member spotlight, we proud are to recognize Boone Smith IV, of Macon.

Boone is in his second year as a Board Member of Hay House, and this fall he will be chairing the Seasons of the Vineyard Wine Tasting Auction. Boone is an attorney at the law firm of Smith, Hawkins, Hollingsworth & Reeves, LLP. He specializes in the areas of taxation, estate planning and transactional law. He is a lifelong Maconite, who currently resides in the Historic Ingleside neighborhood with his wife Amanda and their dog Sammy.

The Georgia Trust is deeply grateful to Boone for his commitment to historic preservation.

UPDATE

2010-08-03T08:40:00.001-07:00

The CLEAR Act passed the House on Friday evening!!

Please take a moment to thank to members of Congress who voted yes. To see whether your Congress(wo)man voted in support of the CLEAR Act, you can find the results of the roll call vote here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll513.xml. Let them know how their support of the Historic Preservation Fund will help your community and your organization (Contact Information).

Check On the Hill for more information and stay tuned for updates as the CLEAR Act goes to the Senate.

Full Funding

2010-07-29T08:38:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year, GaPA voted to support national efforts to fully fund the Historic Preservation Fund. Encouraging progress has been made to provide full funding, but your support is still needed.

The CLEAR Act is a bill that addresses offshore oil and gas reforms and contains a provision to fully fund the Historic Preservation Fund at $150 million. The Historic Preservation Fund is funded by receipts from federal offshore oil and gas leases. The fund is authorized at $150 million annually, but Congress typically only appropriates 1/3 of the amount each year since its creation in 1976. The CLEAR Act would allow the Secretary of the Interior to use the fund without further federal action. This means more money for preservation! .

TAKE ACTION!!

The House of Representatives will vote on this bill very soon. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has made it very easy for you to contact your Representative and ask them to support fully funding historic preservation by voting yes for CLEAR Act.

Read more about the CLEAR Act at On The Hill

Preservation Weekly

2010-07-19T08:26:00.000-07:00

Heritage Tourism

Taken from the N ational Trust for Preservation website cultural heritage tourism is defined as traveling to experience the places, artifacts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present. It includes cultural, historic and natural resources. Heritage tourism is also a great way for the lay person to understand the importance of preservation and those strongest connections are made through experience. And what’s great about heritage tourism, it’s a powerful economic tool that it creates jobs and it helps strengthen local economies just by using the resources that are already there.

There are five principles the National Trust has come up with to help ensure the success of heritage tourism programs; first is to collaborate. It is necessary to build partnerships because successful tourism is dependent on the involvement of the entire community from business owners, to political figures, to the residents themselves. Second, it’s important to find the right fit. There are lots of things to consider when creating a tourism program in other areas. Local priorities may be different depending on the resources that exist and how willing the community is ready to accept an influx of visitors by sharing those resources. Third is making sites and programs come alive. Most of what people remember are the experiences that they’ve had and the things they have done and not just seeing, hearing, or reading what is in front of them. Fourth is to focus on quality and authenticity. I believe this to be the most important step. Knowing the true story and sharing it with others is what makes a place unique. Visitors want the real story so that they can share their experiences with others. It’s a disservice to past generations to make changes to history in order to gain visitors. And finally it is import to preserve and protect those cultural, historic, and natural resources and not just with a quick fix. There are even stories to tell in the way a building was put together not to mention these places are the bread and butter for the community.

Creating a heritage tourism program seems obvious especially in these economically difficult times and it can be truly successful if given the chance and if the above steps are followed. However, it won’t work without cultural resources to experience and therein lies the ever present importance of preservation. Not only do we work with what we already have and find ways to build a bridge from to the past to the present in the process we end up protecting our heritage and we also develop a sense of pride in doing so which makes us want to share it all the more.

Member Spotlight

2010-07-08T08:22:00.000-07:00

It is with much enthusiasm that we highlight Grace Quinn, of Atlanta, in this week’s member spotlight.

Grace is a long time member of Friends of Rhodes Hall, and also volunteers at the annual 5k Rhodes Race. Grace also serves as an officer for the Sherwood Forest Garden Club. The Sherwood Forest Garden Club and its members have been a tremendous support to The Trust, providing services to assist and revitalize Rhodes Hall. Each year the garden club decorates the castle during the holiday season for the annual Old World Santa event. The garden club also provide the lovely rose bushes that accent the front of the property. Grace can be seen tending to the roses and the hydrangea bushes that flank Rhodes Hall.

Grace works as a bookkeeper, and has such notable clients as Mary Kate Andrews, author of such books as Savannah Breeze and The Fixer Upper. Grace and her husband Bill live in Sherwood Forest.

The Georgia Trust is deeply grateful for the dedication of its committed members like Grace Quinn.

Preservation Weekly

2010-07-07T08:41:00.000-07:00

Shaping the 20th Century

Mies Van Der Rohe defined modern architecture in the mid 20th century. His philosophy towards design is reflected in many of our skyscrapers across the U.S. The Seagram Building, which is often considered the pinnacle of high rise architecture, was the typical “Miesian Box” with clean lines and little to no ornamentation. Mies believed in a “skin and bones” architecture. Steel beams represented the bones and glass curtain walls that ran over them, the skin. This kind of minimalism became known as the International Style which transcended beyond skyscrapers into the American culture. Clean lines dictated style and can be seen from the construction of homes to furniture. We also think of this style when we see educational buildings and other institutional structures.

Mies emigrated from Germany in 1937 and accepted a position at the Illinois Institute of Technology. There he introduced a new education and attitude towards architecture. He set out to change the architectural language so as to better represent the advancements in production and technology. Drawing on the philosophies of Le Corbusier, Mies encouraged forecourt spaces for the public to enjoy by extending buildings skyward in order to keep the same density or even increase density. In the coming years so many “Miesian Boxes” dotted the landscape they started to lose their innovation. Architects looked for new ways to express individual character. Yet even today they still build with a skin and bones attitude all thanks Mies.

The Seagram building is just one example. It has become an icon of the American corporation. Now we are starting to get comfortable in the 21st century and we often forget that our Miesan skyscrapers were only built 50 years ago verging on historic designation. Yet it is hard to imagine an urban landscape without them. They stand as symbols of business and prosperity as well as rational sensibility.

Preservation Weekly

2010-06-30T07:54:00.000-07:00

Fox Theatre: Atlanta’s Preservation Gem

The “Fabulous” Fox Theatre is a preservation success story that acts a beacon of hope for other preservation endeavors in the city of Atlanta. Originally built for the Shriners of Atlanta, it was turned into a theatre by William Fox and offered a respite for Atlantans during the Great Depression and continued as a successful theater on into the 1960s. However, in the 1970s, it was threatened by demolition. In response, Atlanta Landmarks Inc. was created and the theatre was nominated it to the National Register of Historic Places in 1974. A “Save the Fox” grass roots campaign formed championed by local high school students demonstrating the local and cultural importance of the theatre. It was not just the interestingly unique architecture that sparked this impassioned crusade but the memories and experiences the people of Atlanta shared through this cultural landmark. The Fox has faced bankruptcy and suburban sprawl as well as TV and managed to survive and flourish. The theatre leaves an indelible mark to anyone who sees it.

Today, the Fox theatre is still operational as a theatre and also as a museum. It still houses its original furniture and light fixtures and is home to the second largest theater organ in the world, a Moller organ affectionately known as "Mighty Mo." This week The Fox is hosting a Seminar, “‘It Ain’t Easy Being Green’, Creating a Sustainable Future for Your Historic Structure.” The event will be hosted at The Fox Theatre in the Grand Salon on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 from 10 am to 4 pm. I will be attending. I am shamed to say in the thirteen years that I have lived in Georgia I have never been inside the Fox. Very uncharacteristic of my background, but after learning so much about the theatre’s history, walking through the doors will be twice as exciting because I know what this place means to so many. One thing is sure Atlanta loves the Fox.

The Georgia Trust 2010 Fall Ramble will be in Atlanta September 11-12. The Fox Theatre will be a Ramble site. For more information check out our website.

Preservation Weekly

2010-06-24T07:13:00.000-07:00

Preservation vs. Progress

- Merribel McKeever

The recent approval of the wind farm in Nantucket Sound has this preservationist divided on the issue. The proposal has been in the works for about nine years and has faced serious objections by preservationists and homeowners alike. To environmentalists a wind farm sounds long overdue especially with the devastating oil spill gushing 50,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. Yet sometimes, simple solutions are filled with complexities.

The National Trust has already written a blog about the Nantucket Sound case lamenting the situation in which preservationists found themselves. Nine years ago the company Cape Wind proposed to build a wind farm of 130 turbines to be placed in the shallow waters off of Nantucket Sound. Two prominent issues became a concern with preservationists. The first, an obstructed view from the historic districts surrounding the proposed area. Preservationists claimed it would destroy the historical context of the historic houses in the district. The other concern was two Native Americans tribes who live in the area. They perform sun rituals on the beaches of Nantucket Sound and the wind farm would be detrimental to their practices. Additionally, the shallow waters where the bases of the turbines would be built was once exposed land where the tribes resided holding all kinds of archaeological treasures. Any preservationist would pause and reflect in light of these issues.

Yet here we have a proposal for the first ever offshore wind farm in the United States- an important first step in realizing alternative energy sources. Environmentalists have been on board with alternative energy for years but the recent oil spill has brought it to the forefront for all Americans. The utter devastation to the areas in the gulf makes the idea of wind farms a no-brainer.

I find myself divided on the Nantucket Sound decision. I wish Cape Wind had looked harder at moving the farm to another area but again I understand that the high winds in the area are perfect for capturing the most wind. Consequently, other states now have proposed farms in the works and had the proposal been denied a precedent to reject other wind farms in others areas based on the same conditions of a ruined view-scape would stand.

While it’s important to protect what remains of our history to the best of our ability it is also important to remember that progress is inevitable and that we can only mitigate the effects. Cape Wind has agreed to a smaller number of turbines and to paint them a light color. They also claim that from the surrounding beaches the turbines will only appear a couple of inches above the horizon. We have learned to live with the skyline of a city in the background of an historic district and even come to view it as part of its history. Can’t a wind farm find its place as well?

Merribel McKeever is a graduate student at Georgia State University in the Heritage Preservation program. She joined The Georgia Trust this summer as a Graduate Research Assistant working closely with the Endangered Properties Program and contributing widely to the Preservation Department. Look for regular blog posts from Merribel about interesting preservation issues.

Member Spotlight

2010-06-22T11:27:00.000-07:00

This week we are proud to shine a deserving spotlight on our lovely Rhodes Hall docent, Tiffany Burckhalter-Alewine.

With a bright smile and friendly greeting, Tiffany is always a pleasure to encounter at Rhodes Hall. For the past 1 ½ years, Tiffany has cheerfully greeted visitors, conducted tours, and helped out in any way she possibly can. In fact, the bubbly voice on the voice mail at the rentals desk (404.885.7800) belongs to Tiffany.

A Legal Studies major at Valdosta State, Tiffany now works as a sales agent for Dell Webb. She lives at Lake Lanier with her husband and two dogs. Tiffany loves history and has a passion for preservation, as evidenced by her enthusiasm and reliability. According to Tiffany, “homes have a story to tell, and I feel it’s important to pass the story along.” Luckily for the Georgia Trust, she’s chosen Rhodes Hall as her story.

The Georgia Trust is grateful to Tiffany for her ongoing support and commitment to historic preservation.

Georgia Theatre Update

2010-06-16T10:02:00.000-07:00

This weekend marks the first anniversary of the Georgia Theatre's devastating fire. Over the past year, theater owner Wil Green has worked diligently to rebuild this important historic building in downtown Athens. Through a partnership with The Georgia Trust, the Georgia Theatre Rehabilitation Fund was established to accept donations to be used solely for the rehabilitation of this historic theater. To date, over 150 individuals and organizations have contributed to this fund. Additional support has come from benefit concerts, auctions and even beer. Thank you to all who have contributed and continue to support this theater's rehabilitation!

Read more about the Georgia Theatre's fire and plans for the future in the latest edition of Flagpole.

Another article from the Athens Banner-Herald about the Georgia Theatre, including more pictures, is available here

Visit our website for information on donating to the Georgia Theatre Rehabilitation Fund.

Member Spotlight

2010-06-09T06:15:00.000-07:00

For this week's Member Spotlight we are excited to highlight Chris Howard of Macon who is an Advisor and former Board Member for Hay House and who remains active on the Restoration, Garden, and Christmas Committees.

A preservation consultant and a graduate of the University of Georgia, Howard was Director of Properties for five years at Historic Macon Foundation before pursuing his Masters in Preservation Studies at the Tulane School of Architecture. Howard has served as Treasurer of the Historic Rose Hill Cemetery Foundation and serves on the College Hill Corridor Commission. An ardent preservationist, he recently completed the restoration of a 1878 Victorian house in Intown Macon adjacent to his home in the historic Waterworks building. The Georgia Trust appreciate's Howard's preservation efforts in Macon and specifically his interest in Hay House!

FYI: Restoration of the Hay House dining room is now underway! Click here for a virtual tour of the before. Stay tuned for updates and be sure to come see it for yourself when its done.

Talking Walls

2010-06-07T06:49:00.000-07:00

Today marked the beginning of two Talking Walls workshops. Talking Walls is a heritage education program sponsored by The Georgia Trust. With the help of our local partners who design and facilitate these week long workshops, Talking Walls introduces educators to local historic resources and trains them in ways to incorporate these resources in their lesson plans. Since 1991, Talking Walls workshops have been held in over 60 counties throughout Georgia and have been attended by more than 2,000 educators. If each teacher reaches just 25 students a year, 50,000 Georgian students a year are not only learning about their local history, but they are also learning from their local history.

Participants in DeKalb County's 2010 Talking Walls (pictured above) have a full week of activities ahead of them. Their workshop, organized by The DeKalb History Center, includes a presentation about DeKalb's architecture, a cemetery tour that will provide information about funerary architecture and symbolism, and tours of local historic sites and archives. The group will also hear presentations about incorporating historic resources- such as oral histories, photographs, maps and primary source documents- in lesson plans.

Talking Walls workshops offer participants 3 Professional Learning Unit credits. But don't think you have to be a history teacher to benefit from these workshops. Whether its using an architectural detail to teach geometry or historic maps to teach ecology, Talking Walls explores ways to incorporate historic resources in every subject.

Check out our website for more information.

Also, The National Trust for Historic Preservation offers great resources for Teaching Preservation. Don't miss their Teaching Preservation Blog which this year followed students in Boise.

Preservation Month

2010-06-03T12:02:00.000-07:00

Jim Cothran's presentation on historic landscapes 5/27/10

Each Thursday, and one Tuesday, during the month of May The Georgia Trust and the Historic Preservation Division hosted a lecture in recognition of National Historic Preservation Month. Thank you to presenters Richard Cloues, Mark McDonald, Jordan Poole and Jim Cothran for your interesting and informative preservation lectures. Special thanks go out to all of you who came to Rhodes Hall or Hay House to help recognize May as Preservation Month and sharing your interests in historic preservation with us. You helped make our second annual Preservation Month Lecture Series a success and we're already planning for next year!

But remember- Preservation doesn't stop on May 31. Tomorrow, The Georgia Trust staff, members and volunteers are heading to Paradise Gardens for a workday at this 2010 Place in Peril. Interested in joining us or learning more about future workdays? Contact Jordan Poole.

Visit our website for instructions on nominating a site for listing on the 2011 Places in Peril list.

Member Spotlight

2010-06-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

If you have toured Rhodes Hall on a Tuesday, chances are your guide was John Turman. For the past six years, John has volunteered as a tour docent at Rhodes Hall every Tuesday. One of the highlights of a tour by John is learning about the history of the Rhodes Hall windows (above) and the historical scenes they depict. In addition to giving tours, John often lends a helping hand to The Georgia Trust’s Development Department. Whether it’s teaching tourists about the historic gem that is Rhodes Hall, or stuffing envelopes and Uptown Rhodes Race packets- John’s contributions to The Georgia Trust are always greatly appreciated. For his dedication and volunteer service, we honor John this week as our Member Spotlight!

Though John grew up an ‘army brat’, his family has long roots in Atlanta, going at least as far back as the Civil War. John has returned to make Atlanta his home, a city where his ancestor’s homestead was once burned by Sherman and where his father attended a ball for the premier of Gone with the Wind (John still has the program from this event!). With a PhD in German Literature, John’s love of history and reading has led him to his current endeavor- writing an adventure historical fiction novel based on his Georgia ancestors.

When asked what his favorite part of working at Rhodes Hall is, John replied “making the history of the house and the city live for visitors, especially those from out of town”. John’s spirit of heritage, preservation, education and outreach melds well with the mission of The Georgia Trust and helps make Rhodes Hall a wonderful building to work in, hold events and tour.

If you would like to volunteer at Rhodes Hall, contact Caley Ross.

And don't forget, Rhodes Hall will be part of this year's Fall Ramble in Atlanta!

May is Historic Preservation Month!

2010-05-27T06:35:00.001-07:00

Preservation Month ‘10

Our last Preservation Month lecture of 2010 is TONIGHT!

Join The Georgia Trust and Historic Preservation Division at Rhodes Hall for a lecture and book signing by John Cothran. Mr. Cothran’s lecture is entitled Landscapes and Historic Preservation Resources and is co-sponsored by The Cherokee Garden Library, Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. All events are FREE and open to the public. Visit our website for more information.

Jim Cothran

Landscapes and Historic Preservation Resources

5:45 pm, Rhodes Hall, 1516 Peachtree St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30309

Jim Cothran, Vice President of Robert and Company’s Planning and Landscape Architecture Studio in Atlanta, holds degrees from Clemson University, the University of Georgia, and Georgia Institute of Technology where his academic training included ornamental horticulture, landscape architecture, and city planning. In addition to his professional practice, Jim serves as an adjunct professor at Georgia State University and the University of Georgia where he teaches graduate classes on America’s historic gardens and cultural landscapes. Jim has served as past president and board member of the Southern Garden History Society.

This week's event is sponsored by:

The Cherokee Garden Library is an active resource center that collects educational and research material in the fields of gardening, landscape design, garden history, horticulture, floral design, botanical art, and ecology, with a specific focus on documenting the Southeastern region.

MISSION:
The Cherokee Garden Library provides exceptional service to the public; preserves and cares for its collections; acquires, through purchase and gift, historic and contemporary source materials on American gardening and its root sources; and presents relevant programming and exhibitions to the community.

If you missed it...

Podcasts of our Historic Preservation Month lecture series are available through Libsyn. Click here to be redirected.

May is Historic Preservation Month!

2010-05-21T08:46:00.000-07:00

Last night, members of the community joined The Georgia Trust and the Historic Preservation Division at Rhodes Hall for a presentation on Preservation and Sustainability given by the President and CEO of The Georgia Trust, Mark McDonald. Interesting topics discussed by Mr. McDonald included evaluating the embodied energy of existing buildings, recognizing the benefits and increased popularity of living in historic in-town neighborhoods, and embracing new ideas and methods that are both sustainable and preservation-appropriate.

If you missed last night's presentation, or Dr. Cloues' May 6th presentation on the Split-Level House, podcasts are available here!

And don't worry, we still have several Preservation Month events left for you to enjoy!

Tomorrow, May 22nd: Join us for the Second Annual Uptown Rhodes Race 5k. This fun 5k begins and ends at Rhodes Hall, headquarters of The Georgia Trust, and takes racers through historic Atlanta neighborhoods. Presented by The Dewberry Foundation, this race is dog-friendly! Its not too late register or to volunteer. Click here for more information.

Just Added! Tuesday, May 25th: Come to Rhodes Hall for a presentation by Jordan Poole, Field Services Manager at The Georgia Trust. Mr. Poole's presentation will focus on Places in Peril and will provide all the information you need to know about nominating a endangered place to this annual list of the top 10 most endangered historic sites in Georgia. Come to hear updates on past Places and bring your questions for nominating to the 2011 list. More information is available here.

Thursday, May 27th: Our Preservation Month Lecture Series concludes with a lecture on Landscapes and Historic Preservation Resources presented by Jim Cothran, Vice President, Robert and Company, Landscape Architecture Studio. You won't want to miss this fabulous presentation co-sponsored by the Cherokee Garden Library, Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. More information is available here.

GaPA Thursday

2010-05-20T07:29:00.001-07:00

End of Session Report

With much of this year’s legislative session focusing on revenue shortfalls and competing needs,GaPA chose to monitor budget requests and certain bills with relativity to historic preservation operations. To accomplish this, GaPA maintained a low profile and relied heavily on staff from the Department of Natural Resources to provide excellent and relevant information.

GaPA's official priority issue of 2010 was to “maintain current state funding levels for those state and federal programs that deliver critical preservation services in Georgia”. The following report is the result of the 2010 Legislative Session with particular attention paid to funding and a number of bills carrying potential effects to preservation programs and services.

Historic Preservation Division (HPD)

Budget

The cuts for SFY11 (starts July 1) are significant but manageable. Reductions were limited to line items and amounts in the Governor’s recommendation and an additional 3% required due to revised (reduced) revenue estimates that came out after the Governor developed his budget recommendation.

Reductions

a total of six positions have been eliminated.

reduction of $75,000 in the contract funds for Regional Commission preservation planning.

reduction of $13,500 in survey monies used to pay consultants.

Bills effecting the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

All legislation important to DNR gained final approval, including several that may affect DNR or require additional administrative actions.

HB 1055: Among other things, this bill alters the license plate fee system. Currently, drivers are charged a $25 annual tag fee, a $20 annual registration fee, and ad valorum tax. $22 of the annual tag fee goes into the HPD Heritage Grant fund.

Under the new system which will take effect July 1, 2010, drivers will pay a $25 manufacturing fee, a $35 special plate fee, and a $35 annual renewal fee. Of this, $22 of the special plate fee and $22 of the annual renewal fee go to the HPD Heritage Grants fund.

HB 1199: Allows the Department of Natural Resources to establish a non-profit organization.

Other Bills of Potential Interest

a. HB 867: Creates a Commission on Regional Planning to identify issues, opportunities and funding for statewide services.

b. SB 206: Requires the state audit department to track revenue related to tax incentives.

c. SB 374: Creates a Legislative Economic Development Council to evaluate statewide economic development strategies.

Main Street

The Main Street contract with The Georgia Trust was funded at last year’s levels which still leaves a funding gap which must be paid by The Georgia Trust general revenues.

Member Spotlight

2010-05-19T07:37:00.001-07:00

In this week’s Member Spotlight we honor the person who created this weekly blog series- our former Membership Manager, Lindsay Cronk.

Lindsay, a native of Indiana who came to Georgia to attend Agnes Scott College, joined The Georgia Trust staff in June 2008. She quickly diagnosed and remedied some major membership computer glitches that we were experiencing. With an impressively well-balanced blend of creativity and database knowledge, Lindsay proved to be an immeasurable asset to our organization.

Lindsay’s always chipper spirit and can-do attitude greatly enhanced our “Team Trust” dynamics. Likewise, Lindsay’s cheerfulness and friendliness during Rambles, Galas and membership events contributed to our guests’ overall experience.

We wish Lindsay luck and continued success at her new place of employment, the Piedmont Park Conservancy. We know that she, at the very least, will appreciate a much shorter bicycle ride to work during what is sure to be another hot summer in the ATL. Best wishes, Lindsay!

May is Historic Preservation Month!

2010-05-18T07:24:00.001-07:00

Thank you to all who joined us at Hay House last week to help celebrate Preservation Month in Macon. If you missed it last week, Mark McDonald’s presentation on Preservation and Sustainability will be given this Thursday in Atlanta at Rhodes Hall.

Visit our website for more information. All lecture events are Free and open to the public.

Mark C. McDonald

President and CEO of The Georgia Trust

Preservation & Sustainability

5:45 p.m., Rhodes Hall, 1516 Peachtree Street, NW,Atlanta,GA 30309

Mark C. McDonald is the President and CEO of The Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation. Mark C. McDonald has over 25 years of professional involvement in historic preservation and a strong business background. He has served as the executive director for three preservation organizations in the Southeast, including the Historic Salisbury Foundation in North Carolina from 1986-1990, the Mobile Historic Development Commission in Mobile, Alabama from 1990-1998 and most recently, Historic Savannah Foundation from 1998-2008.

This week’s event is co-sponsored by:

AIA Atlanta and The Georgia Conservancy’s Generation Green

Founded in 1906, the Atlanta Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) is a dynamic and diverse professional organization of approximately 1,700 members. AIA Atlanta provides advocacy and service to its members and community from grade school through retirement. Members enjoy a broad array of benefits at the local, state and national levels of our organization. We also enjoy great fellowship, world-class resources and industry-leading continuing education offerings focusing on sustainability, practice issues and technology. AIA Atlanta brings leadership to the built environment.

A program of the Georgia Conservancy, Generation Green creates an exciting and inclusive opportunity for the next generation of environmental leaders to protect and enjoy Georgia's environment through educational, social and service events. Generation Green is a group of Georgia Conservancy members and perspective members interested in service projects, adventure trips and social networking activities in and around metro Atlanta. Generation Green is led by a volunteer board of men and women poised to become the next generation of environmental and business leaders in Atlanta and beyond.

Also on Thursday evening:

We will announcement of the recipient of the 2010 Elizabeth Lyon Fellowship!

**And don’t forget about the 2^nd Annual Uptown Rhodes Race this Saturday! There are just a few days left to register for this fun event.

Member Spotlight

2010-05-12T08:44:00.001-07:00

Morris Brown College is on The Georgia Trust's 2010 Places in Peril list. This historic college, located in Atlanta, was founded in 1881 by the African Methodist Episcopal Church. One of its main buildings, Fountain Hall, is a National Historic Landmark. Many of the buildings on its campus are historically significant and close to the hearts of its numerous alumni. Nonetheless, like so many small liberal arts colleges, Morris Brown has endured its share of financial struggles. As the school is working to overcome these struggles and embrace its future, acting president Dr. Stanley Pritchett has not let the rich history of Morris Brown and its campus buildings be overlooked.

On Saturday, May 8^th, Dr. Pritchett was joined by Morris Brown students, alumni and staff, as well as members of the community and members of The Georgia Trust, its staff and its board for a site work day. Over fifty people showed up to do preventive maintenance and help mothball unused campus buildings. The workday proved successful in not only accomplishing the tasks at hand, but also in raising awareness of this significant historic campus and the threats it faces.

You can learn more about Morris Brown College as a Place in Peril on our website, and more about the school, including how you can contribute, at http://www.morrisbrown.edu/.

If you are interested getting involved with Places in Peril, our next workday is scheduled for June 4^th at Paradise Gardens. Click here for details.

And don’t forget, the postmark deadline for 2011 Places in Peril nominations is June 28^th. If you know of a threatened historic building or site in Georgia, click here for information on making a nomination.