Pearl Street Revival

c. 1837: A Speculative Theory

Without documented evidence or further scientific tests, the brick symbol’s age remains speculative. But the bricks themselves are re-used and its mortar appears noticeably different (“...more robust”) than the surrounding wall – so the installation is assumed to post-date the original construction of the building in 1831. The symbol was also constructed as a “Pipe Chase” to conceal utility conduits, which may offer a valuable clue to its date.

The following speculative theory considers circumstantial evidence that suggests a date in the mid to late 1830’s. This is based on the narrow width of the pipe chase, the hand cut bricks, the history of modern utilities in Manhattan, the concerns of the building’s owner, William Colgate, and other factors.

Gas pipe was first laid in New York on Pearl Street in the early 1820’s, with the New York Gas Company being founded in 1823. Gas illumination met early resistance due to safety concerns, but it soon became the standard for lighting in the 19th century (replacing whale oil). Underground water (pumped in from 14th St.) also arrived on Pearl Street in the 1820’s. So construction of the warehouse coincides with the first underground utilities in Manhattan and would not necessarily be inconsistent with a pipe chase installed in the building.

But if gas lines were servicing Pearl Street in the 1820’s, why didn’t William Colgate connect his building in 1831? Colgate welcomed innovation, but he was also a leading firefighter in the city, and we know that he did not install gas lighting at his nearby Dutch Street soap factory in the late 1820’s because it was considered a fire hazard. So he probably held off at 211 Pearl Street for the same reason, even as many merchants were beginning to install gas at the time.

But with improvements to the system (and perhaps some badgering from his merchant tenants), he may have accepted gas lines - possibly within just five years of completed construction. The brick wall encasement would have added a measure of fire safety. And as a double pipe chase, it may have also included water running down from a roof drain.

The location of the pipe chase - near the storefront entrance and rising no higher than the ground floor ceiling - may also be a clue to its use and installation date. Perhaps it lit a mercantile auction space at the front of the building.

It may also be a later addition for electricity (Edison’s first power plant was established just two blocks away on Pearl Street in 1882). Or was it merely decorative - done for a 20th century restaurant or pub? Or is it simply the whim of an unknown bricklayer at some point along the building’s history? The historical record is still blank.

Short of hard evidence, 1837 accounts for gas utility history in Manhattan and Colgate’s fire safety concerns. It also remains within the era of a very similar geometric pattern set in marble and found on the rotunda floor at Federal Hall (1835, Town and Davis) in lower Manhattan. Only mortar analysis at Testwell Laboratories, to be completed by the first week of July, may point towards the truth.

Adjacent Lots - New York and Chongquing

If you dug directly underneath historic 213 Pearl Street in lower Manhattan to the other side of the world, you may wind up on the doorstep of a homeowner in Chongquing, China who has refused to sell her house to a large redevelopment project. Construction work now proceeds around each of the properties.

“Old 76”: Historic Preservation in New York 1831-2007

76 Pearl Street is the site of New York’s first protest for historic preservation, with a front-page story appearing in a March 1831 issue of the New York Mirror about an old Dutch house at the address. The caption to an image of the house reads “Built 1626 – Rebuilt 1697 – Demolished 1828”.

Editorial commentary: “We present to our readers a correct and striking view of the ancient Dutch house, formerly familiarly known as “old seventy-six”, and which was pulled down about three years since, in compliance with that irreverence for antiquity which so grievously afflicts the good people of this city, many of whom, we are credibly informed, demolish one house just for the pleasure of building another in its place.”

The preservation case of 211 Pearl Street and its intriguing symbol can seem ironic, representing the type of commercial loft building that would have likely replaced 76 Pearl Street during an era following the Erie Canal (b.1825), that saw lower Manhattan turned into “…one massive construction zone”.

New York may still be the “pull down and build over again” city (Whitman), but the outcry at “Old 76” also anticipates a preservation movement that is a foundation of the city’s ongoing revival.

Democracy and World Trade - Ancient Athens to NYC

What exactly is a ‘world trade center’? Any exchange of goods across continents may amount to ‘world trade’. Although the idea is ancient, it is only in the 1970’s that the name world trade center (usually abbreviated WTC) arose in the United States and Japan, lead by New York City's World Trade Center; which puts together in one location, all the services associated with global commerce, providing networking access between corporations and government.

Trade in goods, whether silks, spices, coffee, timber, flour, electronics or hardware - was often accompanied by an exchange of ideas. Simple and striking modern examples are Coca-Cola or Levis jeans, with their power to carry ideals of freedom; or even an exotic tea, which can represent contemplation, simplicity, and mystery within a more materialistic culture.

There is now a World Trade Centers Association, founded in 1970 and based in New York City; which represents an organization of nearly 300 world trade centers in almost 100 countries. NYC may earn a distinction for being the earliest, largest and most diverse among the late 20th century world trade centers, but it is not the only one, which may be a popular misunderstanding that undermines Democratic ideals of fair trade, cultural exchange and interdependence that are inherent to world trade. Art historian Giovanna Costantini provides the following comments.

Both "World" and 'Center" pose semantic difficulties. "World," unlike "global" conjures visions of Atlas and releases a fury of demythologizing energies. "Center" begs for de-centralization in the form of pluralistic networks increasingly identified as "hubs." But Global Trade Hub goes nowhere. During the Renaissance pertaining to Florentine trade and financial activity abroad during the fifteenth century, the economic and commercial networks that were established throughout the world included bases in Cyprus, Africa, Turkey, Bruges, Antwerp, Seville, Geneva, London and many more locations. The stock exchange (borsa) was instituted in Antwerp based on the name of the Venetian Della Borsa merchant whose house in Bruges served as the locus of Italian trading before moving to Antwerp, while four "fairs" in the Champagne region of France provided "centers" for international exchange in the Thirteenth century--to say nothing of the maritime ports and powers: Venice, Pisa, Genoa, Marseille. What I like about this model is its mosaic conception. At no time was any one center preeminent, nor is one conceived as being so today in Europe. I think this pluralism is economically astute and with respect to Pearl Street, I find its unique identity, history and revival in relation to hegemonic symbols to be significant.

Identifying the first world trade center may depend on how the term is defined. But according to New York historian Kenneth L. Jackson, lower Manhattan following construction of the Erie Canal (c. 1825) was “…the first district in the world devoted entirely to commerce”. The “…three thoroughfares of South Street, Pearl Street, and Wall Street contained most of the concerns vitally connected with the workings of the port" (Albion, 1952). Examination of the city tax records shows that the city’s one hundred highest valued properties are located on Wall St., Broadway and Pearl Street, the last being “…the richest street in New York”.

211-215 Pearl Street was at the center of the city’s highest valued commercial block. Of what we know about these properties, and no. 211 in particular; they actualized the benefits of international exchange to an unusual degree. An early occupant, Seth Low Sr., was among the first to open up trade with China and the East, specializing in chemicals, spices and exotic items - even a gong is on the auction lists. His son would found the leading Far East trading company, A.A. Low & Co. Another occupant, Joshua Scholefield, was a Birmingham, UK based hardware merchant and a leading figure in bringing modern Democracy to England in the early 1830's. A number of other merchants in the building were likely involved in overseas trade, particularly hardware. But one intriguing instance of cultural exchange survives as part of the buildings architecture, an interior brickwork artifact that point towards influences from European esoteric currents, giving the artifact intercultural importance.

In terms of global trade meeting modern Democrocy, lower Manhattan in the early 19th century was the first realization of this economic and political ideal since ancient Athens. Although not explicitly called a world trade center, it was rapidly taking shape as one during the late 1820's and early 1830's, with the formation of a trade district in which transportation, finance and mercantile firms were in close proximity; the New York Stock Exchange (1835) was established; foreign merchants with N.Y. directory addresses existed; the Custom's House (b.1835, collecting 90% of U.S. taxes from imports) was constructed; and a wide range of goods moved in and out of New York port; connecting an ever widening population across the globe - from the American heartland to the Orient.

Demolition Stops at 215 Pearl Street, New York

Demolition work was nearly complete at 215 Pearl Street (1831), when large cracks in the brickwork were found on the wall of adjacent 213 Pearl Street (1831). Tenants of that building were evacuated and DOB officials issued a 'Stop Work Order' at the site, quickly cutting the engine on a 30 ton Hitachi Zaxis 200 excavator. That piece of equipment had replaced low impact hand demolition in the final days. The repair work will likely be complete long before liability and legal issues are resolved.

213 Pearl (built 1831) is now the last building standing from New York's first world trade center, and a symbol of the city's transformation into America’s commercial capital. The property belongs to a young widow, who is a descendent of ‘Hercules Mulligan’, a Patriot spy and tailor who lived at 218 Pearl Street. Realty giant Rockrose Development Corp. owns the entirety of the block that surrounds this relic of American commercial history. 

Triangles and World Trade Centers: 1830-2010

Triangles turn up (and down) at New York world trade centers past and future. From left to right: Tower 2 (Architect: Norman Foster), 211 Pearl Street installation (Architect: Unknown). and the Freedom Tower (S.O.M. Architects). The three designs feature a ubiquitous idea found throughout civilization in which vertically aligned triangular forms express a reconcilliation of opposites. But how may the philosophical implications of each of these designs be similar and different?

An 19th c. New York Mystery...but not The DaVinci Code

“Symbols are a language that can help us to understand our past. As the saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words – but which words” These are the words of Robert Langdon, Prof of Religious Symbology at Harvard University, as he begins a lecture to a hall of students in the opening scene of The DaVinci Code.

Both works communicate a recurring message about the power of symbols.The mystery of the geometric symbol at Pearl Street in lower Manhattan, (installed on the interior wall of a parking garage entrance) also contains a carefully designed code, but do any of the words behind the symbols code match those of Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code? The symbolic brickwork is speculated to be a synthesis of influences - primarily, a geometric representation of the Philosopher’s Stone within a Christian framework, and one informed by the Classical Greek and Egyptian revival within the second quarter of 19th century America architecture.

Christianity – Each code is associated within a framework of Christianity. The DaVinci Code proposes to expose a hidden truth about the Sacred Feminine in Christian tradition, with Jesus’ alleged wife, Mary Magdeline, bearing their child after the Cruxifiction. She flees to France where their lineage, and an ideal of a less patriarchal church, is protected by the Priory of Scion to the current day.

Its impossible to read a similar fiction within the geometry of 211 Pearl Street, even as the duality of its Alchemical symbolism is associated with the balanced union of male and female. The psychological implications are somewhat different. Where the DaVinci Code advocates equality between the sexes - the symbol suggests an internal process of philosophical Alchemy (see C.G. Jung), where male and female qualities are reconciled within the individual.

Secret Society – Arcane rituals, hidden knowledge and exclusivity underly the mystique of secret societies, which in most cases, is used as a practical tool of self improvement - not the aims of which conspiracy buffs may warn. But skepticism attached to secret societies persists, and the DaVinci Code exploits this fascination by polarizing two organizations, Opus Dei on the right, and the Priory of Scion, the alleged protector of the lineage of Jesus and Mary Magdeline.

At 211 Pearl Street, construction workers scrawled the words “Illuminati Shrine” on the plywood cover of the symbolic brickwork, marking it as a mystery associated with a secret society. But evidence of a secret society behind the symbol has not turned up. Experts on Freemasonry have dismissed its connection to that tradition. And the buildings owner moreover, William Colgate(who almost certainly approved the design), appears generally opposed to the idea of a secret society. His Baptist co-religionists were in the forefront of anti-Masonic activity during the era. But in the absence of documented proof, a secret society remains a theory, though not the most plausible.

Ironically, the son of an early merchant at 211 Pearl St., Seth Low Sr., was employed with Russell & Co. a leading Far East trader. Russell's son would be among the founders in 1834 of a secret society at Yale University, Skull and Bones (see web log entry below).

If the Pearl St. symbol does not ultimately suggest a secret society or a provocative DaVinci Code-like religious revelation, it does appear to reconcile pre-christian Esoteric traditions within a Christian belief system.

Prof. Langdon (perhaps in sharing the opinion of his real life collegues who have examined the symbol) would likely dismiss a secret society – and point to documented events and traditions in Esoteric and philosophical heritage such as Christianity, Greek and Egyptian natural philosophy, sacred geometry, Alchemy, etc.- Ideas that are pervasive. The ideas in the symbol may or may not hold ultimate truths, but their historical existance is not a flight of fiction.

(photo: DaVinci Code movie banners from Astor Pl. digitally attached to Pearl St. site)

The Greco-Egyptian Steeple at St. Mark's Church (1828)

St. Mark's Church (at 10th St./2nd Ave) was built in 1799 on land that belonged to Peter Stuyvesant. It's steeple,  however,  was erected in 1828. Some historical sources credit the design to Martin Euclid Thompson, an architect/builder of the era. Thompson designed the Assay building on Wall St. (The façade of that structure was tranfered to the Metropolitan Museum). Other documents attrubute the steeple to Thompson and Ithiel Town.  Town is considered the founder of the country's first architectural firm and he is a prime suspect for the brickwork design at 211 Pearl St., given the striking associations with other designs in his manuscript collection and circumstantial evidence. In many recent surveys of New York City's architecture,  however,  the steeple is said to be the work of either "Town and Thompson" or "Ithiel Town" alone. 

Without going into manuscript document details, it appears certain that Thompson was at the least, the principal contact between the firm and the church, and that he undertook surpervision of the construction work.  Determining the weight of each partners design input is more of an open question. But given our knowledge of each figure, the steeple appears, at least in part, Town's  inspiration, or at the least, that he added important refinements. But these questions are best left to architectural historians.

There also seems to be some confusion or oversight about the style of architecture, with most modern scholars identifying the steeple as "Greek revival".  A review in the New York Mirror in 1828 however,  discusses its Egyptian influence, with even a Venetian detail in the window treatment.This would seem a minor point, if not for the fact that there is no other extant example of the Egyptian revival from this early 19th century period. Or is there?

The symbol at 211 Pearl St. may also be read as a Greco-Egyptian document within a Christian framework,  similar to the St. Mark's steeple.  Measurements of the steeple are not possible at this time, but they may also reveal  proportions in harmony with the brickwork symbol - as is seen between Town's villa plan, mathematical  exercises and portrait geometry, and the symbolic brickwork. Moreover, restoration of Town's Trinity Church in New Haven, CT in the early 20th century, built by Town in 1818, revealed what a scholar of the period described as "…unsuspecting architectural refinements that corresponded with research done on monuments of the old world."

In summary, the associations that exist between the steeple of St. Mark's Church and the symbol at 211 Pearl Street: 1) Greco-Egyptian structures within a Christian context. 2) Built in the same period, 1828 and 1831 respectively. 3) A direct or secondary association with the same architect, Ithiel Town, who collaborated at St. Mark's church and built the prototype for the commercial warehouse at 211 Pearl St.
 

The Death and Life of a Great American Urban Thinker

"Intricate minglings of different uses in cities are not a form of chaos. On the contrary, they represent a complex and highly developed form of order."

Jane Jacobs (1916-2006), author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), died recently on June 3rd. She had no formal background in the field of city planning, but her clear sighted and influential work illustrated why certain city neighborhoods function well and how to improve those that do not. (www.pps.org).

Jacobs advocated “mixed-use” development, in which different building types and uses, along with diverse populations, are crucial to a community’s vitality. This also includes historic landmarks, as well as just old buildings, even ones that may be a little dilapidated.

Landmark buildings she terms “prime orientation clues” that "emphasize and dignify the diversity of cities”. Most, but not all city landmarks are buildings. But similar principles apply to all landmarks; one pricipal being its “distinctiveness”, which is primarily dependent on reciprocity with its context.

She points to trinity church, at the head of Wall St., as one such landmark, which would be less effective if it were among other similar structures. But its appearance and function is distinct in the context of large modern office buildings. Similar is the case of the New York Public Library and many other buildings, which "...make their case about the importance of differences and their distinction of use...by suggestion".

The 1830’s warehouses at 211-215 Pearl St. will also be surrounded by high-rise office and residential towers, and being located at a curvature in the road that once formed the shoreline of New Amsterdam, they are visible from a few blocks distance. A history board can also enrich the site, informing and paying tribute to the important role of this mercantile district in the city and country’s growth (as distinct from the shipping and financial functions of South St. and Wall St.). Pearl Street was considered the city’s richest street and the highest valued mercantile establishments were located on this particular block.

Jacobs also advocates landmarks that are “set right amidst their neighbors”. The lower Manhattan historic landmark districts (South Street Seaport, Stone Street, Frances Tavern) achieve much of this ideal, with a backdrop of office buildings a few blocks away, largely avoiding an unavoidable problem with some landmarks, which Jacobs sees as ‘buffered off and isolated from the generalized scene. Contradicting, instead of explaining, and visually reinforcing an important fact about city difference, that they support each other.” 211 and 215 Pearl St., being located within a surrounding canyon of modern high-rise buildings, takes on this reinforcing quality in its preservation value from an urban planning point of view.

But how would Jacobs judge the preservation of just a facade? Probably critically, though she may regard it as better than nothing ie. complete demolition. But the issue of facade preservation (Facadism or Facadicide, as some preservationists have dubbed this strategy) will be discussed in more length in a future web log. But Jacobs, in an entire chapter titled “The need for Aged Buildings”, identifies the desirability of “a good lot of plain, ordinary, low value old buildings” in any successful urban area. And the implication here is for full buildings, not facades.

The facades, nonetheless, still preserve a vitality for the block, despite the severely compromised authenticity. Jacob’s final assessment may be ultimately determined by a number of other factors, including its reciprocity with the surrounding architecture and its specific associations with historical events and individuals. And despite the careful and highly bureaucratic preservation, the character of what unfolded reflects her ideal of the city as "organic, spontaneous, and untidy".

The Pearl St. facades make a strong visual statement and retain a level of authenticity that can still enrich the block with historical context. Fortunately, the developer and state officials involved have worked to prevent a total loss of this rich layer of heritage that helped transform New York in the early 1800’s. But mortared to this surviving relic of the city's early world trade district is the pathos of self-destruction.

Photo: Separate images of Pearl Street and Jane Jacobs were combined with Photoshop.

Pancho Magico at 213 Pearl Street Celebrate's 50 yrs.

Among New York’s oldest eating and drinking establishments, the city’s oldest Mexican restaurant belongs to a little know establishment at 213 Pearl Street – Pancho Magico, owned by the Avila family since 1996, who modified the original name, Don Pancho, but have maintained the cuisine and atmosphere of its founding in the 1950’s. It represents another layer of the blocks rich history and is a New York culinary hold-out with development and changing demographics leaving, remarkably in a city of six thousand restaurants, only a handful of long established restaurant landmarks.

In 1956, according to NY directory listings, a German-Mexican by the name of Carlos Majorman opened the Mexican Restaurant Don Pancho (Inspired by the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa) in the second floor loft space of an 1830’s commercial building at 213 Pearl Street. Older patrons still stop by to reminisce about the “kind and handsome” restaurateur that did not use checks, but trusted customers to pay for what they ordered at the register. At the time, there were dozens of Spanish and Mexican restaurants in Manhattan, including two others that continue to operate – the highly rated El Charro and El Faro, both located in the West Village since the 1920’s. But these establishments changed to a Spanish menu and decor after the large influx of refugees into the West Village during the Spanish Civil War, leaving Don Pancho as the oldest and most authentic representative of Mexican cuisine in NYC’s restaurant world.

The establishment is currently owned and operated by the Avila family, lead by Jose (manager) and Arcadio (cook - hired by Mr. Majorman), who carry forward the tradition as Pancho Magico, serving the same authentic Mexican menu surrounded by the ambiance of old New York. The restaurant at 213 Pearl St., an 1831 neo-Classical warehouse, will soon be the last building left from the heart of New York’s early trade center.

Pancho Magico has carefully preserved the charm of its early days - from the interior decor, including its tight and uncomfortable booths, decorative iron lamps and Mexican prints, to its menu of home cooked Mexican cuisine, featuring old time favorites such as Hot Tamales and Fresh Tacos along with specialties like Shrimp Tampiqueno.