Back Next

Corker Hill

National Historic Register of Historic Places

Architectural Context

            The Corker Hill complex of buildings is architecturally significant as an example of the use of an existing early 19th century high-style farm complex as an early 20th century gentleman’s estate/summer retreat.  The building complex includes individual buildings that, while typical of the Franklin County area 19th century farms, were constructed using significantly more expensive materials and high-style design.  The statement of wealth presented by these pre-existing buildings appears to have been a significant factor in Thaddeus Mahon’s choice of Corker Hill for his country estate.  After construction of the flamboyant additions to the outside of the mansion house and the stone walled landscaping of the yard, Mahon appears to have been satisfied that the elegant farmstead represented his ideal of the gentleman’s estate.

 

During the 1750s, encouragement for the Scotch-Irish to settle the Cumberland Valley occurred when the proprietary government instructed its agents to try to send Scotch-Irish settlers to Cumberland County (then encompassing all of the Cumberland Valley, including Franklin County) and German settlers to York County because of cultural friction between the two groups.  Consequently, the strong German colonial-period and early republic influence is found in York and eastern Adams Counties in Pennsylvania and adjoining Frederick, Washington and Carroll Counties in Maryland, while the Scotch-Irish were prevalent in the Pennsylvania portion of the Cumberland Valley.  The majority (although not all) of the German-Swiss influence in the Cumberland Valley occurred in the early 19th century and later.

 

            The Cumberland Valley region prospered, achieving a high level of cultivation and development during the period from 1760-1860.  Most of the substantial farmhouses and Pennsylvania bank barns common to the region were constructed between 1790 and 1850.  Favored building materials for houses were log (nearly always covered with siding or stucco), native limestone, or brick, although most brick farmhouses in the area date from after 1820.  Log house and barn construction was the overwhelming norm.[1] The earliest barns were log or limestone with brick or timber framing favored after the 1830s.  According to the 1798 tax, in all of Franklin County there were only 18 brick farmhouses, and only one of those was located in Greene Township.  Extensive architectural surveys undertaken in neighboring counties (Adams County, Pennsylvania and Washington County, Maryland) and parts of Franklin County have revealed that brick farmhouse construction prior to 1820 was extant but rare, and generally associated with wealthier owners.[2] 

 

While vernacular influenced construction was most common, people of the Cumberland Valley region, particularly the more prosperous, did also aspire to include the features of popular architectural styles in their buildings.  During the period of 1780-1820 the ‘dominant’ stylistic influence, particularly in the eastern port cities, was the Federal (Adam) style.[3] The architectural style, inspired by the development of the new Federal capital city of Washington, D.C. and the interior designs of the Adam brothers in Great Britain, was elegant and refined.  The McAlesters note, “exteriors of most Adam [Federal] houses have few elaborations other than the fanlight and accentuated front door….”[4]

 

Occasionally the roof displayed a balustrade, a feature carried-over from the earlier Georgian architectural style.  Windows could include an elaborate Palladian window, but were generally plain with a flat or keystone arch lintel.  A five-bay symmetrical front was most common, with a side-gabled roof, making vernacular adaptation of the style fairly simple.  However, the interior details associated with the Federal style required woodworking craftsmanship on a level not generally found in rural areas, with the exception of the dwellings of the wealthy.  In such houses, these details were most often expressed in the mantels, trim and moldings throughout the building interior, as well as arched interior wall openings in the formal parlor or hall.

 

Beginning in the late 19th century, interest in ‘colonial’ architectural styling inspired the development of the Colonial Revival style.  Architectural details from the Georgian and Federal periods were superimposed on later buildings, particularly Late Victorian buildings in the Queen Anne and Shingle styles.[5]  In new buildings of this early period (1880-1900), Colonial Revival details were expressed particularly in the window and door treatments, roofs, and porches.  Rural adaptation of Colonial Revival details to existing buildings were most often expressed in the addition of full-length or wrap-around colonnaded porches.[6]

 

According to the study of the barns of Pennsylvania by Robert Ensminger (1992), barns too have changed over the past two centuries, evolving through vernacular tradition with popular adaptation.[7]  Throughout the 18th century in the Cumberland Valley region, the dominant barn form, known as the ‘Sweitzer’ or ‘Swisser’ barn reflected the German and Swiss traditional construction practices of the immigrant farmers.[8]  These barns were identified by their banked rear entrance to the upper story threshing floor and granaries, and the projecting cantilevered forebay which produced an asymmetrical roofline. 

 

Beginning around the turn of the 19th century the symmetrical Pennsylvania or ‘Standard Pennsylvania Barn’ construction emerged.[9]  Here the traditional banked rear entrance to the upper story remained, however the cantilevered forebay was recessed into the main barn framing producing a symmetrical roofline.  According to Ensminger’s Pennsylvania Barn morphology, the Standard barn constructed between 1790 and 1890 could often be found with the forebay ends enclosed by the gable walls (see photo #27, Corker Hill barn).[10]  Unlike the earlier all-stone barns, these barns were typically constructed with stone or brick gable ends while the forebay structure was frame with wood siding.  Ventilation of stone gable end walls was primarily in the form of vertical slits, which widened toward the interior of the wall. 

 

Although construction techniques of the Standard Pennsylvania Barn changed little through the 19th century and into the 20th century, materials did change enough to aid in the dating of barns.  Use of stone or brick gable ends fell-off in the second half of the 19th century.[11] Decorative additions such as elaborate louvered vents, like those on the barn of the Corker Hill (see photo #27), were a common addition to barns in the 1870s and 1880s, a sort of Late Gothic Revival trend for barns.

 

Associated outbuildings with 19th and 20th century farms of the region are typically determined by function.  The subterranean root cellar, used for storage of fruits and vegetables, the springhouse and icehouse, are associated with refrigeration needs prior to electrification in the 1930s.  The washhouse, out-kitchen and privy are pre-plumbing.  Chicken coops, carriage house (usually converted to garage), and wagon shed/corn crib are all typical of mid-late 19th century and early 20th century farm building development associated with changes in farming techniques and machinery.


 

[1] 1798 Direct Tax Assessment, microfilm copy, Paula S. Reed & Associates, Hagerstown, MD.

[2] Paula S. Reed, “Building With Stone in the Cumberland Valley:  A Study of the Regional Environmental, Technical, and Cultural Factors in Stone Construction.”  PhD. Dissertation, (The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1988), p. 182.

[3] Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), p. 154.

[4] McAlester, p. 154.

[5] McAlester, p. 326.

[6] Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “I-81 Interchange Project, Greene and Guilford Townships, Franklin County, Pennsylvania,” May 1996, survey of historic properties.

[7] Robert F. Ensminger, The Pennsylvania Barn, (Baltimore, MD:  The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

[8] Ibid, p. 111.

[9] Ensminger, pp. 67-73.

[10] Ensminger, p. 67.

[11] Ensminger, p. 146.

Design & Management by Life Diversions Network