Moravian Preservation Master Plan.indb - Society for College and ...

Preservation Master Plan
for
Moravian College
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
prepared by
John Milner Associates, Inc.
West Chester, Pennsylvania
October 2009

Preservation Master Plan
for
Moravian College
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Prepared by
JMA
John Milner Associates, Inc.
535 North Church Street
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
Project Team
Katherine L. Farnham — Project Architectural Historian/Project Manager
Laura Knott, ASLA, RLA — Principal Landscape Architect
Christina Osborn, Associate ASLA — Landscape Architectural Designer
Lori Aument, LEED-AP — Architectural Conservator
Wade Catts, RPA — Principal Archeologist
Thomas Scofield, AICP — Principal Preservation Planner
Peter Benton, FAIA — Project Director
October 2009

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Acknowledgements
Prepared For
Moravian College
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Project Advisory Committee
Dr. Hilde Binford — Associate Professor of Music
Mr. Blair Flintom — Facilities Coordinator, Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus
Mr. Douglas J. Plotts — Director of Facilities Management, Planning and Construction
Ms. Sue Schamberger — Director of Foundation Relations
Dr. Carol Traupman-Carr — Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
The JMA project team would like to acknowledge the insight, documents, photos, and other assistance
provided by Ms. Sue Schamberger, Director of Foundation Relations at Moravian College.
Funded By
J. Paul Getty Trust
Getty Campus Heritage Grant
October 2009
When citing this report, please use Farnham, Katherine, Laura Knott, Christina Osborn, Lori Aument,
Wade Catts, Thomas Scofield, and Peter Benton (Farnham et al.), Preservation Master Plan for Moravian
College (2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Acknowledgements • iii

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 • Introduction
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Project Background and Purpose 1
Methodology 1
Project Personnel 2
Preservation Issues 2
1.2 How to Use the Guidelines 2
1.3 How the Preservation Plan Is Organized 4
Chapter 2 • Historic Overview of Moravian College
2.0 Introduction 5
2.1 Bethlehem: Moravian Capital to Industrial Giant 5
Natural and Scenic Qualities of Bethlehem 5
Roots of Moravian Faith 5
Beginnings of Bethlehem 7
Bethlehem: The Eighteenth Century 9
End of the Moravian Economy 1762-1770 10
The Buildings of Early Bethlehem 1742-1770 11
Bethlehem from 1770–1800 13
Urbanization of Bethlehem 1790-1850 14
Industrial Bethlehem 15
Twentieth Century Bethlehem 17
2.2 Education in the Moravian Tradition 18
Moravian Educational Philosophy 18
The Moravian Female Seminary 18
The Moravian College and Theological Seminary 24
Merger of Two Institutions 28
Moravian College Campus Expansion: 1956-1978 29
2.3 Historic Preservation in Bethlehem 31
2.4 Moravian’s Recent Years 32
2.5 Conclusion 33
Chapter 3 • Moravian College in Context
3.0 Introduction 35
3.1 Community Planning and Development 35
Moravian Settlements in North America 35
Moravian Bethlehem 36
The Moravian Mile: Growth and Development of the North Main Street Neighborhood 39
3.2 Moravian Beliefs and Educational Principles 40
3.3 Nature and Nurture: Nineteenth Century Campus Planning 40
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Table of Contents • v

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies 41
Moravian College and Theological Seminary 43
3.4 The New University – Specialization and Modernization 44
Moravian College and Theological Seminary 44
Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies 46
3.5 Postwar Modernism 46
Merger and Modern Needs 47
3.6 Postmodernism 48
Moravian: A Postmodern Vocabulary 48
3.7 Moravian College and the Historic Preservation of Bethlehem 49
Chapter 4 • Stewardship at Moravian College
4.0 Introduction 53
4.1 Moravian College: Mission and Character 53
4.2 Vision for Stewardship 54
Preservation Objectives 54
4.3 Historical Significance 54
Significance 54
Integrity 56
Existing Conditions 56
4.4 Historic Designation 57
Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus 57
North Main Street Campus 57
4.5 Preservation Treatments and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 58
Preservation 58
Rehabilitation 59
Restoration 60
Reconstruction 61
4.6 A Treatment Philosophy and Recommended Approach for Moravian College 62
Standards for Rehabilitation 63
4.7 Principles for Accommodating Change 67
Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes at Moravian College
5.0 Introduction 69
5.1 Methodology 69
5.2 Context and Setting 69
City of Bethlehem 71
5.4 Character Areas 72
Hurd Campus Character Area 73
Steel Field Character Area 94
Comenius Lawn Character Area 99
Old Quad Character Area 107
Monocacy Quad Character Area 112
Colonial Hall Character Area 116
Sports Quad Character Area 121
Hillside Character Area 127
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Table of Contents • vi

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Betty Prince Field Character Area 130
Campus Ring Character Area 133
5.5 Significant Historic Landscapes and their Character-Defining Features 138
Table 5A. Significant Historic Landscapes 139
Table 5B. Other Landscapes of Note 141
Chapter 6 • Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes
6.0 Introduction 143
6.1 Landscape Preservation Treatment Approach 143
6.2 Cultural Landscape Guidelines 143
General 143
Natural Systems and Features 144
Spatial Organization 145
Buildings 145
Land Use 145
Circulation Features 145
Views and Vistas 147
Vegetation 147
Landscape Structures 150
Site Furnishings and Objects 151
Archeological Resources 154
Chapter 7 • Character Area Treatment Recommendations
7.0 Introduction 155
7.1 Character Area Treatment Recommendations 155
Hurd Campus Character Area 155
Steel Field Character Area 160
Comenius Lawn Character Area 161
Old Quad Character Area 164
Monocacy Quad Character Area 167
Colonial Hall Character Area 169
Sports Quad Character Area 170
Hillside Character Area 171
Betty Prince Field Character Area 171
Campus Ring Character Area 171
Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings at Moravian College
8.0 Introduction 173
8.1 Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus Buildings 173
The Single Brethren’s House – 1748 174
West Hall – 1859 181
Hyphen Addition – ca. 1859 187
Old Chapel Building/Hearst Hall – 1848 188
New Chapel/Peter Hall – 1867 192
South Hall – 1873 197
Payne Art Gallery – 1890 203
Day House – 1840 207
Main Hall – 1854 209
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Table of Contents • vii

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Frederick Frueauff House – 1819 214
Widows’ House – 1768 217
Clewell Hall – 1867 223
8.2 Steel Field 226
Grandstand – 1916 226
8.3 North Main Street Campus 230
Comenius Hall – 1891 230
Hamilton Hall – 1820 241
Zinzendorf Hall – 1891 246
Monocacy Hall – 1913 252
Memorial Hall – 1923 257
Johnston Hall – 1952 262
Colonial Hall – 1930 265
Other Buildings 270
8.4 Campus Ring 270
8.5 Overall Conditions – Key Preservation Issues 274
Preservation Issue #1 – Masonry 274
Preservation Issue #2 – Windows 276
Preservation Issue #3 – Roofs and Roofing 277
Chapter 9 • Treatment Guidelines for Buildings
9.0 Introduction 279
Applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 279
9.1 Site Drainage 280
Typical Site Drainage Conditions 280
Site Drainage Inspection 280
Causes of Site Drainage Deterioration 280
Site Drainage Improvements 281
9.2 Concrete 281
Typical Concrete Conditions 281
Concrete Inspection 282
Causes of Concrete Deterioration 282
Concrete Repair and Replacement 283
9.3 Masonry 283
Stone 283
Brick 284
Typical Masonry Conditions 284
Masonry Inspection 284
Causes of Masonry Deterioration 285
Masonry Repair 287
Replication Mortar Mixes 291
Good Repointing Practice 292
Masonry Replacement 292
9.4 Metals 293
Typical Metal Conditions 293
Metal Inspection 293
Causes of Metal Deterioration 293
Metal Repair 293
Metal Replacement 293
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Table of Contents • viii

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
9.5 Exterior and Structural Wood 294
Typical Wood Conditions 294
Wood Inspection 294
Causes of Wood Deterioration 295
Wood Repair 296
Wood Replacement 297
9.6 Roofs and Drainage Systems 298
Typical Roof and Roof Drainage System Conditions 299
Roof and Roof Drainage System Inspection 299
Roof and Roof Drainage System Repair 300
Rooftop Additions and Attachments 302
Roof Replacement or Alteration 302
Roof Insulation 303
9.7 Doors 303
Typical Door Conditions 303
Door Inspection and Maintenance 303
Causes of Door Deterioration 304
Door Repair 304
Door Replacement or Reconstruction 304
9.8 Windows 305
Typical Window Conditions 305
Window Inspection and Maintenance 305
Causes of Window Deterioration 305
Window Repair 306
Window Weatherization 306
Window Replacement and Alteration 307
9.9 Stucco 309
Typical Stucco Conditions 309
Stucco Inspection 309
Causes of Stucco Deterioration 309
Stucco Repair and Replacement 309
9.10 Paint 310
Paint Inspection and Maintenance 310
Repair and Repainting 311
Historic Paint Colors 312
9.11 Interiors 312
Typical Conditions 313
Inspection 313
Causes of Deterioration 313
Repair and Renovation 314
Chapter 10 • Guidelines for New Construction and Alterations
10.0 Introduction 315
Existing Administrative Procedures 315
10.1 Administrative and Management Recommendations 316
General Recommendations 316
Guidelines for New Construction 319
Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Adaptive Use 321
Recommendations for Energy Conservation and New Building Systems 322
Recommendations for Sustainable Design 324
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Table of Contents • ix

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Recommendations for Barrier-Free Access 327
References Cited 329
Appendix A • 1968 HABS Documentation of the Single Brethren’s House 335
Appendix B • National Park Service Technical Publications 383
Preservation Briefs 383
Preservation Tech Notes 391
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Table of Contents • x

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter One
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
Moravian College is among the oldest colleges
in the United States. Its historical significance
spans nearly three centuries and represents a
diverse array of social, religious, and architectural
influences. Present-day Moravian College retains
its historical emphasis on intellectual curiosity,
personal integrity, community cohesiveness, and
strengths in music and the fine arts, a rich tradition
of excellence handed down from the strong faith,
values, scholarship, music and handicrafts of the
eighteenth-century Moravian community.
The historic buildings and landscape resources on
Moravian College’s two campuses were built by
Moravians of different generations, but most derive
from distinct European roots and community
patterns established long ago. American design
trends, educational beliefs, and cultural influences
have combined with Moravian culture and European
vernacular architecture to form campuses of
unique historic character. Generations of students:
young girls, college men and women, and theology
students have been educated here. The Moravian
Church and generations of administrators, faculty,
employees, alumni, and benefactors have helped to
shape the school into the campuses we see today
(figure 1-1).
This preservation master plan explores the physical
connections between the College’s past and present.
As Moravian College continues to expand and
evolve, it is important to recognize and preserve
those aspects of its history that have helped define
its character and identity. It is equally important to
identify and celebrate those aspects of its history
that can help guide its future.
1.1 Project Background and
Purpose
Moravian College has long recognized the
importance of its history and the quality of its
physical character. The image of the College, which
is in large part the image of its historic buildings
and landscape, is meaningful and important to
students, faculty, staff, and alumni, as well as to
local residents and the general public. In early
2008, Moravian College was awarded a generous
grant from the J. Paul Getty Trust through its Getty
Campus Heritage Grant program. The purpose of
the grant was to create a Preservation Master Plan
for the College’s campus. John Milner Associates,
Inc. (JMA) was retained to prepare the Moravian
College Preservation Master Plan and began work in
the early summer of 2008. An Advisory Committee,
comprised of Moravian College faculty and staff,
was formed to review the work being done.
Methodology
The planning process began with the collection
of data and background materials on Moravian
College’s history. Books, clippings, old College
publications, historic maps, plans and photographs
were among the items reviewed during research.
These materials were reviewed through the Office
of Development, Facilities, and the Reeves Library
Archives at Moravian College, and the Moravian
Church Archives.
The JMA project team then conducted field
investigations of the historic buildings and
landscapes of the dual campuses, taking notes
and digital photographs. Utilizing the historical
information found in the data review, the team
identified the resources and assessed the character,
condition, significance, and integrity of each built
resource or landscape.
Once the existing conditions had been reviewed
and analyzed, the focus turned to developing a
preservation approach in concert with Moravian
College’s stated mission and goals. Using
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the
team recommended both general and specific
treatments for historic buildings and landscapes,
and developing guidelines to aid in future work
processes affecting Moravian College’s historic
resources, including guidance for new construction
and maintenance cycles.
Draft versions of the history, stewardship, existing
conditions, and treatment recommendations
and guidelines were presented and reviewed
by the Advisory Committee. Following review
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 1 • Introduction • 1

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and feedback, the consultants prepared the final
Preservation Master Plan.
Project Personnel
Peter C. Benton served as Project Director and
Katherine Farnham served as Project Manager for
the Moravian College Preservation Master Plan. Ms.
Farnham also prepared the historic overview and
context and wrote and edited much of the report
text. Landscape existing conditions assessment,
historic landscape treatment recommendations,
and all project maps were prepared by Christina
Osborn and Laura Knott. Ms. Osborn also compiled
and prepared the report. Wade Catts provided
archeological analysis as part of the landscape
evaluation. Architectural existing conditions
assessment of Moravian College’s buildings and
recommendations for treatment were completed
by Lori Aument, Peter Benton, Katherine Farnham,
and Thomas Scofield.
The College will receive hard and electronic copies
of the final document so it is readily available for
distribution to the College community and beyond.
An electronic version of the document will be made
available to the general public by inclusion on the
College website.
Preservation Issues
Overall, Moravian College possesses a distinctive
collection of historic buildings and surrounding
landscapes. While there is some variation in
the historic significance, physical integrity, and
overall conditions of the buildings and landscapes,
some common preservation issues are apparent
throughout the campus.
Buildings:
• Need for ongoing and preventive
maintenance.
• Need for historically appropriate
maintenance.
• Historical integrity of building exteriors.
• Appropriateness and functionality of
interior treatments.
• ADA accessibility.
• Installation and upgrading of building
systems (mechanical, fire safety,
technology, HVAC, etc.).
Landscapes:
• Need for ongoing and preventive
maintenance.
• Need for historically appropriate design.
• Historical integrity of features and
characteristics.
• High archeological sensitivity in the Hurd
Campus.
• Appropriateness of previous changes in
the landscape.
1.2 How to Use the
Guidelines
The Moravian College Preservation Master Plan is
intended to be a reference resource and a guide to
the ongoing stewardship of the College’s historic
buildings and landscapes. It takes a broad view
of the College’s history and physical character to
understand how the College sees itself and how
it has chosen to accommodate change over time.
Out of this view, the plan provides guidance for
decision making about the future, recommending
strategies and priorities for preserving significant
historic resources and using those resources to
enhance the College’s character as change occurs.
The preservation plan outlines a set of basic
preservation principles and explains how they can
be intelligently applied to the College’s historic
buildings and landscapes. Every building and
landscape presents unique issues and opportunities,
and every campus project is different. Without a set
of guidelines to follow, it can be difficult to identify
all of the issues that might arise in a maintenance,
repair, or construction project.
The Moravian College Preservation Master Plan will
help the College manage change in ways that
recognize and preserve significant building and
landscape resources. Along with being a planning
document, the preservation plan is a chronicle
of the College’s physical development up to this
point, presenting an existing-conditions snapshot
that will form a background reference and basis for
comparison during future planning initiatives.
In undertaking preparation of the Moravian College
Preservation Master Plan, existing historic resources
were reviewed, character-defining features were
identified, and treatments were recommended.
Design guidelines for the appropriate treatment of
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 1 • Introduction • 2

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historic fabric and building and landscape features
are included in the document.
The chapters in this document are essentially a
checklist of items that should be considered when
contemplating change to the College’s historic
buildings and landscapes. When new projects are
proposed, it is recommended that the preservation
plan be consulted as early in the process as possible
so that the ideas and guidelines provided will
reach their maximum effectiveness. The principles
outlined here are intended to provide a strong
philosophical foundation but to be flexible and
adaptable to changing needs and circumstances.
Design guidelines can often inspire creative and
sensitive solutions that were not envisioned when
a project was first proposed. The best outcomes are
those that meet the needs of the College’s academic
and residential programs while preserving the
elements that define historic building and landscape
character.
Figure 1-1. Moravian College is located on separate campuses within the City of Bethlehem, PA (United States Geological Survey,
annotated by JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 1 • Introduction • 3

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
1.3 How the Preservation
Plan Is Organized
The Moravian College Preservation Master Plan is
divided into ten chapters. The preservation plan
begins with a historic overview and a chapter
placing the College into larger historic contexts.
Next is a chapter on stewardship, which introduces
federal preservation standards and outlines the
proposed preservation approach for Moravian
College. This is followed by a review of existing
landscape and building resources, including a
summary of their significance, historical integrity,
and existing conditions. The final chapters provide
guidelines for treatment and maintenance of the
College’s historic resources and for compatible new
construction.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 1 • Introduction • 4

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Two
Historic Overview of Moravian College
2.0 Introduction
Moravian College has a long and rich history. Closely
intertwined with the establishment of Bethlehem
and Moravian theology and culture, today’s college
is the descendant of two distinguished Moravian
educational institutions, which served both men
and women over the course of two centuries before
merging in 1954. The founders of these schools were
also instrumental in the settlement and growth of
Moravian Bethlehem. Though Bethlehem’s era as
an exclusively Moravian settlement is long gone,
Moravian College and its parent schools have
perpetuated some of the Moravian faith’s most
cherished educational and cultural values into
the present day, and kept this legacy relevant to
generations of students.
2.1 Bethlehem: Moravian
Capital to Industrial Giant
Natural and Scenic Qualities of
Bethlehem
The earliest part of Bethlehem, including the
entirety of today’s Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus,
stands atop a bluff overlooking the confluence of
the Lehigh River and Monocacy Creek. The site is
part of the Great Valley, a large limestone formation
measuring eight to twelve miles in width, which
curves north into New Jersey and south through
Pennsylvania into Maryland and Virginia. The
site is part of the Lehigh River drainage area. The
Lehigh River flows eastward to the south of the
bluff, and Monocacy Creek flows southward to
the west of the project area (see figure 1-1). Bedrock
beneath the city consists of medium-gray thickbedded
dolomite and impure limestone calcareous
siltstone at its base. Subsoil in the area is yellow to
reddish-yellow clay (Gerhardt et al. 2008:4; National
Heritage Corporation 1977:20).
The site chosen for the city had a number of
features attractive to the first settlers. Foremost was
a plenteous spring at the base of the bluff, which
would provide water in all seasons and was a
primary reason for the purchase of this particular
tract. The hillside was wooded with a steep descent
to the river and creek. Monocacy Creek at that time
flowed south along the west side of the future city
and then turned toward the east, meeting the Lehigh
River southeast of the town site and forming a long
east-west peninsula between the two waterways.
On the south side of the Monocacy Creek peninsula
was a ford across the Lehigh River. The new town
was sited “some distance from the river” beside an
old Native American trail that extended north and
west from the ford, crossing the peninsula and the
Monocacy Creek, and running uphill past the new
site (Murtagh 1967:23).
Roots of Moravian Faith
Moravian Christianity dates back to the fifteenth
century, and had two distinct periods: the original
Bohemian church, which was eventually driven
underground, and the Renewed Church beginning
in 1722 (Weinlick in Myers 1982:5). Moravianism
began in Bohemia and Moravia in central and
Eastern Europe (figure 2-1). This area was originally
Christianized by the Eastern Orthodox branch of
Catholicism, but eventually Roman Catholicism
became the controlling denomination. Still, the
Christians of these regions felt ties to the Eastern
tradition and as such reacted strongly to the
worldly corruption occurring within the Roman
Catholic Church during the 1300s and 1400s. John
Hus (born 1369), an instructor at the University of
Prague, helped voice the sentiment that Christian
belief and way of life derived from the Bible, not
from the Pope and the church leadership hierarchy.
Following his break with the Church, Hus was
condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake in
1415. His martyrdom sowed seeds of Protestantism
among his community (Groenfeldt 1976:13).
In the years following the death of Hus, his followers
struggled with different perspectives but could not
create a united community of believers. One faction
separated itself in 1457, and was known as the
Unity of the Brethren (Unitas Fratrum). The group’s
primary goal was to avoid further religious conflict
and live peacefully, following the teachings of the
New Testament. Despite continued persecution,
the denomination began to grow. During the Thirty
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 5

Figure 2-1. Detail of Map of Central Europe about 1547 (Shepherd 1926).
Years’ War, Protestantism in Bohemia and Moravia
was effectively quashed by the forces of the Catholic
Church, forcing adherents to either abandon their
faith or leave the country. Years of persecution,
capped by the executions of 27 Bohemian and
Moravian leaders on the Day of Blood, June 21,
1621, caused thousands of frightened Bohemian
and Moravian Protestants to flee from their home
regions. Beginning in 1624, the Protestants were
dispersed to safer regions, including Poland,
Silesia, Prussia, Saxony, and Upper Lusatia. Among
them was a Unity group led to safety in Poland by
their bishop, John Amos Comenius. The dispersion
created a loss of community identity as the refugees
assimilated to their various new homes, and due to
continued persecution, their faith was effectively
driven underground for much of the next century.
This time of underground belief was called the
Time of the Hidden Seed (Groenfeldt 1976:14-15;
Murtagh 1967:4-5).
Members of the Moravian Church were forced
to remain dormant into the early 1700s, and
the geographically fragmented denomination
struggled to continue. In 1722, Count Nicholas von
Zinzendorf of Saxony granted the Moravians and
other Protestants sanctuary on his estate, where the
groups collectively built a town called Herrnhut, and

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
eventually the towns of Nisky and Kleine Welk. The
Count was a Lutheran but became both a benefactor
to and a leader of the Moravians. The Moravian
faith at this point became a “renewed church” and
is the antecedent of the modern Moravian church
(Moravian College 2007:2; Murtagh 1967:4-5)
The Moravian denomination from the beginning
of the renewed church was primarily interested in
missionary work, and members viewed themselves
not as a distinct denomination but as communal
servants of the Christian faith. Their communistic
mode of living, in which group needs took precedence
over the individual, derived from the many years of
dispersion and survival in the face of persecution.
At Herrnhut, two distinct and important traditions
were established among the Moravians. The first
was the love feast service, which was a celebratory
event accompanying communion and including
consumption of food and drink. The second was
the Moravian Economy, which was the division of
the congregation into ten living units called choirs.
The Economy was developed in response to the
belief that an individual’s spiritual growth was best
stimulated and encouraged by other individuals in
the same life situation. The choirs consisted of: 1.
Married People, 2. Widowers, 3. Widows, 4. Single
Brethren, 5. Single Sisters, 6. Youths, 7. Big Girls, 8.
Little Boys, 9. Little Girls, and 10. Infants in Arms.
(Murtagh 1967:5-6; Smaby 1988:9-10).
By the early 1730s, the Herrnhut community was
growing as word of it spread to Bohemia, Moravia,
and Silesia. This aroused the suspicions of the local
authorities, who forbade further settlement. While
the Lutherans preferred to remain at Herrnhut,
many of the Moravians felt the need to leave. They
wanted to form new colonies in a more hospitable
place where they could follow their faith, receive
additional members, and spread the Gospel to
the unchurched. The New World beckoned as a
potential site of such a colony. A group of Moravians
left Germany in 1732 for the West Indies, intending
to proselytize and spread their faith to the New
World (Groenfeldt 1976:15-16; Levering 1903:30;
Murtagh 1967:6-7).
The Moravians of Herrnhut, aware that many
European Protestants had settled in the tolerant
Pennsylvania colony, began to envision performing
missionary work among the Native Americans and
unchurched settlers in North America. German
immigration to Pennsylvania began in 1683
when Germantown was founded by Germans
from Krefeld, who came seeking better economic
opportunities. The early eighteenth century saw
the migration of various Protestant factions, also
seeking prosperity and freedom of worship, and
collectively known as the Pennsylvania Dutch. The
group included a diverse array of denominations
which had originated in various European
regions, including Switzerland and the Palatinate
region of Germany. Two groups of Schwenkfelder
Protestants, harbored by Zinzendorf, migrated to
Pennsylvania in 1733-1734, settling in Germantown
(Murtagh 1967:3-4).
Count von Zinzendorf made arrangements with
leaders of the Georgia colony to create a Moravian
settlement in Georgia to assist in evangelizing
the Native Americans. Under the direction of
Rev. Augustus Gottlieb Spangenberg, a Lutheran
minister who had joined the Moravians, a small
group of Moravian men migrated to Savannah,
Georgia, in 1736 to begin missionary work in the
colony. Although the group had a promising start,
its hopes of a permanent colony in Savannah
were soon dashed by the war between the English
Georgia colony and the Spanish Florida colony.
The Moravians’ refusal to bear arms in support of
Georgia soon put them in disfavor with Savannah’s
leaders and citizens, and the warfare made it
difficult to carry out Native American missionary
work. Over the next four years, the group began to
look elsewhere for a place to continue their mission
(Groenfeldt 1976:15-16; Levering 1903:31-40;
Murtagh 1967:6-7).
Beginnings of Bethlehem
Present-day Northampton County, Pennsylvania,
was still wilderness when a 10,000 acre tract was
sold, sometime before 1737, to William Allen by
Thomas Penn, the son of William Penn. At the time
of the sale, Penn did not yet hold title and this land
still belonged to the Lenape Indians. In 1686, the
Lenape had made an agreement to grant William
Penn a tract of land between the Delaware River
and a line starting at Wrightstown (Bucks County,
running northwest for as far as a man could walk
in a day and a half. In 1737, Pennsylvania Governor
James Logan decided that solid title to this land
should be established, and proposed what was
called the Walking Purchase. Following Lenape
custom, a day and a half’s walk measured about
30 miles. On September 19, 1737, Logan’s walkers
set out to establish the boundaries. Logan’s efforts
to recruit fast walkers and clear trails in advance
helped his walkers cover 60 miles in that time,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 7

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
meaning that the Lenape were forced to relinquish
a much larger tract than they had intended. The
tribe contested the claim but a 1742 meeting of
the Iroquois Confederacy upheld the decision
(Gerhardt et al. 2008:4-5).
William Allen was a Presbyterian of Scots-Irish
descent. Within two years of the Walking Purchase,
other Scots-Irish settlers moved to his land from
New Castle, Delaware, and were joined by German
settlers moving north from Bucks County. The
area remained a frontier in its first two decades
(Gerhardt et al. 2008:4-5).
Between 1737 and 1740, the Moravian colonists of
Savannah abandoned their settlement and several
moved to Pennsylvania. Two of their bishops,
Augustus Spangenberg and David Nitschmann,
had already traveled there to conduct missionary
work among the Schwenkfelders. English evangelist
George Whitefield hired the Moravians to construct
a school for blacks (figure 2-2) at his new settlement
called Nazareth, established in 1740 on 5,000 acres
purchased from William Allen. Nazareth lay in a
near-wilderness, with only a few nearby white
settlements populated by Scots-Irish, and Delaware
Indians still had a significant presence. Within a
year, theological differences between Whitefield
and the Moravians led the Moravians to seek
their own land. On April 2, 1741, after considering
multiple locations, they purchased property from
William Allen. The 500-acre tract lay ten miles from
Nazareth at the confluence of the Lehigh River
and Monocacy Creek, and had never been settled.
Just a few months later, Whitefield abandoned his
venture at Nazareth and the Moravian Church
purchased his entire tract, giving it not one but two
new settlements in Pennsylvania (Murtagh 1967:7,
95-97; Myers 1981:39-41).
Figure 2-2. Nineteenth century view of Whitefield House at
Nazareth, built by Moravian settlers in the 1740s (Murtagh
1967:96).
Figure 2-3. 1874 Rufus Grider watercolor showing first log house
in Bethlehem at far left (Murtagh 1967:22).
Bethlehem’s site was chosen for its proximity
to a fast-flowing spring at the base of the bluff
overlooking the confluence of creek and river.
The town was sited atop the wooded bluff to
avoid floods, meaning that all water used in the
settlement had to be hauled uphill by cart until
the first waterworks was constructed in 1754
(Myers 1981:39-41). The spring of 1741 saw the
planting of the fields and construction of the first
log dwelling house there (figure 2-3), which served
initially as both dwelling and stable. The small
group of Moravian workers began construction
on a much larger log house, the Gemeinhaus, in
September (figure 2-4). Count von Zinzendorf and
his sixteen-year-old daughter Benigna, along with
Figure 2-4. 1854 Rufus Grider watercolor of the
completed in 1742 (Murtagh 1967:25).
Gemeinhaus,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 8

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
a small group of companions, arrived for a visit
the following winter. On December 24, 1741, the
settlers and their guests assembled in the first log
house to celebrate the birth of Christ, and named
the settlement Bethlehem (Groenfeldt 1976:16-17;
Levering 1903:40-46, 54, 78-79; Moravian College
2007:2; Myers 1982:13,19-20,39-41).
The first settlers of Bethlehem were initially broken
into two groups: an itinerant congregation whose
sole task was to perform missionary work, and a
second home congregation to construct buildings
and provide the labor and material goods needed to
sustain the entire group (Levering 1903:129-146). A
sawmill, gristmill, and small missionary settlement
were built upriver at Gnadenhuetten in 1747. This
sawmill provided much of the wood used to build
the Single Brethren’s House and other buildings in
Bethlehem. The wood was sawn and then floated
down the Lehigh River. Gnadenhuetten was also
a missionary outpost and home to an Native
American congregation of converts (Levering
1903:195-196, 297-321; Smaby 1988:25-26).
Bethlehem: The Eighteenth Century
Bethlehem was initially a communal settlement
restricted to Moravians, and was organized under
the Moravian Economy established at Herrnhut
(Moravian College 2007:2). The settlement followed
planning and social patterns established at
Herrnhut, which remained the headquarters of the
Moravian faith. Approval from church leaders at
Herrnhut was required for all building plans, giving
Bethlehem untainted European characteristics
from the beginning. The Economy encompassed
not only Bethlehem but the settlement at Nazareth
as well. Individuals worked for the good of the
settlement and of those they evangelized, and
received housing, board, and basic needs in return
(Murtagh 1967:9-10).
The early buildings housed the home congregation
of church members grouped in the Moravian choir
system, as established at Herrnhut. Instead of
nuclear families, church members of all ages were
housed with peers rather than blood relatives.
While married couples and infants could remain
together, everyone else from toddlerhood on lived
in choir houses determined by age, sex, and marital
status. Each choir shared household responsibilities
and common worship. The settlement’s group of
buildings contained the domestic and worship
spaces of the community. Building uses were
fluid and changed frequently as the community
grew. Initially, the Gemeinhaus housed the different
choirs in sets of rooms or larger dormitories.
As the population grew beyond the available
facilities, the single women’s and widows’ choirs
lived in Nazareth due to lack of space to house
them in Bethlehem. Later, multiple large houses
were constructed for single men (brothers), single
women (sisters), widows, and married couples. The
first buildings were constructed on the north side
of Church Street (originally Sisters’ Lane), east of
what became Main Street (Murtagh 1967:12; Smaby
1988:92-93).
Another important feature of Moravian Bethlehem
was the industrial complex that arose to the west of
the central core along the Monocacy Creek (figure
2-5). Here, the community had a waterworks and
a number of shops and structures housing mills,
processing industries, and skilled trades. Initially
these structures were log buildings, but between
1759 and 1784, most were replaced with permanent
stone structures. A smaller secondary industrial
complex with a sawmill, flax mill, and laundry
house was built downstream on the Monocacy
peninsula, southeast of the town (Kane 1963:3-5;
Murtagh 1967:13-15; Myers 1981:35).
On the hillside south of Church Street (originally
called Sisters’ Lane), the Moravians cleared the
trees and planted large community gardens to raise
the produce and herbs they needed. According to
Figure 2-5. Nineteenth century painting of Moravian industrial
complex, with the Single Brethren’s House at rear (Murtagh
1967:91).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 9

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
contemporary views (figure 2-6), the gardens were
laid out in a formal grid plan. More vegetable plots
lay on Sand Island, south of the river. The town was
clustered in a tight formation with choir buildings
to the south, the industrial area in the middle,
and the farm buildings to the north. Beyond the
farm buildings lay the congregation’s extensive
farmlands, and to the east were orchards.
As Bethlehem developed, additional settlers were
moving into the surrounding area. In 1752, the
Pennsylvania Assembly established Northampton
County as the local jurisdiction and made Easton
the county seat. Initially Northampton County was
a massive tract, encompassing all of present-day
Northampton, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Pike,
Susquehanna and Wayne counties, plus parts of
Bradford, Columbia, Luzerne, Schuylkill, and
Wyoming counties. Over time additional counties
were subdivided off from Northampton, and the
county reached its present size (374 square miles)
in the mid nineteenth century (Gerhardt et al.
2008:5-6).
The French and Indian War (1753-1763) was a time
of terror for the settlers of Northampton County,
which became the scene of protracted hostilities
between Europeans and Native American tribes.
The Lenape, still angry about being cheated by
the Walking Purchase, were part of the uprising.
As the best-established settlement, Bethlehem
became a place of shelter for settlers and Native
American converts fleeing attacks in more remote
areas. The small Moravian mission settlement
at Gnadenhuetten, home to a group of Moravian
missionaries and a congregation of Native American
converts, fell victim to the warfare. On November
24, 1755, Gnadenhuetten was destroyed in a tragic
massacre. Most of the Moravian missionaries and
their congregants were killed and their houses and
mills burned by invading tribes. In the same year,
the provincial government appointed Benjamin
Franklin of Philadelphia to oversee defense efforts
on the frontier. Franklin established a chain of
forts between Easton and Mercersburg to protect
frontier settlements (Gerhardt et al. 2008:5; Levering
1903:195-196, 297-321; Smaby 1988:31-32).
End of the Moravian Economy
1762-1770
Bethlehem remained a communal society from 1745
to 1762, by which time it had become a thriving
settlement. During this time it had also endured
economic hardship, changes in leadership, and
increasing dissension among its inhabitants. The
focus on missionary work to the exclusion of
good fiscal management, and the inability of the
community to sustain itself fully, led Bethlehem
to incur significant debt during the 1750s. As time
went on, many members of the faith were beginning
to oppose the Economy system as a viable social
institution. Few of the other Moravian settlements in
America adhered to the Economy, and Bethlehem’s
leaders eventually saw dissolution of the Economy
as the best chance of repaying the community’s
debt. After the death of Count von Zinzendorf in
1760, it became clear that the community’s previous
emphasis on missionary work would have to be
pushed aside in favor of gaining economic viability.
Leaders were also concerned that the dissension
was eroding the faith and cooperative spirit of
community members (Hamilton 1988:4-5; Moravian
College 2007:2-4; Myers 1982:35-36; Smaby 1988:26-
32).
In 1761, it was decided that the communal Economy
would be abandoned in favor of nuclear households.
This change was implemented beginning in early
1762. Instead of living in choirs, married couples
would now have their own households, kinship
ties would take precedence over being with one’s
peers, and children would be raised by their
own parents rather than being sent to communal
housing at 18 months. Initially the farms, industries
and mills were still operated by the community, but
eventually these occupations were privatized. Only
single people and widows remained with their
choirs, but they now were given wages for their
work and paid nominal rent for their housing and
food. Bethlehem transitioned from a communal
society to a church-village. The church maintained
tight controls on commerce and pay rates and
restricted purchases from outside the community. A
lease system was established for the property in the
town, where residents owned their buildings but
leased their land from the church. Approval was
needed to rent or sell buildings, and the selection
of appropriate tenants was tightly controlled by the
village authorities (Levering 1903:650-651; Smaby
1988:32-36).
The community was immediately faced with the
need to house 50 married couples and their families
in individual quarters. Buildings with interiors
designed for communal living had to be redesigned
to accommodate individual households, and
smaller new houses began to spread northward
from the community core. Older buildings with
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 10

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
attached apartments, such as mills and industry
buildings, were used as well. The provision of
individual kitchens and storage areas for each
new household was a particular problem, since
communal Bethlehem had perhaps six or seven
large kitchens (Smaby 1988:107).
Figure 2-6. Detail, 1757 view of Bethlehem by Nicholas Garrison.
Note garden plots below the Single Brethren’s House (Moravian
Church Archives).
The landscape of the town also adapted somewhat
to accommodate these changes. The farm buildings
were moved northward to accommodate the
construction of new individual houses. Community
gardens became less important as individual
households formed. By 1766, the large gardens of
previous years were still present, but a new group
of gardens had formed on Sand Island southwest of
the town. These produce gardens replaced an earlier
large garden area (see figure 2-6). They were laid
out in small oblong plots flanking a straight center
path, and were designated as “citizens’ gardens” in
a 1766 city plan (figures 2-7 and 2-8). This plan also
shows small rectangular grid-plan gardens behind
the store and several of the homes on the Ladengasse
(Murtagh 1967:13-15).
The Buildings of Early Bethlehem
1742-1770
Figure 2-7. 1766 plan of Bethlehem (Murtagh 1967:15).
Figure 2-8. View of Bethlehem in 1754 (Moravian College Public
Relations).
Bethlehem’s first house was a simple log structure
(see figure 2-3), measuring twenty by forty feet,
and housing settlers in one section and livestock
in the other. The first Bethlehem settlers resided at
Nazareth or at the home of a friend south of the river
until the house was habitable. As the first building
in the settlement, the log house also functioned
as the community’s worship space during the
first year, as farming and building work went on
around it. The group cleared fields and planted
crops, completing a successful harvest in the fall of
1741 and storing their grain in the log house. This
house no longer stands. In 1823, it was demolished
to build a livery stable for a new tavern, which is
now the Eagle Hotel (Levering 1903:61-62, 633-634;
Myers 1981:19-22).
The earliest building extant in Bethlehem is the
Gemeinhaus, a massive log building which was
built by the Moravian settlers during late 1741
and completed in the spring of 1742 (see figure
2-4). Almost immediately, it was enlarged with an
addition at the east end, completed in August 1743.
After the addition, the finished building contained
two dormitories, twelve rooms, and a second-floor
chapel for worship. Although other buildings
soon followed, the Gemeinhaus was the core of the
settlement and continued to house community
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 11

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
leaders even after larger new buildings had been
constructed (Hamilton 1988:9-10).
A new stone Choir House for the single brothers
was erected during the second half of 1744. The
single brethren used the house as both a residence
and as workshop space for several industries, such
as weaving and hatmaking. The initial population
of 50 men and several boys grew rapidly to the
point where they needed a larger house. In 1748,
a new Single Brethren’s House was completed
across the street. The single women and girls of the
congregation, who had been residing in Nazareth
since 1745 due to space constraints in Bethlehem,
took possession of the older house, which became
known as the Sisters’ House. This building was
extended in 1752 with a perpendicular annex
connecting the Sisters’ House to the Bell House.
Due to unstable ground caused by a failure in the
limestone base and subsoil under the house, the
wing was supported by new buttresses, and its
heavy roof tiles were removed in 1755 and replaced
with wood shingles to lighten the roof load and
stabilize the building. Another extension was
made at the east end in 1773 (Hamilton 1988:11-12;
Murtagh 1967:39).
completed and dedicated on November 16, 1748.
On that evening, a celebratory procession of men
was made from the old house to the new one, and
a love feast was held in the new building’s chapel,
after which the 72 residents spent their first night
in the new dormitories. Large though it was, the
Single Brethren’s House was soon outgrown, and
new wings were added in 1762 and 1768. Its roof
was used for celebratory music performances and
to broadcast important messages, such as deaths
of congregation members, to the community
(Hamilton 1788:15-16; Moravian College 2007:5).
The growing Moravian population soon exceeded
the capacity of the Gemeinhaus chapel, and a new
perpendicular chapel was constructed in 1751
between the Bell House and the Gemeinhaus. The
first floor contained a dining hall for the Married
People’s Choir and the chapel was on the second
floor. As with the Sisters’ House, the ground beneath
the Chapel soon appeared to be faulty and the
building was stabilized by constructing buttresses
on the outer wall and replacing the heavy tile roof
with shingles.
East of the Gemeinhaus, a new square stone building
was constructed in 1745-1746 as additional space
for the single brethren’s kitchen and a kitchen,
dining room, and upstairs quarters for the married
people’s choir. Within three years, the building was
extended at both ends. A bell tower atop the central
section gave the building its name: the Bell House
(figure 2-9). The bell was rung daily to signal rising,
meals, the end of work hours, and worship services
(Hamilton 1988:13-14).
The new Single Brethren’s House of 1748 (figure
2-10) was a massive stone building, four stories
plus attic and basement, and featured a large
platform atop its roof. Its plan was derived from
a building in Herrnhut, Germany. The size of the
building was dictated by the disproportionately
large population of single male settlers and the
various trades they intended to pursue within
their choir house. The Single Brethren’s House
was constructed with lumber floated downstream
from the Gnadenhuetten sawmill on the Lehigh
River. Four stonemasons from outside Bethlehem
oversaw the construction, and labor was provided
by men from Bethlehem. The building site was
selected and staked off on January 10, 1748,
with construction beginning at that time. The
cornerstone was laid April 7, and the building was
Figure 2-9. Undated nineteenth-century view of Bell House with
Sisters’ House at right (Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 2-10. Single Brethren’s House (1748), shown at center of
1754 engraving (Murtagh 1967:57).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 12

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The last major building of the eighteenth century
was the Widows’ House (figure 2-11), erected
in 1766-1768 to house the growing number of
widows in the community. Although a need for
such a building had been apparent as early as 1759,
other projects took priority and the widows of the
community continued to reside in Nazareth until
the project was finally completed. The site chosen
was formerly part of the congregational garden
and eleven widows were the first occupants. The
Widows’ House appears to have attracted several
distinguished visitors, including both Martha and
George Washington. The east end of the building
was extended 20 feet in 1794-1795 (Hamilton
1988:23-25; Moravian College 2007:18).
Moravian Bethlehem from the beginning was a
novelty in America. Much as the Amish attract
tourists today, eighteenth- and early nineteenthcentury
Bethlehem drew a number of visitors
fascinated by the Moravians’ unique communal
lifestyle, educational system, and technological
achievements such as the waterworks. The
Moravians welcomed their visitors but were
concerned about too much contact with outsiders,
and guests were not permitted to roam freely
without an escort. Within a short time, the Moravians
felt compelled to construct inns to house visitors in
a more hospitable manner, and at the same time
prevent too much interference with their routine
(Smaby 1988:97-99).
Two inns were constructed to serve the travelers.
The Crown Inn, located in the farmland south of
the Lehigh River, was constructed in 1745. A nearby
ferry transported visitors across the river to the
Moravian settlement. The ferry system was unwieldy
and community leaders agitated for many years to
build a bridge across the river. Stagecoach service
was intermittent until after the Revolution. The
creation of the national post road system brought
regular stagecoach service to Bethlehem in 1785,
exacerbating the need for a more efficient means
of ingress. In 1794, the first Lehigh River bridge
was completed and authorized by the state as a toll
bridge. The ferry system was abandoned and the
now-unnecessary Crown Inn became a farmhouse
(Levering 1903:544-547; Smaby 1988:99).
A “congregational inn,” later known as the Sun Inn,
was constructed ca. 1758-1760 near the west end of
Church Street. It was a large limestone building with
a clay-tiled Germanic jerkinhead roofline. With its
inn complete, Bethlehem welcomed many famous
figures of the era, including Martha Washington in
Figure 2-11. Undated late nineteenth-century view of the
Widows’ House. This building, expanded in 1889, remained in
Moravian Church possession until the mid-1990s when it was
acquired by Moravian College (Moravian Church Archives).
1779, followed by George Washington in 1782 and
Alexander Hamilton in 1791 (Hamilton 1988:23-25;
Moravian College 2007:18; Roberts and Cosans
1982:2; Smaby 1988:99).
Bethlehem from 1770–1800
The Revolutionary War came to Bethlehem slowly.
It was not until 1775, well into the conflict, that
Northampton County officials called for every
township to establish a militia. As in Savannah
three decades earlier, the Moravians of the county
elected to remain neutral and did not participate.
Northampton County was remote enough that the
British never came there, but Bethlehem became
an important outpost for the colonial forces, who
availed themselves of its buildings and other
facilities for a variety of purposes (Gerhardt et al.
2008:5).
During the winters of 1776 and 1777, the Single
Brethren’s House was commandeered by General
George Washington’s army as a hospital (figure
2-12). Beginning in early December 1776, a group of
150 sick and injured patients was transferred from
a hospital in Morristown, New Jersey to Bethlehem,
and this scenario was repeated the following fall.
Hundreds of soldiers were cared for in extremely
crowded quarters. British prisoners of war also
arrived in September 1777 and were housed in
the Family House. During these stressful times,
the town was crowded and many of its regular
inhabitants were dispersed to Nazareth and other
places to make room for the patients, prisoners,
and military troops (Myers 1982:102-112).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 13

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 2-12. Undated drawing of the Single Brethren’s House
during 1776-1778 when it served as a hospital for Washington’s
wounded troops (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-13. View of Bethlehem in 1784 (Smaby 1988:108).
Urbanization of Bethlehem
1790-1850
Bethlehem experienced a building boom during
the 1790s and early 1800s. Numerous new house
lots were created beginning in 1789. The Lehigh
Bridge was constructed in 1794, providing better
accessibility between Bethlehem and areas to the
south. From this point forward, the appearance
of Bethlehem began to change dramatically from
that of a small medieval European village to that
of an urban American town. As time went on,
features like the clay tile roofs, jerkinhead gables,
and exposed log walls of the first wave of Moravian
construction was superseded by more typically
American details and building materials. Log
buildings were removed (including the First House
of 1741) or covered in clapboard, and gables were
rebuilt. New upper stories were added to some
buildings, including the Sun Inn. A city view from
1784 (figure 2-13) shows the first few blocks of Main
Street lined with narrow, side-gabled houses. By
1812 (figure 2-14), the city had spread a few blocks
further north and now boasted a massive new
church (Murtagh 1967:133; Smaby 1988:109).
The Moravian congregation outgrew its chapel
quarters yet again, and church leaders decided to
construct a new, much larger house of worship. The
majestic Central Moravian Church (see figure 2-14)
was constructed south of the Chapel between 1803
and 1806 and is still in use as the spiritual home
of Bethlehem’s Moravian congregation. Central
Church was constructed in a British-influenced
Federal style, unlike the older European-inspired
buildings surrounding it, and its large size made it
the most dominant structure in the town (Hamilton
1988:22; Smaby 1988:109).
Figure 2-14. View of Bethlehem in 1812 (Smaby 1988:110).
Figure 2-15. Map of Bethlehem in 1848 (Smaby 1988:112).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 14

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Topographical alterations were made as well. In
1846, Main Street was graded to be more level, and
the removal of part of its hill made houses on the
east side a story taller. Main Street and Church
Street became the basis for the grid plan layout of
the growing city, which extended rapidly from its
original core. By 1848 (figure 2-15), development on
Main Street and New Street had spread as far north
as present-day Broad Street, which was lined with
houses on both sides. Additional development
occurred on Sand Island, southwest of the town
center. The settlement pattern was that of a city,
with rectangular blocks of narrow deep lots and
a network of rear alleys. The original block of the
Moravian congregation (including the Church,
cemetery, and Gemeinhaus complex) and the block
immediately to the south with the Seminary,
remained somewhat irregular in layout, but the
other blocks mirrored traditional city blocks with
parallel and perpendicular alleys and generally
equal-sized lots (Smaby 1988:112).
Industrial Bethlehem
Between 1790 and 1829, Northampton County was
a quiet agricultural landscape, where German and
Scots-Irish farmers raised grains and settlement
continued to increase. During this period,
Northampton County began shedding territory as
new counties were created and spun off. Bethlehem
briefly became part of what was called the Hot
Water Rebellion in 1798, following the imposition
of a federal tax on glass window panes. Citizens
of the county, enraged by what they felt was an
unfair tax, repelled tax assessors by throwing
hot water at them from the upper floors of their
houses. Federal marshals rounded up the resisters
and brought them to Bethlehem’s Sun Inn, which
was then surrounded by John Fries and his militia
until the captives were freed. The leaders of the
rebellion were convicted but then pardoned by the
federal government, which believed there had been
misunderstanding of the tax (Gerhardt 2008:5).
In the first decades of the 1800s, the mining of
anthracite coal for profit rose to prominence. Coal
was discovered around 1790, but it took many
years to establish the idea that it could be burned
and was of value. The first coal-mining company
was established in 1793 with 1,000 acres of land
to be mined, but it was not until 1806 that the first
barge load of coal was sent to Philadelphia. The
first coal yards were established around 1815. The
combination of coal-mining interests with river
shipping interests resulted in the formation of
the Lehigh Navigation and Coal Company, which
was incorporated in 1822 and began shipping coal
downriver by barge (Levering 1903:640-642).
The era of canal-building coincided with and
augmented the coal-mining industry. The
Pennsylvania Canal was extended through
Bethlehem in 1827 (figure 2-16). This necessitated
significant changes in the landscape along the
waterfront, including demolition of the girls’
seminary laundry and abandonment of the wheat
fields owned by the school between the Monocacy
and the Lehigh. The Monocacy Creek’s course was
also altered to a degree to accommodate the canal,
resulting in the loss of a few mills and the need
to construct new bridges across the canal at Main
Street and between the miller’s house and sawmill
on the Lehigh. Although details of the changes
made are sparse, Levering states:
Not only the grain fields of the lowland,
where once the Friedenshutten of the exiled
Indian converts stood, but many a fine tree
and familiar path, with embowered nooks
here and there, had to be sacrificed at the
foot of Bethlehem’s hill; and the pitiless
ravages of industry upon the picturesque,
which have never ceased along the course of
the Lehigh, had fairly set in. The canal itself
added some pretty landscape features, after
it became old, which partly compensated
for those which it destroyed, but at first the
new ditch must have been a sight far from
attractive.… (Levering 1903:640-641).
Prosperity brought by the canal’s completion
resulted in a building boom in the town, but this
was short-lived, and by 1830 many overextended
property owners were at risk of losing their
houses. Faced with the prospect of properties being
auctioned off by the sheriff to unknown buyers, the
town administrators were forced to buy and then
resell many such properties to retain Moravian
control over them. They offset the fiscal crisis
somewhat by selling off valuable outlying lots and
industrial properties, which made good strides in
eliminating some of the debt, but did not resolve
the situation (Levering 1903:650-654, 668-671).
January 1841 brought an unprecedented flood
which rose to 20 feet above the waterline, destroyed
the Lehigh bridge, and swept away many of the
lowland industrial facilities. Another fiscal crisis
in 1843 resulted in the abandonment of the lease
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 15

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 2-16. 1841 map of Bethlehem showing route of the Lehigh Canal at bottom (Bethlehem Digital Archives).
system and the formal separation of the church
and the town. The lease system was abolished in
1844, and town lots could be purchased free of
ground rent and other restrictions. The town was
incorporated as a borough on March 6, 1845, and
its perimeter was extended in 1856. At the time
of incorporation, the population of the town was
estimated at 1,050, of which approximately 250
were boarding students or non-members of the
Moravian Church (Levering 1903:672-682).
Bethlehem’s environment and economic fortunes
were changed by the construction of the Lehigh
Railroad through the town in 1855. The railroad
destroyed the original “big spring” at the bottom
of the bluff west of the bridge. Two years later, a
second railroad, the North Pennsylvania line, was
built up from the south and connected to the Lehigh
Railroad at a union station. Despite the landscape
changes, railroad transportation facilitated faster
export of coal from the valley. Around the same
time, new industries were emerging to join the
burgeoning coal operations, including zinc oxide
and spelter. However, local industrialists were
beginning to formulate plans for larger-scale iron
manufacturing along the south side of the Lehigh
River (Levering 1903:720-723).
In the mid-1850s, Augustus Wolle of Bethlehem
purchased the Gangewere ore mine and planned
to build a furnace nearby along Saucon Creek. He
incorporated the Saucona Iron Company in 1857.
Charles Brodhead, from whom Wolle had obtained
land along the south side of the Lehigh River,
convinced Wolle to build his furnace at the Lehigh
River site, and to erect an ironworks capable of
producing all kinds of iron rather than limiting his
operation to a blast furnace. A number of investors
joined the venture with Broadhead and Wolle, and
the Saucona Iron Company’s charter was amended
in 1857 to become the Bethlehem Rolling Mills and
Iron Company. The ironworks construction began
in 1861 but was delayed somewhat by the Civil War.
In 1863, the first blast furnace and rolling mill were
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 16

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
completed. Other buildings followed and in 1868,
the firm merged with the adjacent Northampton
Furnace. In 1873, the plant began to manufacture
steel. The company was reorganized in 1899 as
the Bethlehem Steel Corporation. By 1900, the
enterprise covered over a mile of riverbank and
had 25 acres of land under roof (Levering 1903:723-
726; Steers 2007:7-8).
The construction and expansion of the Bethlehem
Iron Company along the Lehigh River spurred a
new wave of land sales and building projects on
the south side of the river. In 1865, this area was
incorporated as South Bethlehem. Several of the
officers of the railroad and iron company made
their homes in this area, and used their influence
to incorporate a water and gas works to supply the
new borough. At the same time, Lehigh University
was founded in 1865 by Judge Asa Packer as a men’s
polytechnic institution on 57 acres of land along the
upper end of the town. Other changes were in the
transportation realm. With the canal in ruins after
flooding in 1862, the Lehigh and Susquehanna
Railroad was constructed in 1867, and a fourth
railroad, the Lehigh and Lackawanna, was built by
1868. The New Street Bridge was completed in 1867
as a better connector between Bethlehem and South
Bethlehem, and the Broad Street Bridge was built in
1870 (Levering 1903:726-738).
Growth of the city continued, with European
immigrants arriving in large numbers to take
up industrial jobs. South Bethlehem had 20,000
inhabitants by 1900, of whom 70% were immigrants.
Slovaks made up one-third of this group. In 1886, the
borough of West Bethlehem was incorporated, and
a sizeable silk manufacturing operation was begun.
Electricity, a market house, road macadamization,
and streetcar service all were inaugurated in the
late 1880s and early 1890s (Levering 1903:756-760;
Steers 2007:8).
Twentieth Century Bethlehem
After the turn of the century, Bethlehem continued
to grow, with much of the growth spurred by
the expansion of industry in and around the city.
It reached a population of 58,000 by 1942, with a
hospital, six hotels, one college, one university, one
high school, and over 70 churches (Steers 2007:9).
By 1942, Bethlehem Steel was the second-largest
steel corporation in the world, with a mill campus
that extended over four miles along the Lehigh
River and employed thousands. In addition to
Bethlehem’s main plant, the corporation owned
numerous other mill facilities across the country,
including a large mill, shipyard, and employee
village at Sparrows Point in Baltimore (Steers
2007:6-9).
World War II’s defense needs and massive
military deployment sent Bethlehem into high
gear. Bethlehem Steel stepped up production and
became the largest single manufacturer of military
materials in the world. Over the course of the war
it built 1,000 warships. At peak size, it had 32,000
Bethlehem-area employees, 2,000 of whom were
women. Its national numbers were even higher:
284,000 employees with 25,000 women (Steers
297:6-7).
At the end of World War II, Bethlehem’s population
had jumped to 68,000, largely due to the defense
workers. Demand for steel continued to be high
during the postwar period, and returning veterans
stepped into jobs created during the war production.
The city had an estimated 13,500 houses, with 65%
occupied by owners (Steers 2007:224).
The market for U.S.-made steel disintegrated toward
the end of the twentieth century. By the 1980s, the
fortunes of Bethlehem Steel and other American
steel companies were plummeting, and steel towns
and cities faced widespread unemployment and
economic losses. American steelmakers collectively
suffered losses of over seven billion dollars
between 1981 and 1985. The massive Bethlehem
Steel struggled to continue but ultimately could
not. Its blast furnaces ceased operating in 1994,
and all steelmaking at the Bethlehem plant was
shut down the following year. The unused steel
plant languished until 2001, when Bethlehem Steel
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company’s
remaining assets were sold to the International
Steel Group two years later (Steers 2007:13).
In 2007, the Bethlehem property was sold to Sands
BethWorks, and plans for a casino to be built where
the plant once stood were drafted. Construction
began in fall 2007; the completion of the casino
is expected by 2009. Ironically, the casino had
difficulty finding structural steel for construction,
thanks to a global steel shortage and pressure to
build Pennsylvania’s tax-generating casinos. 16,000
tons of steel will be needed to build the $600 million
complex (Schamberger 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 17

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
2.2 Education in the
Moravian Tradition
Moravian Educational Philosophy
The Moravian Church’s historic emphasis on
education, and the vital role of education as an
instrument of salvation, derives from the beliefs of
its influential early bishop, John Amos Comenius
(1592-1670). Moravian adherents believed that
all human souls could find salvation, and thus
all human beings needed to be educated. In a
time when education in Western societies was
generally limited to elite males, Comenius believed
in education for males and females, poor and
wealthy alike. Education was nearly as important
as religious observance from an early time. In more
recent times, Comenius has been credited as “the
father of modern education” (Moravian College
2007:2-3).
From the beginning, the Moravians of Bethlehem
educated both male and female children. Parents,
whose responsibilities were tied up in working
for the communal economy, had little time to
educate their own children. Moravian educational
institutions were established to provide the needed
education, and were supported by the community
and church. In the New World, formal education
for girls was minimal at best, and the emphasis
on educating girls and the early establishment of
institutions to do so made the Moravian Economy
remarkable among European settlements (Moravian
College 2007:3).
The Moravian Female Seminary
Countess Benigna von Zinzendorf, still a
teenager, established a boarding school for girls
at Germantown on May 4, 1742, soon after the
founding of Bethlehem. The school had a peripatetic
but continuous existence in its first 25 years, with
frequent moves driven by spatial constraints and
a growing Moravian population in Bethlehem and
Nazareth. The school moved from Germantown
to Bethlehem in June 1742, and was given a room
in the new addition to the Gemeinhaus, but shortly
afterward was relocated to the Whitefield House
in Nazareth. It returned to Bethlehem in 1749 and
was quartered in the Bell House (figure 2-17) for the
next decade. At that point, the boys’ school moved
to Nazareth and the girls’ school occupied the
building previously used by the boys’ school. After
the addition to the Bell House, the girls’ school
returned to the Bell House and remained there for
the next 50 years (Moravian College 2007:3; Myers
1982:23, 160-161).
The girls’ school was known as the Bethlehem
Female Seminary and the Moravian Seminary
for Young Ladies at various points. Initially its
students were exclusively Moravian. During the
Revolution, the school’s strong academic reputation
became more widely known and admission of
non-Moravian students was requested numerous
times. In October 1785, the school was reorganized
and opened to non-Moravian women. At this point,
it was called the Moravian Seminary for Young
Ladies (Moravian College 2007:3; Myers 1982:23;
Weinlick 1977:89-90).
The Female Seminary was originally located in
the complex of buildings on the north side of
Church Street, particularly the Bell House, which
it shared with other community functions. By
1803, the school had 72 students and continued to
grow. Concurrently, as the Moravian choir house
system was phased out, the Single Brethren’s
House was targeted as the logical place to move the
growing girls’ boarding school. In 1814, the Church
transferred the Single Brethren’s House and six
acres behind it to the Seminary. The school moved
across the street to its new quarters in 1815 after
some retrofitting had been completed (Bethlehem
Book Committee 1976:266; Levering 1903:593-600;
Moravian College 2007:5).
The former garden space behind the Single
Brethren’s House was converted at an unknown
date to a park known as the Pleasure Grounds,
which was surrounded by a tall wooden fence. It
Figure 2-17. Twentieth-century view of the Bell House, longtime
home of the Female Seminary prior to 1814 (Murtagh 1967:53).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 18

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 2-18. 1855 Roepper map of Bethlehem, showing the
“Pleasure Grounds” as a wooded bluff (Moravian Church
Archives).
is not clear how long the Single Brethren’s formal
garden beds of the 1750s survived, and there is no
apparent documentation of what the park looked
like before and after the seminary’s acquisition.
However, city views of 1784 (see figure 2-13) and
1812 (see figure 2-14) show the immediate rear
yard of the Single Brethren’s House hemmed in
by a complex of lean-to wooden sheds. Below the
enclosed yard, the 1784 view also shows a new root
cellar complex and a sloping lawn with irregular
small paths. Small tree-lined allées flank the
formal grid gardens of the Widows’ House to the
east of the Single Brethren’s yard. These elements
had vanished by 1812, when the rear open space
of the Single Brethren’s and Widows’ Houses had
been encroached upon by additional outbuildings.
However, by 1855, a city plan (figure 2-18) shows the
bluffside below the Single Brethren’s House lightly
wooded and delineated as the Pleasure Grounds
(Murtagh 1967:8-11; Smaby 1988:107-110).
The park’s name appears to derive directly from
the “pleasure gardens” created in the Moravian
community at Nisky in the 1700s, which were used
for recreation and “promenading” by students
of the boys’ boarding school. The Nisky garden
had both a formal section with symmetrical beds
and pathways, and an informal section with an
asymmetrical layout, winding paths, and a more
romantic character. A similar garden, also known
as the Pleasure Gardens and containing both formal
and informal areas, was laid out in Nazareth north
of the main residence hall and was known by that
name for at least a century (Murtagh 1967:8-11).
Figure 2-19. Modern view of Frueauff House, to southeast (JMA,
June 2008).
Figure 2-20. Modern view of Day House, to southeast (JMA,
June 2008).
Along Church Street to the west of the Single
Brethren’s House, a new Federal-style dwelling
(figure 2-19) was constructed in 1819 to house the
head of school, the Rev. John F. Frueauff. Although
technically it was constructed as a school facility,
the house remained in the Frueauff family after
Rev. Frueauff’s retirement and death. The school
did not regain ownership of the house until 1914.
By the 1850s, the head of school was living in a
house immediately west of the Single Brethren’s
House (Moravian College 2007:5,13).
The Day House (figure 2-20) was constructed in
1840 as the steam laundry for the female seminary,
replacing an earlier facility destroyed during the
building of the canal. It had washing facilities on
the ground floor and drying facilities on the upper
floor. It was used in the 1970’s as an apartment
(upper floor) and storage (ground floor). In 2003,
it was renovated and added to the Art Department
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 19

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
facilities. The classroom space is designed for Art
Education, crafts and studio classes. It also includes
an office for Art Education faculty members. The
ground floor is still used for storage.
During the 1840s, school headmaster Rev. Sylvester
Wolle revamped the Female Seminary’s curriculum
and improved its music program. He hired
professors who had graduated from European
conservatories to teach the young women.
These changes resulted in growth of the student
population, and an addition to the Single Brethren’s
House was needed to accommodate this expansion.
A two-story addition was made to the southwest
corner of the building in 1848 (figure 2-21). The first
floor was used as a refectory, and the second floor
became a chapel. This building is now called the Old
Chapel and the chapel is now a performance space
called Hearst Hall (Moravian College 2007:5).
By 1852, the school was still increasing in size, and
the principal’s house standing immediately to the
east of the Single Brethren’s House was demolished
to provide space for Main Hall, a detached
four-story brick school building constructed in 1854
(figure 2-22). When built, Main Hall boasted modern
conveniences (water, gas lighting, and furnace
heat) in an era when few buildings had them. It
was among the first buildings in Bethlehem with
gas lighting. The principal occupied an apartment
on the first floor. The building had two reception
rooms, known as the Blue Parlors (figure 2-23),
adorned with paintings by Gustavus Grunewald.
Main Hall also housed classrooms and dormitory
rooms (Moravian College 2007:5-6,13).
Engravings made in 1856 show idealized views
of the Seminary (figure 2-24) and its grounds with
a quaint Gothic Revival cottage (now the site of
later buildings) situated at the rear. The Pleasure
Grounds are depicted with a small allée of trees
leading to the Single Brethren’s House, and a rocky
path bordered by shrubs leading to Main Hall
(figure 2-25). Another Moravian Souvenir view
from the bridge (figure 2-26) shows the Pleasure
Grounds as a verdant wooded hillside with a board
fence and enclosed lawn at its base. A winding
path, weeping willow and a variety of specimen
trees are visible, along with a small summerhouse
perched on the hillside and an arched vinery at
the fence. This lush Romantic landscape contrasts
strongly with the formal gardens of the 1750s. Late
Victorian stereoscopic images (figures 2-27 and 2-28)
reveal that the heavily wooded landscape survived
at least in part until this time.
Figure 2-21. Late twentieth-century view of Old Chapel, to west
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-22. Main Hall, detail of view ca. 1900 (Moravian Church
Archives).
Figure 2-23. Early twentieth-century view of the Blue Parlors in
Main Hall, with landscape paintings by Gustavus Grunewald
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-24. Engraving view of Church Street, 1856 ( Moravian
Souvenir 1856).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 20

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 2-25. Engraving view of Pleasure Grounds, looking
north, 1856 (Moravian Souvenir 1856).
Figure 2-26. Engraving view of Pleasure Grounds from bridge,
1856 (Moravian Souvenir 1856).
Figure 2-27. Detail of a stereoscope view of Pleasure Grounds,
late nineteenth century (New York Public Library).
Figure 2-28. Detail of a stereoscopic view of Seminary girls in
the Pleasure Grounds, ca. 1870s (New York Public Library).
Growth continued and in 1859, a new classroom
building, West Hall (figure 2-29), was constructed
on the west end of the Single Brethren’s House,
connecting to the Old Chapel. West Hall contained
classrooms, an infirmary, and a “swimming bath”
(Moravian College 2007:6). At the beginning of
the Civil War, the school had 260 students. After a
sharp decline during the war, enrollment jumped
to over 300, necessitating more construction. Two
more connected buildings expanded the campus
to the south (figure 2-30): New Chapel/Peter Hall
(1867) and South Hall, a dormitory (1873). In 1890,
a detached Classical Revival Gymnasium (figures
2-31 and 2-32) was constructed west of South Hall.
The Gymnasium, now known as the Payne Gallery,
remained a detached building until 1982, when Foy
Hall was constructed. The Gymnasium was the
school’s first dedicated modern athletic facility for
the student body, and an early example of such in
an era where there was an increasing emphasis on
the benefits of physical education and team sports
as a complement to education (Moravian College
2007:6,14-17; Weinlick 1977:90).
The Female Seminary initially educated primary
and secondary school pupils of eight to sixteen
years, and the age of its students extended to 19 by
the 1850s. The popularity of secondary education
increased as the century went on. The school was
formally chartered for the first time in 1863 under
the name Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies, and
the first diplomas were granted to the class of 1876.
By the 1890s, a college course had become part of
the academic offerings, and the school was divided
into the Seminary (i.e. high school) Department
and the College Department. The first bachelor’s
degree was awarded in 1896, but remained the only
one until several more years had passed. In 1893,
Dr. J. Max Hark became principal. The same year,
the school began to move toward autonomy when
the church Synod approved the creation of the first
Board of Trustees “separate and distinct from the
Provincial Elders’ Conference.” Five years later, the
school was moving towards becoming a full college,
and alumnae associations began to form in 1899 to
raise funds to establish an endowment (Bethlehem
Book Committee 1976:266; Weinlick 1977:91).
The turn of the century brought some changes to
the school. In 1910, the wooden fence protecting
the Pleasure Grounds was removed, opening the
campus to the town for the first time. Tennis courts
and playing fields were constructed downhill from
the gardens. In 1911, the Weingartner School of
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 21

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Music was established within the Seminary, raising
the number of music instructors from five to
seven, and augmenting Bethlehem’s considerable
reputation as a center for music talent and
instruction (Bethlehem Book Committee 1976:266).
An early twentieth century college catalog described
the landscape of the Church Street campus in
glowing terms:
Figure 2-29. West Hall (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-30. New Chapel, now known as Peter Hall, at right and
South Hall at left (Moravian College Public Relations).
Figure 2-31. Gymnasium, completed in 1890, view ca. 1900
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-32. Gymnasium interior, 1913 fencing class (Moravian
College Archives).
The six stately buildings (are) connected by
covered passages (and) are surrounded by
elms and terraced lawns.
Behind the buildings stretches the
campus. The Upper Campus is a large
open quadrangle on which face ivy-clad
buildings, with a group of stately elms
to the south. At one end of the well-kept
grass slopes is the Rose Garden. The
Lower Campus is a large expanse of level
lawn facing Main Street on the West and
extending to the tennis courts on the east.
On this plot are a large flagpole, a sundial,
and a fountain. The southeast portion of the
campus is known as the Sundial Garden,
well shaded and terraced around the
edges, but with an open space on the lower
level large enough for baseball, hockey and
soccer, and track events. Here the Spring
Festivals are held (Reker and Reid 1992:26)
Views of the early twentieth century show that
the Lower Campus grounds are still wooded but
considerably more open than previously, with an
elaborate gateway, round fountain, and flagpole
situated below the Gymnasium, on a site that
is now occupied by Foy Hall and a parking area
(figures 2-33, 2-34, and 2-35). Irregular winding paths
and scattered trees characterize the hillside in 1936
views, which show the immediate rear of the Single
Brethren’s House as much more open than before.
An even more important change occurred in May
1913, when the school formally obtained official
status as a women’s college. On May 19, the school’s
name was changed to Moravian Seminary and
College for Women. On May 28, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania granted accreditation to the College,
meaning that its graduates were qualified to teach
in the state’s public schools. Enrollment rose almost
immediately; by 1914 the College Department had
60 students. Six degrees were awarded in 1914, and
the first full class of 21 graduated in 1915 (Reker
and Reid 1992:24; Yates 1976:266-267).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 22

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The Moravian Seminary and College for Women
later acquired two more historic buildings along
Church Street. In 1914, it gained ownership of the
Frueauff House, which had originally been built in
1819 as a dwelling for the head of school. By this
time, the two-story house had been expanded to four
stories. Clewell Hall (figure 2-36), a French Second
Empire residence built in 1867, was acquired by the
Seminary in 1941 and housed both students and
faculty until 1954 (Moravian College 2007:6,12-13).
Figure 2-33. Wooded slope above playing fields, 1943. Wall at
right contains entrance to eighteenth-century Moravian root
cellars (Moravian Seminary and College for Women, 1943
Yearbook).
During the Depression, a gap between the Seminary
program for younger students and the College
program for older students began to widen, as
families invested more heavily in college degrees
rather than private school for younger students.
In 1949, the Moravian Seminary and College for
Women received the Green Pond campus, a 42-acre
country estate that was subsequently used to house
the upper grades (7-12) of the Female Seminary. The
new campus soon housed 40 boarding students, 30
day students, and faculty. The elementary school
and the College division remained on Church Street
(Reker and Reid 1992:17; Weinlick 1977:96-99).
Figure 2-34. Gateway to Lower Campus, ca. 1930s (Moravian
College Archives).
Figure 2-35. View of lower campus fountain and flagpole, ca.
1920s (Moravian Seminary and College for Women viewbook,
Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 2-36. Modern view of Clewell Hall (Moravian College
Public Relations).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 23

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The Moravian College and
Theological Seminary
In 1743, a Moravian boys’ school was established
in Bethlehem. Due to space constraints, it moved
to Nazareth in 1759, where it remained until
its eventual closing in 1929. This Nazareth
Hall Academy initially educated primary and
secondary students. By the early 1800s, the aging
European-trained ministers of the Moravian
Church in America were dwindling in number
and young ministers were not arriving to replace
them due to the Napoleonic Wars. Additionally, it
was felt that seminarians could be best trained in
the country they would eventually serve. Church
leaders began campaigning to establish the first
Moravian theological seminary in the United
States, and the headmaster of Nazareth Hall, Jacob
Van Vleck, offered his school as a place to begin
such instruction. On October 2, 1807, the Moravian
Theological Seminary began as a tiny department
within Nazareth Hall School with two teachers and
just three students (Moravian College 2007:3,6-7;
Myers 1982:160; Weinlick 1977:1-2).
The Moravian Theological Seminary grew slowly.
Its curriculum included both liberal arts subjects
and theological studies, which was standard fare for
American divinity schools. In this period there was
no clear separation between theological and college
studies at Moravian or other colleges and divinity
schools of the period. Students often entered as
young teens, and younger graduates typically
followed their education with several years of
teaching at Nazareth Hall or another Moravian
school before assuming the duties of a minister.
This training both to teach and to minister not only
provided clergy, but also reinforced the Moravian
beliefs in the benefits of education by providing a
source of American teachers (Weinlick 1977:2).
During its early years, the school led a peripatetic
life. In 1830, the Moravian Theological Seminary
left its original location at Nazareth Hall and moved
to a nearby building called The Cottage. It later
moved to Bethlehem and was housed on Broad
Street from 1838 to 1851, then returned to Nazareth
where it occupied the Whitefield House (see figure
2-2). It operated for a short time in Philadelphia
during 1855 and 1856 before returning one last time
to the Whitefield House. In 1858, it moved to the
former Nisky Hill Seminary on East Church Street
in Bethlehem (figure 2-37), where it remained for
almost 35 years. At this point, the Provincial Synod
of the Moravian Church decided that the school
should expand its curriculum into a full four-year
college program offering degrees. The school was
also renamed to reflect its college program. In
1863, it was accredited by the State of Pennsylvania
as Moravian College and Theological Seminary.
Eventually, the standard program for theological
students became a four-year college course plus
two years of theological study (Myers 1982:160-161;
Reker and Reid 1992:15; Weinlick 1977:2-3).
Once the school was settled in more secure
quarters, it entered a period of stability and growth.
Eventually, it outgrew its facilities. Concurrently,
the Moravian Church was beginning to realize that
improving the school and increasing the numbers
of graduates would contribute to the success of the
overall denomination.
In 1888, the Moravian Church decided to create
a larger permanent home for the Men’s College
and Theological Seminary. Several locations were
considered, among them sites offered by Moravian
congregations in Bethlehem, Gnadenhuetten,
Ohio and Watertown, Wisconsin. The Bethlehem
congregation offered a large parcel of vacant
farmland along Main Street at the northern edge
of the developing city, and this site was chosen to
become the new campus. The land was felt to be
beautifully situated on a hilltop and advantageous
as a site for the school. Keeping the Seminary
in Bethlehem was important to members of the
building committee, who felt that the longtime
history of the school in the area would help it flourish
in its new location. The large size of the Bethlehem
congregation, and the availability of positions for
college graduates in Bethlehem schools and local
businesses, also contributed to the decision. Part
Figure 2-37. Moravian College and Theological Seminary on
East Church Street, ca. 1880s (Moravian Church Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 24

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
of the block already contained a privately owned
lot with a ca. 1820 Greek Revival farmhouse (figure
2-38). This property was purchased in 1889 to form
part of the campus, and Hamilton House, as the
dwelling is now known, was renovated and became
the Resident Professor’s House for the new campus.
Its name honors the first Resident Professor, the Rev.
J. Taylor Hamilton (Levering 1903:763; Moravian
College 2007:6-7, 20; Schamberger 2008; Schwarze
1910:188-89; Weinlick 1977:4-5).
The Church conducted a fundraising campaign
to support the construction of the new campus
buildings. The first two buildings for the Men’s
College were Comenius Hall, constructed in 1891,
and Zinzendorf Hall, completed the same year
(figure 2-39). Comenius Hall (figure 2-40) was built
in a Richardsonian Romanesque style and was
designed by architect A.W. Leh. The ornate exterior
was adorned with Moravian tilework and a slate
roof. Nearly all needs of the school were met within
this single building, which contained dormitories,
classrooms, and a basement gymnasium. In 1893,
the Gothic Revival Borhek Chapel (figure 2-41) was
constructed on its north end. The chapel was given
by Mr. and Mrs. Ashton C. Borhek in memory of
their daughter, Helen Stadiger Borhek, who died
at a young age. A corresponding addition on the
south end of Comenius was planned but was not
built at this point (Moravian College 2007:7-8; Yates
1976:262).
Figure 2-38. Undated post 1892 view of Hamilton House
(Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 2-39. Zinzendorf Hall (1891), Borhek Chapel (1893) and
west façade of Comenius Hall (1891), pre-1907 view (Moravian
College Archives).
Zinzendorf Hall (figure 2-42), a smaller brick building
with a hipped, dormered roof and Dutch Colonial
details, was constructed next to Hamilton House as
a refectory and laundry for the college. Hamilton,
Comenius, and Zinzendorf were officially occupied
in September 1892 (Moravian College 2007:7-8;
Weinlick 1977:4).
At this point, Moravian College and Theological
Seminary offered its students both a theological
education track to prepare the young men for
ministry, and a collegiate track. In 1896, a Latin
Scientific undergraduate program was begun to
provide a liberal arts college education to students
seeking vocations other than ministry. However,
the general public perception of the college was
that it was exclusively a theological seminary, and
changing its reputation to include its status as a
four-year liberal arts college proved challenging.
The College struggled to advertise the collegiate
alternative as a means of increasing the size of the
student body, which numbered only 31 in 1903.
In 1906, 47 students were enrolled, with 34 in
Figure 2-40. Comenius Hall (1891), early postcard view
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-41. Borhek Memorial Chapel (1893), ca. 1890s (Moravian
College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 25

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the theological program and 13 in the liberal arts
program. It was not until 1920 that the collegiate
course students would outnumber the theological
students; the enrollment was now up to 64 students,
with 29 in the theological program and 35 in liberal
arts (Reker and Reid 1992:16; Bethlehem Book
Committee 1976:264-265).
Figure 2-42. Zinzendorf Hall, ca. 1890s (Moravian College
Archives).
Figure 2-43. Newly completed Harvey Library, ca. 1908
(Moravian College Archives).
The first decades of the twentieth century saw
gradual expansion to the campus facilities at
Moravian College and Theological Seminary.
In honor of the school’s centennial, the Harvey
Memorial Library was constructed on the south
end of Comenius in 1907 (figure 2-43). This addition
had been envisioned at the time of the initial
construction but was not fulfilled until this point.
On October 31, 1913, the upper floors of Comenius
caught fire and were largely gutted (figure 2-44).
With financial support from the Church, alumni,
and friends, repairs were quickly made and the
restored building was reopened in 1914 (Moravian
College 2007:8).
Moravian’s student body decided by 1910 that
the basement of Comenius was insufficient as a
gymnasium, and began their own fundraising
initiative to build a new one. The new Colonial
Revival gambrel-roofed brick gymnasium, now
known as Monocacy Hall, was added in 1912-1913.
The three-story gymnasium had an open interior
(figure 2-45) with an upper-level oval track and
exposed ceiling beams (Weinlick 1977:21-22).
World War I mobilization had significant impacts
on Moravian College and Theological Seminary,
much as it did on colleges elsewhere. A Students’
Army Training Corps was established at the school
in 1918 (Reker and Reid 1992:16).
Figure 2-44. Comenius Hall, following the fire of October 31,
1913 (Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 2-45. Early view of 1913 Gymnasium, now known as
Monocacy Hall (Moravian College Archives).
After years of effort, Moravian College and
Theological Seminary received accreditation from
the Association of College and Secondary Schools
of the Middle Atlantic States in 1922 (Reker and
Reid 1992:16).
In 1923, the Memorial Science Building was
constructed in Colonial Revival style (figure 2-46).
Six years later, the College constructed a pair of
stone buildings set perpendicular to one another
(figure 2-47). The first building, completed in 1929,
was named Colonial Hall and contained student
dormitory housing. The second building, completed
in 1930, was built to house the Moravian Church
Archives. President Schwarze was responsible for
moving the archives onto the campus in 1930. He
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 26

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
was a long-time archivist and wanted this church
and community resource housed on-campus. A
third building was originally planned to create
a quadrangle with the first two, but was never
built. The two buildings, now known collectively
as Colonial Hall, were constructed of stone in
a style echoing the European buildings of the
early Moravian settlement, including segmentalarched
brick window lintels. More modern revival
details, such as the wooden shutters, combined to
create a picturesque small complex set on a wide
lawn (Moravian College 2007:7-9; Reker and Reid
1992:17; Schamberger 2008).
Streets surrounding the Moravian campus
developed rapidly into a residential neighborhood
beginning in the 1890s. A variety of housing stock,
ranging from modest working-class row houses and
duplexes to bungalows to spacious Queen Anne and
Colonial Revival suburban houses, soon lined the
nearby streets on all sides. Owing to the slowdown
of construction during the Great Depression, there
remained many vacant lots in the neighborhood
among the older houses. Neighborhood children
Figure 2-46. Recent view of Memorial Hall (Moravian College
Public Relations).
of the 1930s and 1940s played freely in these lots
and fields, which eventually disappeared when
new housing was built after 1945 and the College
obtained some of the lots for parking areas
(Moravian College 2007:9; Steers 2007:26-27).
Moravian College and Theological Seminary was
struggling financially by the late 1930s. The Great
Depression caused financial difficulties at small
colleges nationwide. Moravian’s endowment was
insufficient to support the school’s generosity
toward certain students. At the time, the school
provided full scholarships for all students entering
ministry and steeply discounted tuition for sons of
Moravian ministers. A $48,000 deficit had accrued by
1940. Although higher enrollment and an increase
in student paying full tuition helped offset the debt
initially, the onset of U.S. involvement in World
War II made matters far worse. The national draft
of college-aged men forced many students to enlist
voluntarily before they were called up to serve in
the military. During the 1942-1943 academic year,
half the students dropped out, and the school was
forced to lay off 12 of the 20 faculty (Steers 2007:71-
72).
During the enrollment drop, President Haupert
instituted a $60,000 series of renovations in
anticipation of a high number of students returning
to finish their education. The existing buildings
were repurposed or extensively remodeled to
provide more dormitory spaces. The upper floors
of Comenius were redone to house 58 students
instead of 30, and remodeling on the lower floors
added more classrooms. Zinzendorf’s dining facility
was enlarged by repurposing the former laundry
in the basement as a second dining hall. Modern
fluorescent lighting was installed in the campus
buildings at this time. This planning proved its
worth when enrollment climbed from 191 to 336
in a one-year period between 1946 and 1947. Both
resident and day students were part of the group
(Weinlick 1977:70-72).
With increased enrollment projected to continue,
the College began a Sesquicentennial fundraising
campaign and sought guidance from a professional
fundraising agency. Paul Hightower of the Marts
and Lundy firm helped the school plan two discrete
campaigns within the next decade, and introduced
new concepts of stewardship and funding potential
to the Moravian Church (Weinlick 1977:78-84).
Figure 2-47. Colonial Hall, postcard view ca. 1950s (Moravian
College Archives).
The 1950s began with the construction of a
long-awaited field house. Completed in 1952,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 27

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
College Hall (figure 2-48) provided modern athletic
facilities as well as a high-capacity space for large
church and community events. The building was
renamed Archibald Johnston Hall in 1958, honoring
Bethlehem’s first mayor and Moravian’s longtime
trustee, Archibald Johnston (Weinlick 1977:84-85).
Figure 2-48. Johnston Hall under construction (Moravian College
Archives).
Merger of Two Institutions
As the 1950s dawned, Moravian Seminary and
College for Women was a struggling institution,
largely due to the fact that it lacked an endowment
and its financial resources were dependent on
student tuition and fees. Student enrollment
had dropped for a number of reasons, including
the unfulfilled need for accreditation from the
Middle States Association. Other potential factors
included a low birthrate during the Depression, the
abundance of jobs for high school graduates which
made college seem less necessary, and the impact of
the Korean War on students’ ability to afford private
school or college. By 1951, the school was struggling
to survive and the trustees recommended closure of
the Lower School and consolidation of the remaining
operation at the Green Pond Campus. The school
also sought fundraising advice from the Marts and
Lundy firm, but no campaigns were launched. By
1953, the school was heavily in debt and could not
borrow more funds (Weinlick 1977:98-99).
In early 1953, F.P. Stocker, who was a trustee of
Moravian College and Theological Seminary and
a member of the Church’s executive board (and
by extension a trustee of the Moravian Seminary),
introduced the idea of a trial combination of the
women’s and men’s schools. He discussed the idea
of a joint administration with Moravian College
president Raymond S. Haupert, and proposed that
this be undertaken for a trial period to determine
the long-term viability of such a merger. Haupert
would become the joint administrator of the two
schools (Weinlick 1977:99).
The trustees of both schools met on May 11, 1953
and quickly approved Stocker and Haupert’s
plan. President David Weinland of the Moravian
Seminary and College for Women immediately
stepped down and was succeeded by Haupert.
Administrative changes were worked out first; the
initial plan intended that the schools would retain
separate campuses, faculties, and student bodies
for the first year. By July, the trustees had approved
the separation of the Female Seminary at Green
Pond and its administration from the men’s and
women’s colleges and men’s theological seminary.
In October, a joint committee of trustees approved
a formal merger of the college and theological
faculties, and faculty members gave their approval
as well (Weinlick 1977:99-100).
On February 8, 1954, the trustees of both schools
proved a formal legal merger of the schools, and
this merger was achieved on November 2, 1954.
On January 1, 1955, President Haupert officially
announced the merger and the name of the new
institution: Moravian College. Under the umbrella
of Moravian College, three schools would operate:
a coeducational liberal arts college, with Middle
Atlantic States accreditation; the graduate-level
Moravian Theological Seminary, with American
Association of Theological Schools accreditation;
and the Moravian Seminary for Girls, a secondary
boarding school based at the Green Pond campus
(Weinlick 1977:100).
The Moravian Seminary for Girls was separated
in 1956 from the merged Moravian College
and Theological Seminary. Though planned for
sooner, this separation needed approval of the
Church Synod, which did not occur until that year.
Moravian College, with a total enrollment of 500,
became the first coeducational private college in the
Lehigh Valley (Moravian College 2007:9; Weinlick
1977:100-102).
Students largely welcomed the merger and
immediately began planning new joint
extracurricular activities and institutions that
blended the traditions of the two former colleges.
Commencements, student governments, course
offerings, and alumni/alumnae associations were
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 28

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
combined in the early years of Moravian College.
The College’s music program was greatly enhanced
by the combination of the men’s and women’s glee
clubs into the College Choir. Social groups, fine arts,
and athletics also improved following the merger
(Weinlick 1977:101, 115).
Moravian College Campus
Expansion: 1956-1978
The mid-1950s saw the raising of over $1 million
in funds to support Moravian College, including
a $150,000 bequest in March 1955 from the late
Adolph Wiesbach, a Moravian Church member
from North Dakota who took interest in the college
though he had never been there; a $124,300 grant
from the Ford Foundation in December 1955; and
the results of the successful Moravian Development
Program fundraising campaign by 1958. The
funding paid the remaining costs of College Hall
(Johnston Hall), and plans were made for endowed
professorships, scholarships, and several new
buildings and campus improvements. The building
plans included new landscaping, a men’s dormitory,
a new science building, and a new library (Weinlick
1977:104-105).
The question of how best to integrate two separate
campuses into a single institution took time to
resolve. Given the smaller size of the Church Street
campus, most future new building development
was to occur at the Main Street Campus, but
renovations would be made at both sites to achieve
coeducation and eventually expand the size of the
school to 1,200 students. Initially, renovations were
made to several of the existing buildings, and some
repurposing occurred. Men moved into Clewell
Hall on the Church Street campus, and spaces in
Colonial Hall’s dormitory wing and Comenius Hall
were converted to classrooms. New parking areas
were added on both campuses (Weinlick 1977:105).
The first new building of the post-merger period
was the Rau-Hassler dormitory complex west of
Johnston Hall (figure 2-49). This area had much
open space which would eventually be used for
additional buildings. As early as 1958, there was
discussion of building a Student Union, but it took
four years for this to become a reality. Located to the
south of Johnston Hall, the College Union Building
(figure 2-50) was finished in the spring of 1962. Seven
years later, it was renamed the Haupert Union
Building in honor of retiring President Haupert,
and has since been known as the HUB. From its
completion, the HUB has occupied a vital role as the
center of campus life with its meeting, auditorium,
and dining facilities (Weinlick 1977:109).
With the construction of new buildings, functions
in several old buildings on the Main Street Campus
were changed. Colonial Hall and Comenius Hall,
both of which had contained dormitory space, were
renovated as academic and administrative buildings.
Zinzendorf Hall, the former refectory, became a
classroom, administrative, and dormitory building
for the Theological Seminary, and was known as
the Seminary Building for a time. Johnston Hall’s
construction had meant the conversion of the 1912
Gymnasium into a theater; after construction of the
HUB, the building was converted from a theater to
a library annex (Weinlick 1977:110).
In 1962, the College produced a ten-year plan of
development. By this time, it had begun acquiring
additional land outside the original campus, with a
purchase of over three acres south of Steel Field and
Figure 2-49. Rau-Hassler Dormitories (Moravian College
Archives).
Figure 2-50. Haupert Union Building, rear view (Moravian
College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 29

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 2-51. Steel Field grandstand (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-52. Demolition of houses on Monocacy Street in 1966 to
make way for Reeves Library (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-53. Completed Reeves Library (1967), west façade
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-54. Ca. 1970 sketch for new Hall of Science, now Collier
Hall of Science (Moravian College Archives).
including part of Laurel Street. Steel Field had been
constructed in 1916 by Bethlehem Steel as a soccer
field for its employees, and later was acquired by
Lehigh University. Lehigh’s projected expansion
plans did not include further use of Steel Field, and
Moravian College took the opportunity to purchase
it as part of its own expansion. Steel Field was
purchased in 1962, bringing the additional land
acquisition total to 15 acres and giving the College
a new grandstand and large playing fields (figure
2-51). During the 1960s, the Steel Field property
was improved with playing fields, tennis courts,
and a small field house (Weinlick 1977:110-111).
Academic facilities expanded greatly. In March,
1966, a block of houses owned by the College on
Monocacy Street, opposite Hamilton House, was
razed (figure 2-52), and the street was vacated by the
city and became part of the campus grounds. This
site became the home of the new Reeves Library
(figure 2-53), completed in 1967. The new 200,000-
volume library replaced both Harvey Library
and the Library Annex. Harvey was converted to
more offices, and the Annex was renovated as an
academic building housing a lecture hall and the
psychology department. The 1960s concluded
with the 1969 groundbreaking for a new $4 million
Science Center, completed in 1971 and later named
the Collier Hall of Science (figure 2-54). No longer
needed for science, Memorial Hall was renovated
in 1973 to become the home of student affairs
(Weinlick 1977:111-114, 154).
The west side of the Main Street campus was soon
dotted with dormitories (figure 2-55). Student
accommodations were expanded greatly during the
1960s and 1970s. These included two new dormitory
facilities named after their benefactors: Willard C.
Bernhardt Hall in 1964 and Imogene Beck Wilhelm
Hall in 1965 (figure 2-56). Another dorm, Jo Smith
Hall, was completed in 1972. Beck Hall (figure 2-57)
and de Schweinitz Hall were finished in 1978.
Work was also done on the Church Street Campus,
but was focused on renovation and creating
both aesthetic and functional improvements.
The dual goal of modernizing and renovating
historic buildings while restoring their exteriors
was developed soon after the merger when Main
Hall was renovated in 1958. The College desired
modern facilities, but also wished to maintain good
relations with Historic Bethlehem and participate in
the renewal and restoration of the city’s early core.
Although the interior of Main Hall was renovated as
modern dormitory rooms and office/lounge space,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 30

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 2-55. View of the east side of Main Street Campus, ca.
1970s (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 2-56. Bernhardt and Wilhelm dormitories (Moravian
College Public Relations).
the exterior was carefully restored to its original
appearance (figure 2-58). Next, a narrow connecting
annex between Main Hall and the Single Brethren’s
House was removed, and porches were removed
from the back of the latter to return it to its earlier
appearance. During the 1970s, the Single Brethren’s
House and most of the Hurd Campus buildings
were restored. Much in the same vein, Borhek
Memorial Chapel on the Main Street Campus was
restored to its 1893 appearance by the fall of 1967
(Weinlick 1977:105-106, 114).
During the 1960s and 1970s, Moravian College
obtained a number of private homes on streets
surrounding the Main Street campus. Many of
these houses were used as apartments for married
Seminary students, but over time have evolved into
a combination of student housing, Greek houses,
offices, and student services. Some acquisitions,
like the houses on Monocacy Street and Otis Place,
were torn down to construct college facilities or
parking areas (Moravian College 2007:9; Steers
2007:26-27).
2.3 Historic Preservation in
Bethlehem
1966 saw the passage of the National Historic
Preservation Act, which established the National
Register of Historic Places and made provisions
for the documentation and preservation of historic
properties. Section 106 of the Act provided
unprecedented consideration of historic resources
during government-funded processes, and state
historic preservation offices were established to
oversee documentation and listing of important
historic buildings and sites.
Figure 2-57. Beck dormitory (Moravian College Public Relations).
Figure 2-58. Main Hall restored, recent view (Moravian College
Public Relations).
Nationwide, cities were concerned with
deteriorating downtowns following an exodus of
residents and businesses to new suburbs during the
early- to mid-twentieth century. Combating blight
and revitalizing urban areas were key needs, and
many cities attempted to do this through razing
entire blocks of older buildings and constructing
modern-style new ones in their places. The concept
of rehabilitating and using old buildings as a tool
to revitalization was a radical departure from the
prevailing mindset.
Bethlehem’s leaders had the foresight to see the
wisdom of protecting the city’s historic built
environment. Beginning in the late 1950s, the City
of Bethlehem became interested in renewing its
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 31

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historic core, particularly the oldest area around
the Church Street campus. The Kemerer Museum,
devoted to the nineteenth century history of
Bethlehem, was at this time housed on the ground
floor of the Single Brethren’s House. At the same
time, the Historic Bethlehem organization was in
its early stages, and by the early 1960s was also
housed in the Single Brethren’s House.
In consultation with the museum and Historic
Bethlehem, the College began its first true
restoration project when renovations were made
to Main Hall beginning in 1958. Although changes
were made to the interior to provide modern
dormitory accommodations on the upper floors
and offices and public spaces on the basement
and first floor levels, the exterior was carefully
restored to its 1854 appearance (figure 2-59). The
white paint was removed from the exterior and the
brickwork repointed. Exterior details, including the
windows and doors, were restored to their original
appearance (Weinlick 1977:106).
Figure 2-59. View of the Single Brethren’s House and West Hall,
looking southeast, ca. 1970 (Moravian Church Archives).
2.4 Moravian’s Recent
Years
The Moravian Theological Seminary moved to its
current location in 1976, when the Paul Bahnson
Center (figure 2-60) was completed. In 1977, the
Moravian Archives were relocated from their
longtime home in Colonial Hall to a new building
on Locust Street east of Main Street. The Moravian
Archives were owned by the Moravian Congregation
of Bethlehem and the Moravian Church, Northern
Province. When the College became independent
of the Moravian Church in 1954, there was no need
for the church archives to remain on campus, so
the College offered the Church Archives a parcel of
land nearby. This allowed the Archives to expand
its facility and freed additional space in Colonial
Hall for the College, which eventually converted
the entire building to administrative offices
(Schamberger 2008).
On the Church Street campus, Moravian expanded
its music and art facilities through a major
construction project in 1982. The 1890 Gymnasium,
used at that time as an art studio, was renovated
as an art gallery and renamed Payne Art Gallery.
To create both a new concert hall and a connector
between South Hall and Payne Gallery, the college
constructed Foy Hall (figures 2-61 and 2-62) at the
same time. Foy Hall contains a modern concert hall
for music performances. The original entrance to
the Gymnasium building is no longer in use; access
is now through Foy Hall.
The late 1980s and early 1990s saw continued growth
at Moravian, necessitating the construction of five
new dormitory complexes at the North Main Street
Campus. These include the Hillside complex, the
College’s first townhouse-style student residences.
The newest building on either campus is the Priscilla
Payne Hurd Academic Complex (figure 2-63) at the
North Main Street campus, which was designed to
blend in with the older buildings nearby (Moravian
College 2007:9).
The Church Street campus was renamed the Priscilla
Payne Hurd Campus in October 2001, in honor of
Mrs. Priscilla Payne Hurd, a longtime benefactor and
trustee of Moravian College. A trustee since 1979,
Mrs. Hurd became the chair of the Board of Trustees
in 1999. She was awarded the honorary degree of
Doctor of Letters from Moravian College in 1993.
The campus was renamed in recognition of her
support of the institution, including funding for the
Figure 2-60. Paul Bahnson Center (1976), new home of the
Moravian Theological Seminary (Moravian College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 32

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Hurd Center for Music and Art, the establishment
of the Payne Art Gallery, and the launching of the
Comenius Scholarships for outstanding students. As
chair of Moravian’s Board, Mrs. Hurd spearheaded
major improvements in the College’s infrastructure
and programs, including construction of the new
academic complex (2003) and townhouse-style
student residences, and a campus-wide renovation
of signage and landscaping (Schamberger 2008).
2.5 Conclusion
Figure 2-61. Foy Hall under construction, 1982 (Moravian
College Archives).
Figure 2-62. Sketch plan for Foy Concert Hall (Moravian College
Archives).
Moravian College has traversed over two centuries
to its present state. Throughout this time, it has not
lost sight of its Moravian roots and has demonstrated
a profound appreciation for its history while at the
same time updating its programs and providing
modern amenities for its present and future.
As the first Moravian settlers did, the College
continues to value and encourage excellence in
education, particularly music and the fine arts, and
has perpetuated the strong academic reputation
developed in the Bethlehem Female Seminary’s
early years. Meanwhile, it involves the larger
community through lectures, concerts, exhibitions,
and athletics, and its restored historic buildings
have become a gateway and emblem for the City
of Bethlehem. Moravian’s process of adaptive reuse
paired with preservation illustrates the enduring
value of historic buildings and resources. The
College’s efforts to restore its historic Church Street
buildings have contributed immeasurably to the
preservation of the largest and most important
group of Germanic buildings in the United States
and to the revival of Old Bethlehem. Meanwhile, its
new buildings have almost unanimously honored
and echoed these longtime Bethlehem landmarks.
Figure 2-63. Priscilla Payne Hurd Academic Complex, completed
in 2003 (Moravian College Public Relations).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 2 • Historic Overview • 33

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Three
Moravian College in Context
3.0 Introduction
Moravian College and its parent institutions hold
a unique place when considered through the lens
of larger movements and trends over the past
260 years. The cultural forces that resurrected
the Moravian faith from longtime secrecy, and
created safe havens for the Moravian missionaries
first in Saxony and later in North America, were
ultimately strong enough to result in a nearly
undiluted transplant of Moravian culture to
Bethlehem. The Moravian settlers and community
of early Bethlehem differed from other European
colonists in myriad ways. Their viewpoints on
religion, community planning, societal constructs,
evangelism, and education were markedly different
from other demographics. Bethlehem itself, with
its initial adherence to the Economy and role as the
hub of the North American Moravian missionary
network, developed physically to an extent far
beyond other Moravian settlements, but differed
from these and other American settlements in
its adherence to the detailed planning directives
issued from Herrnhut. As time passed, however,
Bethlehem was secularized and began to grow in
ways more consistent with other American cities of
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Similarly, the Moravian schools for men and
women began as distinct, high-quality educational
institutions, and were all the more remarkable
when compared with the paucity of educational
opportunities available to most North American
youth prior to the availability of public education.
Again, as the Moravian culture grew more secular
and the adherents assimilated into the larger fabric
of American lifeways, both the women’s and men’s
schools developed physically and architecturally
in ways consistent with larger American
educational trends. The merger of two schools to
the current Moravian College resulted in continued
development along these lines.
Finally, Moravian College occupies a unique place in
historic preservation history. The 1950s partnering
of the school and Historic Bethlehem to work
toward the preservation, restoration, and adaptive
reuse of its Hurd Campus buildings represents a
prescient and innovative effort to revitalize the
historic downtown.
This chapter explores Moravian’s role throughout its
historical periods, both as an innovative and unique
exception to the surrounding cultural norms, and
as a reflection of larger trends and values shared
with other American communities and institutions.
In particular, it places Moravian and its parent
schools along the continuum of American higher
education and campus planning history.
3.1 Community Planning
and Development
Moravian Settlements in North
America
Bethlehem was from the beginning the capital
city of Moravianism in North America. Unlike
other Moravian settlements, it communicated
directly with the church leaders at Herrnhut,
and planning for new settlements was done at
Bethlehem. Bethlehem was also designed as the
central industrial processing facility for crops
and raw materials generated by the outlying
settlements and farms. It carried on trade with other
settlements, accepting raw materials in exchange
for the manufactured goods it produced. The
congregation at Bethlehem was thus at the center
of the Moravian New World, and set precedents
for other Moravian congregations. Its buildings
represented the most direct translation of European
Moravian architecture into an American settlement
(Murtagh 1967:19).
Each Moravian settlement in North America shared
the trait of having been carefully planned, with a
predetermined role to play in the greater Moravian
world. Nazareth, only nine miles from Bethlehem,
was the “manor town,” second in command to
Bethlehem. Lititz was intended to be an educational
center. Emmaus and Lebanon, PA and Hope, NJ
were agricultural centers. Nain and Gnadenhuetten
were missionary outposts which evangelized
Native Americans and housed converts (Murtagh
1967:19).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 35

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Moravians of the colonial period believed that the
Economy system was the most economical means
of establishing themselves in the New World. In
exchange for basic needs, each community member
gave his or her labor to support the Moravian
community and its important missionary work.
Keeping the focus on the community rather than
individuals and families enabled the colonists
to unanimously work toward the dual goals of
evangelizing the Native Americans and keeping
the settlement going as the home base for and
supporter of the missionary work.
Unlike Bethlehem, other Moravian settlements were
unable to maintain the communal living system.
Their lack of direct contact with the church leaders
at Herrnhut, coupled with pressure to lead lives
more in keeping with non-Moravian neighbors,
caused these settlers to live as individual families.
Bethlehem retained its system until 1762, at which
time it too shifted toward nuclear families and
away from choirs. Still, Bethlehem remained closed
to non-Moravian residents until 1845 (Schamberger
2008, personal communication).
Figure 3-1. 1766 plan of Bethlehem (Murtagh 1967:15).
Moravian Bethlehem
Bethlehem’s plan was derived from the
self-sufficient planned community model
developed at Herrnhut and refined at the newer
towns of Nisky and Kleine Welk nearby (figures 3-1,
3-2, 3-3, 3-4). Common characteristics of the three
European plans included the siting of the major
buildings around a central square; the placement
of the central square to connect with major access
roads; a Gemeinhaus which housed the community’s
chapel and dominated the center of the town; large
houses for the different choirs; gardens associated
with each choir house; spaces to house girls’ and
boys’ boarding schools; a Congregational Inn; an
apothecary; a store; and industrial shop buildings
such as tanneries and tobacco and soap factories.
Nisky’s central square was laid out in formal
gardens, and another garden, later replicated in
Nazareth (figure 3-5) and Bethlehem as the “pleasure
gardens,” featured both a formal section and an
asymmetrical informal section. The Nisky garden
was intended as a recreational space for the boys’
boarding school (Murtagh 1967:9-11).
Between 1741 and 1758, Bethlehem was constructed
along these same lines and incorporated many of
the same planning features. The settlement grew
in a carefully planned and orderly fashion, given
the oversight of Count von Zinzendorf and the
Figure 3-2. Engraving of Herrnhut, 1722 town plan (Murtagh
1967:8).
Figure 3-3. Engraving of Nisky, 1742 town plan (Murtagh
1967:8).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 36

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
church authorities in Herrnhut. The town plan
incorporated the old north-south Native American
trail leading north from Philadelphia to the Lehigh
River ford, and then crossing the Monocacy
peninsula through the town toward Nazareth.
This became the primary travel route through the
town and was the predecessor of present-day Main
Street. Intersecting this road on the east were two
east-west streets set parallel to one another. The
Figure 3-4. Engraving of Klein Welke, 1756 town plan (Murtagh
1967:8).
Figure 3-5. Plan of Nazareth, 1771 town plan (Murtagh 1967:20).
southern of these two streets, Sisters’ Lane (now
West Church Street), was where the first buildings,
including the Gemeinhaus and most of the choir
buildings, were built. The northern of the two
streets was called the Ladengasse and contained the
community store, cemetery, and a few individual
dwellings. The north end of the town contained
the farm buildings. The Platz, or town square, was
located at what is now the intersection of Main and
West Church Street and extended north almost
to the Ladengasse. It was bounded on the south
by the Single Brethren’s House, on the west by
the Monocacy Creek industrial area, on the north
by the farm barns and stables, and on the east
by the doctor’s house, laboratory, and children’s
house. Agricultural fields were cleared around the
settlement, orchards were planted along the eastern
side of the town center, and a small complex of
buildings for use by the Native Americans was
constructed across Monocacy Creek (Levering
1903:258; Murtagh 1967:12-13).
The early buildings housed church members
grouped in the Moravian choir system, as established
at Herrnhut. The growing group of buildings
contained the domestic and worship spaces of the
community. Building uses were fluid and changed
frequently as the community grew. Initially, the
Gemeinhaus housed the different groups in sets of
rooms or larger dormitories. As the population
grew, the single women’s and widows’ choirs lived
in Nazareth due to lack of space to house them
in Bethlehem. Later, multiple large houses were
constructed for single men (brothers), single women
(sisters), widows, and married couples. Each choir
shared household responsibilities and common
worship. The first buildings were constructed on
the north side of Church Street (originally Sisters’
Lane), east of what became Main Street (Murtagh
1967:12; Smaby 1988:92-93).
Garden spaces were an important component of
the new town of Bethlehem. The common gardens
were created to grow the vegetables consumed by
members of the congregation. While fields and
orchards lay somewhat more distant, the gardens
were adjacent to the buildings and close to the
town core. Historic maps and plans indicate that
gardens for the choir houses covered most of the
hill descending from Church Street toward the
south, and the sites of the Single Brethren’s House
and Widows’ House were garden space prior to
their construction. The southern exposure of this
slope undoubtedly played a role in its selection
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 37

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
as the primary garden site for the community,
along with the need to site the garden close to the
houses so it could be conveniently tended. In 1747,
a large garden was created on the slope behind the
newly built Single Brethren’s House. A sizeable
portion of it was used to grow medicinal herbs,
which were carefully harvested and dispensed in
the community’s apothecary shop to be used in
home remedies which formed the basis of that era’s
medical treatment. This garden coincided with an
emphasis on studying native plants and identifying
additional useful herbs; the community had a
laboratory used by the doctor and his assistants
to investigate these plants. Nicholas Garrison’s
historic birdseye views of Bethlehem from the late
1750s (figure 3-6) indicate that the produce and herb
gardens below the Single Brethren’s House and
West Church Street were laid out in formal squares
and rectangles (Levering 1903:203; Murtagh
1967:12-16).
A few small corner outbuildings appeared in
the community gardens by 1758 (figure 3-7). By
the 1770s, the garden area had been partially
consumed by a complex of one-story frame sheds
behind the Single Brethren’s House (figures 3-8 and
3-9). At this point, the community had abandoned
its communal economy and had vastly increased
needs for housing dozens of nuclear families.
Storage was among the unexpected needs of the
revised settlement; undoubtedly, at least some of
these outbuildings and nearby underground cellars
can be attributed to this shift in lifeways.
Another important feature of Bethlehem was the
industrial complex that arose to the west of the
central core along the Monocacy Creek (see figure
3-1). Bethlehem was planned from the beginning
to be the central processing site for the raw goods
produced on the surrounding farms by the Moravian
settlers. Skilled trades were an important component
of Bethlehem’s success, and tradespeople were
deliberately included in every group of settlers that
left Europe for Pennsylvania. The need for water
and a sufficient current for mill power dictated the
selection of the site, which surrounded the original
spring. Water was carted uphill to the town until
a waterworks was built. This facility was among
the most notable technological achievements of the
Moravian community. A millrace was dug parallel
to the Monocacy to power a grist and fulling mill
and an oil mill. Other buildings in the complex
included houses for a blacksmith, locksmith, and
nailsmith; a pottery; a dye house; a cabinetmaker’s
Figure 3-6. Nicholas Garrison’s birdseye view of Bethlehem in
1757 (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 3-7. Golkowski’s view of Bethlehem in 1758 (Moravian
Church Archives).
Figure 3-8. View to the south from the Single Brethren’s House,
showing a plethora of sheds. Engraving by Nicholas Garrison,
1776 (Bethlehem Digital Archives).
Moravian Souvenir
Figure 3-9. engraving of Bethlehem in 1784
(Moravian Souvenir 1856).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 38

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
shop; a slaughterhouse and tannery; a charcoal
shed; and a springhouse. Initially these structures
were log buildings, but between 1759 and 1784, most
were replaced with permanent stone structures.
A smaller secondary industrial complex with a
sawmill, flax mill, and laundry house was built
downstream on the Monocacy peninsula, southeast
of the town (Kane 1963:3-5; Murtagh 1967:13-15;
Myers 1981:35).
At the same time, Bethlehem’s industries were
diversifying and expanding, including the
Bethlehem Iron Company (later Bethlehem Steel),
which underwent major growth between 1905
and 1914. These expansions created more jobs and
caused city growth to accommodate the influx of
new employees. In 1915, Bethlehem Steel created
the Bethlehem Securities Corporation to help its
employees build or purchase homes, and began a
The Moravian Mile: Growth and
Development of the North Main Street
Neighborhood
Although the site of Moravian’s Main Street
Campus was a vacant lot of farmland in the
late 1880s, the City of Bethlehem was rapidly
growing outward and around it. By the 1890s, the
surrounding area of farmland and country estates
was developing into a residential neighborhood.
Rural and suburban uses competed into the early
1900s; a cornfield was still visible immediately to
the south of the Harvey Library building site in a
1907 photo, but was surrounded by recently built
houses (figure 3-10) The new homes encompassed
a variety of types and styles, ranging from modest
Italianate working-class row houses and duplexes
to simple bungalows to spacious Queen Anne,
American Foursquare (figure 3-11) and Colonial
Revival suburban houses.
A number of factors contributed to this development.
Transportation and improvement of city
infrastructure spurred much of the growth. Main
Street was paved in 1887 and electric streetcars soon
appeared, making the North Main Street area easily
accessible from other parts of the city. Construction
of a second Monocacy River bridge also facilitated
transportation and movement throughout the city.
As travel between neighborhoods became easier,
real estate speculators saw development potential
in the large tracts of land outside the city core,
including the area of North Main Street, and began
buying these parcels and subdividing them into
house lots. Many businesspeople and white-collar
professionals purchased land and homes in the
new “suburbs” where they could now enjoy a brief
commute between work and home. Bethlehem and
South Bethlehem unified into one city between
1904 and 1917. The city installed public water and
sewer systems, further increasing the appeal of
the Moravian College neighborhood for residency
(Schamberger 2008, personal communication).
Figure 3-10. Harvey Library cornerstone-laying, 1907, view to
the south. Note cornfield in the background (Moravian Church
Archives).
Figure 3-11. 1201 N. Main Street, one of One of many American
Foursquare single-family dwellings in the North Main Street
neighborhood. This building is still in use as student housing
(Moravian College).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 39

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
project to construct 1,500 units of company housing
spanning both sides of the river. The company also
purchased 18 acres of land in the North Main Street
neighborhood and constructed Steel Field (figure
3-12) in 1916 as an athletic facility for employees’
use (Schamberger 2008, personal communication).
Figure 3-12. Early postcard view of Steel Field (Bethlehem Steel
Soccer Club).
Not all lots in the neighborhood were developed,
and pockets of vacant land remained here and
there when the Great Depression hit. Due to
the slowdown of construction during the Great
Depression, there remained many vacant lots in
the neighborhood among the older houses through
World War II. Neighborhood children of the 1930s
and 1940s played freely in these lots and fields,
which eventually disappeared when new housing
was built after 1945 (Moravian College 2007:9;
Steers 2007:26-27).
3.2 Moravian Beliefs and
Educational Principles
The Moravian Church’s historic emphasis on
education, and the vital role of education as an
instrument of salvation, derives from the beliefs of
its influential early bishop, John Amos Comenius
(1592-1670). Moravian adherents believed that
all human souls could find salvation, and thus all
human beings needed to be educated as a means
toward salvation. In a time when education in
Western societies was generally limited to elite
males, Comenius believed in education for males
and females, poor and wealthy alike. Education was
nearly as important as religious observance from
an early time. In more recent times, Comenius has
been credited as “the father of modern education”
(Moravian College 2007:2-3).
From the beginning, the Moravians of Bethlehem
educated both male and female children. Parents,
whose responsibilities were tied up in working
for the communal economy, had little time to
educate their own children. In most cases, children
did not live with their parents once they reached
toddlerhood and became part of the children’s
choirs. The Economy, acting in loco parentis,
provided for each child’s basic needs and was
thus also responsible for providing an education.
Moravian educational institutions were established
as part of this system, and were supported by the
community and church (Moravian College 2007:3;
Smaby 1988:32-36).
Moravian culture was distinct among religious
denominations in America in its treatment of
women. Moravian females were accorded dignity
and status that was lacking in most other religious
and ethnic cultures, and its first Boarding School
for Girls was supported by both males and females.
The girls’ school attracted far more renown and
drew more students from other regions than the
boys’ school, not only due to its strong academic
reputation, but because it was so unusual among
the limited educational opportunities for American
female students prior to 1900 (Yates et al. 1976:265-
266).
3.3 Nature and Nurture:
Nineteenth Century
Campus Planning
The establishment of men’s colleges and theological
seminaries in the United States accelerated in
the nineteenth century. Modeled on the English
example, American colleges continued to focus on
the liberal arts and turn out teachers, lawyers, and
ministers. By the mid-nineteenth-century, critics
derided college education as irrelevant and the
province of the elite. This soon began to change.
Longtime attempts to reform the standing model
of education, and the advent of the land-grant
school system in 1862, combined to open college
education to a greater number of students than
ever before, and freed them from the traditional
classical program of study. Disciplines were
created for those interested in a more technical
or practical education, broadening the appeal of
college to a larger demographic. Coursework in
engineering, agriculture, science, and technical
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 40

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
education permitted students to reach beyond the
classical liberal arts and prepared them for success
in technical professions. This democratization
dispelled some of the exclusivity prevalent among
the elite private institutions, which until this point
had turned out well-read graduates who entered
the professional world (Turner 1984:129-131).
As part of this national reworking of educational
ideals, the extension of education to women took
on increasing importance. Women’s seminaries
and colleges began to rise in importance during
the mid nineteenth century. Although female
seminaries had existed for many years, they were
small and the curriculum was typically different
from that offered at men’s schools and colleges.
A few colleges, notably Oberlin and Antioch in
Ohio, became coeducational (in 1837 and 1853,
respectively), but otherwise, higher education was
single-sex. Efforts began in the mid-nineteenthcentury
to establish more women’s seminaries and
even women’s colleges. Several appeared during
the mid-1850s. Vassar College, in Poughkeepsie,
NY, was founded in 1861 with a large endowment
and a grand building designed by James Renwick.
It soon became a model for subsequent institutions
(Turner 1984:133).
Many nineteenth-century academies, seminaries,
and colleges shared common planning trends.
Nineteenth-century educators preferred rural
settings as sites for schools, feeling that urban
settings were distracting and that scenic “natural”
settings were more conducive to motivating and
inspiring young students. A location emphasizing
nature was seen as having both aesthetic and
moral virtues. Placing a college on a hilltop became
popular, both because this embodied its removal
from “everyday” life and its distractions, but also
took advantage of the beautiful views from this
vantage point. Even illustrations of nineteenth
century campuses emphasized the scenic and
natural qualities of the campus, depicting buildings
set among detailed and often lushly romantic
landscape features, rather than focusing mainly on
the buildings as in the past (Turner 1984:101-106).
Both men’s and women’s schools espoused this
practice of locating schools away from cities.
With women’s schools, a rural location was also
a paternalistic protective measure to screen the
female students from distracting, unwholesome or
dangerous city activities and influences. (Turner
1984:133).
Another key characteristic of nineteenth-century
campuses was the consolidation of multiple
functions (dormitories, classrooms, dining facilities,
library, recreational space, administrative offices,
faculty apartments) into a single main building or
a grouping of connected buildings. Though often
this was the result of lack of funding, small student
bodies, and limited campus landholdings, this type
of building also made it easier for the school to
oversee and control the activities and movements
of the students, who led carefully scheduled and
regulated lives during the academic year. Although
larger institutions were rapidly moving toward
less-concentrated campuses with separated and
carefully aligned buildings housing different
functions, many new colleges and seminaries began
with a main building, and expansion necessitated
new wings or adjacent freestanding buildings
(Turner 1984:89-93,133).
Although some men’s schools had single
multipurpose buildings, with women’s schools, the
single-building characteristic was universal. Along
with practical considerations and the overarching
need to maintain order and enforce strict rules
of student conduct, the consolidation of most
functions under one roof can also be interpreted as
a means of protection from dangerous or corruptive
outside influences, and as the promulgation of a
homelike setting. Female school heads and faculty
often functioned both as administrators and as
matrons, both regulating and nurturing the young
women in their care. The sheltered replication of
a domestic family home was key to the success
of women’s institutions, reassuring families that
their daughters would be safe, chaperoned, and
in a wholesome, character-building environment
while being educated away from their own homes
(Turner 1984:133-140).
Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies
The Moravian Seminary’s campus was always part
of an urban setting, lacking scenic characteristics
and set in a busy crossroads adjacent to both
the historic Moravian Church complex and the
industrial quarter. Prior to 1814, the school shared
space with the Moravian congregation and lacked
an autonomous facility. After moving to the Single
Brethren’s House, the school had its first discrete
campus over which it could assume full control.
Since the school’s location was decidedly urban, the
scenic Pleasure Grounds behind the building was
a means of giving students the desired connection
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 41

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 3-13. View of the Main Street approach to the Moravian
Seminary for Young Ladies, ca. 1850s (Moravian Souvenir 1856).
Figure 3-14. View of the interior Pleasure Grounds ( Moravian
Souvenir 1856).
with nature (figures 3-13, 3-14, 3-15). The appearance
of the landscape behind the building in 1814 is not
known; possibly the orderly garden plots of the
mid-eighteenth-century remained, and the doors
of several root cellars were visible at the base of
the hill. However, by the mid-nineteenth-century,
the hillside land was landscaped with a gazebo, a
selection of trees and winding paths. The Pleasure
Grounds altered the view both of and from the rear
of the Single Brethren’s House, giving the campus
a scenic quality as one approached from the south
over the Monocacy. The gardens supplied space for
student exercise, amusement, and contemplation.
A tall wooden fence surrounded the gardens,
creating a barrier between garden and busy Main
Street, and further serving as a protective element
that separated the world from the sheltered young
women within the campus. Only in 1910 was this
fence removed and the park opened up to the
public (Yates 1976:266).
The protective, home-like atmosphere of the
Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies during
the nineteenth century is clearly expressed in the
1874-1875 school catalogue:
The students and teachers of the Seminary
constitute one household, at the head of
which stand the Principal and his wife.
Figure 3-15. Detail of a stereoscopic view of students and
teachers at play in the Pleasure Grounds, ca. 1870s (New York
Public Library).
Figure 3-16. Engraving showing connected Seminary buildings,
1859 (Moravian College Archives).
The whole number of students is divided…
mainly according to age, into smaller
families, over each of which two tutoresses
preside. Of these families there are at
present ten, consisting of from eighteen to
twenty young ladies each. The members
of each family room together. That is, they
have a common sitting-room and additional
apartments for their use, a common
dormitory and wash-room, they eat at the
same table in the general dining-room, and
look up to the same teachers for direction
and advice. For purposes of counsel and
control, one of these teachers is with them
at all hours, to supervise their studies, to
preserve order, to accompany them on
their daily walks, to meals, and to church
and chapel. Both teachers sleep in the same
dormitory with their charges.
We are persuaded that no better system
can be devised for promoting good morals,
cultivating correct personal and social
habits…and preparing girls for actual and
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 42

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
safe intercourse with the world in which
they will shortly have to move...(Moravian
Seminary for Young Ladies 1874:14).
The Moravian Seminary’s campus exemplified the
containment of most school functions within a single
building or connected cluster of buildings (figure
3-16). As the school grew and the Single Brethren’s
House became too small, the campus expanded
organically around it. Beginning in 1848, a series
of new connected halls was added on the east and
west, and the complex eventually expanded at
a right angle toward the south. The 1840 school
laundry (Day House) was the only fully detached
building on campus, possibly because it was used
primarily by employees and not by students. The
1890 Gymnasium (Payne Gallery) was detached
from the main group of buildings, but had a narrow
connecting passageway to South Hall.
The 1874-1875 school catalogue also makes clear
that the series of Hurd Campus buildings were
regarded by the school as a single “house” rather
than as discrete but connected buildings. “The
whole house measures 232 feet front, by from 50 to
200 in depth, with seven stairways running from the
lowest to the highest stories” (Moravian Seminary
for Young Ladies 1874:14-15).
and the Harvey Library were planned and built as
attached wings rather than standalone buildings,
although construction of the library was delayed
for over a decade. Only in the twentieth century
did the college begin to expand and spin off certain
functions and academic departments to new
detached buildings.
Finally, Moravian College and Theological School
promulgated a household environment, with the
Resident Professor and his wife overseeing student
life and character education. This was regarded
as a critical element of students’ preparation for
ministry, and the students’ lives were probably
more closely supervised than male peers at liberal
arts colleges (figure 3-18). Attendance at daily
worship was required, as was signing a pledge of
Christian conduct. Indeed, in years prior to World
War I, the annual College catalogue contained the
following text:
With the exception of those whose homes
are in Bethlehem and vicinity, the students
are entered as members of the College and
Seminary household, rooms being assigned
Moravian College and Theological
Seminary
The campus of Moravian College and Theological
Seminary for Men also espoused many of the
nineteenth-century campus trends. The choice
made in 1889 to locate the school on a rural hilltop
at the far north end of Bethlehem was the result
of careful consideration of several sites. However,
this worked to remove the institution to a more
remote setting on what had been church-owned
farmland. Here the students could concentrate on
their studies without the distractions of a busy
downtown, though the town center was easily
accessible. Within a few decades the town had
spread outward and surrounded the campus
with a residential neighborhood. Still, the setting
remained more suburban than urban.
Comenius Hall was from the beginning a
multipurpose building, containing nearly all
functions of the College (figure 3-17). Dormitories,
classrooms, offices, and a gymnasium were initially
all housed under one roof, with the refectory,
infirmary, and laundry in an adjacent smaller
building (now Zinzendorf Hall). Borhek Chapel
Figure 3-17. 1907 view of Comenius Hall and the Refectory.
Nearly all school functions were carried out in these two
buildings during the first 20 years of the campus (Moravian
College Archives).
Figure 3-18. Moravian College and Theological Seminary’s
Trombone Choir, 1907. Students and faculty in this period
enjoyed a close household-type environment (Moravian Church
Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 43

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
to them by the “resident professor” as
superintendent of the household affairs.
Their boarding and dwelling together
as members of one family constitutes an
important element in the educational
training of the students. Being brought
into constant and close contact with each
other and with the professors, not only
in the classroom, but also socially, they
thus receive much additional help and
inspiration, and gain a stimulus in the
attainment of culture, both intellectually
and socially (Weinlick 1977:14-15).
3.4 The New University
– Specialization and
Modernization
Beginning in the post-Civil War period, higher
education in America was marked by a dramatic
shift in models for higher education. Most colleges
until this point continued the English pattern of a
community of scholars living and working on a
distinct campus, though their focus had changed
from strictly liberal arts to encompass technical
studies as well. Concerns about American schools’
weakness in the sciences in comparison with
European universities led to the foundation of
the first universities in the United States. Johns
Hopkins University, established in 1867, modeled
itself after German universities, and several others
soon followed (Turner 1984:163).
Unlike American colleges up to this point, the
German model provided specialized studies in
distinct disciplines for graduate students. The
scientific, practical outlook of these institutions
was at odds with the American collegiate tradition
that had prevailed until this point, and as such
rejected some of the trappings of colleges, such as
ornate architect-designed facilities and influence
on extracurricular student life. Universities did
not house their students or foster extracurricular
activities. The campus concept was also turned
on its ear. Rather than removing themselves to an
ivory tower, universities were most often located
in cities, occupying groups of utilitarian buildings
which blended into the overall urban environment
rather than creating a distinct campus within the
city (Turner 1984:163-164).
Though the German university model made
significant inroads in the United States, it was not
sufficient to completely overthrow the English
collegiate model. As a result, the two approaches
melded into a uniquely American educational
system. This system’s goal was to provide higher
education to as many students as possible. Given
the diversity of students and their educational
needs, college and universities increasingly created
an array of departments to accommodate the need
for different disciplines and types of education
(academic and technical, undergraduate and
graduate). The blended university model also saw
a return to concentrating its various departments
and schools on a discrete campus, often with
architect-designed buildings, but planning was
done on a larger and more complex scale (Turner
1984:165-167).
Philanthropy also assumed a larger role at the turn
of the century, with wealthy benefactors endowing
specific buildings and even entire campuses. While
financial gifts to colleges had occurred in the past,
the practice became much more common and
on an unprecedented scale of generosity. Some
universities, such as Cornell and Johns Hopkins,
received millions. At this scale, it was often the
benefactor who founded the university, as at
Stanford and the University of Chicago. If the gift
was made to an existing institution, a dramatic
makeover ensued. Gifts often came with strings
attached, as donors wanted their endowed buildings
to memorialize them and reflect their tastes. Many
favored Beaux-Arts classicism as a style choice
(Turner 1984:167-169).
Moravian College and Theological
Seminary
At Moravian College and Theological Seminary, the
trend toward diversified study gained ground in this
period with the establishment of the Latin Scientific
curriculum in the 1890s and increasing separation
between the college and theological programs. To
appeal to a wider variety of students, the school
strove to change its longtime image as a theological
school to better reflect its college curriculum
alternative. At the same time, it maintained close
ties with the Church and its leaders in Germany, and
continued to foster an atmosphere of collegiality
among its relatively small student body (Weinlick
1977:2-15).
The manifestation of creating and designating
buildings for particular subjects or disciplines took
form at Moravian with the construction of Memorial
Hall (1923) as a science and laboratory building
(figure 3-19). Erected in honor of Moravians who had
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 44

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
served in the military and financed by an alumni
fundraising campaign, Memorial Hall featured
modern laboratories, lecture halls, and a geology
museum. It was designed by local architect Howard
J. Wiegner (Weinlick 1977:34-35) in a Classical
Revival style, marking a significant departure
from the eclectic European-American vernacular
of the older campus buildings. While reasons for
this style choice are not known, it should be noted
that Georgian and Colonial Revival styles were
predominant in the design of academic buildings
nationwide during this period. The style was not
sustained at Moravian; the next major building,
Colonial Hall (1930) returned to Moravian’s roots in
a quaint fieldstone interpretation of the eighteenthcentury
Moravian houses of central Bethlehem
(figure 3-20).
Figure 3-19. Memorial Hall, built in 1923 (Moravian College
Archives).
The trend of endowed buildings at Moravian
College and Theological Seminary began with the
gift of Borhek Memorial Chapel in 1893 (figure
3-21). Donated by the Borhek family in memory
of a young daughter, the Chapel was a beautiful
and significant feature of the campus from its
completion. Likewise, the 1907 Harvey Memorial
Library (figure 3-22) was given by John Cennick
Harvey and Charles Edward Harvey in memory
of their parents and sister (Weinlick 1977:4). These
two donated buildings flanked Comenius Hall, the
Figure 3-20. Colonial Hall, with archive wing on the left and
dormitory on the right (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 3-21. Borhek Memorial Chapel, completed in 1893,
was the first specific endowed building on campus (Moravian
College Archives).
Figure 3-22. Harvey Memorial Library, another endowed facility
completed in 1907 (Moravian College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 45

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
main building and center of the campus, and thus
occupied predominant spaces within the overall
plan of the growing campus.
Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies
The Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies remained
a primary and secondary school throughout most of
the nineteenth century, adding college-level courses
around the turn of the century. In 1913, it formally
incorporated as Moravian Seminary and College
for Women. This was done in part to increase the
size of the student body because Seminary-level
enrollment had dropped and the school depended
almost entirely on tuition income. However, larger
educational trends were at work as well. As public
secondary schools increased rapidly in number
throughout the country and turned out more
graduates, the need to offer higher education for
women became more critical. Within Bethlehem,
by now home to multiple men’s colleges, there
was growing interest in a women’s college, and
the Seminary expanded to fit that role (Weinlick
1977:92-93). This type of expansion was seen in
many women’s seminaries and boarding schools
of the era, concurrent with the overall expansion
of college-level opportunities and increased
competition to retain high school-level students
nationwide.
Throughout the early twentieth century, Moravian
Seminary and College for Women struggled to
survive and to expand its college program, doing
so with dropping enrollments, limited facilities
(figure 3-23) and a nearly nonexistent endowment.
To aid in building up and separating the college
program from the seminary, the school purchased
neighboring properties instead: Frueauff House in
Figure 3-23. View of students in the library of the Moravian
Seminary and College for Women, ca. 1929 (Moravian Viewbook
[1929]).
1914 and acquired Clewell Hall in the late 1930s.
Another building purchased in the 1930s no
longer belongs to Moravian. Several prospects of
benefactor gifts to fund a new library and other
amenities never panned out and the school went
deeply into debt, but in 1949, the school received
what was by far its largest gift: the 42-acre Green
Pond estate. Through the bequest of Mary T.
Snyder, the school now had a new campus for the
Seminary’s students from grades seven through
twelve (Weinlick 1977:93-98).
3.5 Postwar Modernism
Following World War II, American colleges and
universities nationwide saw unprecedented jumps
in enrollment. The GI Bill initially opened higher
education to thousands who would not have been
able to afford it otherwise, and subsequent to this a
greater percentage of Americans attended college.
The skyrocketing enrollment forced expansion of
physical plants, and progressive modern designers
developed plans that emphasized growth and
change rather than traditional design conventions.
Formal master building plans of the early 1900s were
abandoned in favor of more flexible, “organic” plans
that focused on having a set process for planning
instead of a concrete design. Informal and irregular
arrangements of buildings that took advantage of
landscape features became one solution, as were
designs that permitted the addition of numerous
new buildings as needed without disrupting the
existing campus. Academic programs expanded
exponentially, creating the need for ever-morediverse
building and programmatic functions,
including a new emphasis on research in addition
to teaching (Turner 1995:249-250).
Modern architectural design on campuses was
initially slow to catch on, and the appropriateness
of International Style modernism for academia was
a controversial topic in the 1930s and 1940s. At
progressive colleges, gradual adaptation of modern
buildings was preceded by experimentation with
informal plans. By the 1950s, Modernist architects
like Paul Rudolph, Eero Saarinen, and Louis
Kahn were constructing new campus buildings
in unprecedented shapes, scales and materials to
fill in blank areas of campuses nationwide. There
was a decided trend toward architectural variety
within a campus, rather than depending on older
buildings for stylistic cues. As campuses grew,
new individual “buildings of distinction” formed
separate components of a mixed milieu rather than
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 46

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
taking their place in a schematic campus of similar
buildings (Turner 1995:251-264). These distinctive
“signature” buildings by famous architects were
viewed as a means by which colleges could boost
their prestige, improve their facilities, and attract
more students and funding.
Along with modernism, both new and existing
American campuses worked to address the
problem of vehicular access and parking areas.
Many campuses adopted a “ring road” plan in
which the central campus became a pedestrian area
while roads and parking lots were situated on the
outside of this core. Along with this came emphasis
on pedestrian movement through the campus and
exploration of how circulation patterns could affect
planning (Turner 1984:267).
Meanwhile, the college began to limit traffic in its
core and athletic areas. As part of the planning for
the Reeves Library, Monocacy Street was closed
off between Elizabeth Avenue and Locust Street in
1966 to create a pedestrian zone, and a row of seven
houses on its east side was acquired and demolished
by the College to make way for the library (figure
3-27). At the Steel Field athletic complex, the city
vacated the portion of Laurel Street lying between
Merger and Modern Needs
Present-day Moravian College was formed in this
period of explosive college growth and development.
Two longtime and venerable institutions merged in
1953-1954 to create the region’s first coeducational
college, and students at both schools now had two
historic campuses for living and learning. This
merger and the college growth that resulted led to
an intensive period of construction on the North
Main Street campus during the 1960s.
Modernism arrived at Moravian after some delay.
While it could be argued that Johnston Hall (1952)
and certain subsequent buildings were modernist,
their echoes of older buildings make them more
postmodern. Moravian’s campus remained
relatively untouched by the modernist rejection of
older architectural vocabulary until the construction
of the Haupert Student Union in 1962 (figure 3-24),
Collier Hall of Science in 1971, the Bahnson Center
for the Theological Seminary in 1976 (figure 3-25),
Beck Hall in 1978, and Foy Hall in 1982 (figure 3-26).
These buildings were distinctly different from
the rest of the campus, with completely different
massing and no historical detail. Haupert and
Bahnson do have stone cladding, but little else in
common with the rest of the campus.
The ring road campus model also took shape at
Moravian’s North Main Street campus, beginning
shortly after World War II. Properties surrounding
the campus outskirts were obtained for use as
housing or parking areas. While some of these lots
were already vacant or contained tennis courts
constructed in the 1920s, a number of buildings
were demolished to make way for parking areas.
Figure 3-24. Haupert Student Union (1962) as seen from the
perspective of a Johnston Hall greyhound statue (Moravian
College Archives).
Figure 3-25. The Bahnson Center (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 3-26. Sketch for Foy Concert Hall (Moravian College
Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 47

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
integrated into natural landscapes and sought to
create an intimate, family-like environment for the
students (Turner 1995:281-291).
Figure 3-27. Demolition of houses on east side of Monocacy
Street in 1966, prior to construction of Reeves Library (Moravian
College Archives).
college landholdings and Steel Field, creating a safe
connection between these two areas and forming a
unified athletic zone. At the Church Street campus,
a 60-car parking lot was created in 1967, eliminating
part of the former Pleasure Grounds. In more recent
times, an entire block of row houses on Otis Place
(figure 3-28) was removed in 1991 to make way for
the Breidegam Field House (Schamberger 2008,
personal communication; Weinlick 1977:38-39,107-
111).
Although modernism initially rejected many of the
traditional design patterns and planning tactics
used for historic campuses, by the 1960s elements
of traditionalism were creeping back. Postmodern
historicism in design and increased attention to
planning around existing campus components
came back into vogue. Postmodernist thought
encouraged the re-exploration and reinterpretation
of past building and planning traditions. New
design was meant to echo elements of the old, but
not the more superficial decorations. Paul Rudolph
and Eero Saarinen were among the first architects to
engage in this new thinking, and used it in designs
at Wellesley and Yale. Architectural compatibility
between new buildings and old buildings became
increasingly important to enhance the overall
continuity of the campus. Postmodernism coincided
with the rise of the historic preservation movement
of the 1960s, but also came at a time of new
financial threats to colleges nationwide. Declining
populations of students and the energy crisis in the
1970s spelled an end to the explosive growth and
funding of the 1940s-1960s, and forced campuses to
plan more conservatively than before. Alternatives
to erecting new buildings were considered more
seriously, particularly the adaptive reuse or
repurposing of existing buildings. This coincided
with the creation of federal environmental and
historic preservation laws and a newfound respect
for the built environment of the past. Renovation
and restoration of historic campus buildings
became a key component of campus planning
(Turner 1995:294-305).
Moravian: A Postmodern Vocabulary
Figure 3-28. These row houses on Otis Place, between
Rau-Hassler dorms and Johnston Hall, were eventually removed
to make way for Breidegam Field House (Moravian College
Archives).
3.6 Postmodernism
The utopian visions of the 1960s and early 1970s
generated a return to the Jeffersonian concept of a
college as an academic village. New dormitories and
building complexes sought ways to reinforce and
stimulate community among those who inhabited
them. These village buildings were often carefully
At Moravian, postmodernism arrived earlier than
in most places, appearing as early as the 1950s.
Johnston Hall, designed by George Trautwein
and completed in 1952, clearly evoked the historic
Moravian buildings of downtown Bethlehem with
its stone façade and mock buttresses (figure 3-29).
Though it was in most ways a modern gymnasium,
its outer envelope directly referenced Bethlehem’s
eighteenth-century architecture. Similarly, many of
the new dormitories constructed in the 1960s and
1970s for the growing student body were modern
in form but designed to be compatible with the
local vernacular (figure 3-30). Although their overall
plans were typical of dormitories of their era, they
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 48

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 3-31. Reeves Library, view showing details reminiscent
of the Single Brethren’s House (Moravian College Archives).
Howard as architects also reinforced a consistency
and harmony among this generation of buildings.
Figure 3-29. Johnston Hall is a modern gymnasium with
buttressed stone exterior details referencing historic Bethlehem
choir houses (JMA 2009).
Much later in time, but as part of the same mindset,
the Priscilla Payne Hurd Academic Complex was
constructed in a style complementary to the old
campus buildings at the North Main Street campus.
Completed in 2003, it is currently the newest
building on the campus and features materials
similar to the historic buildings, including a red
brick façade and slate roofing (Moravian College
2007:11).
3.7 Moravian College and
the Historic Preservation of
Bethlehem
Figure 3-30. Sketch for Bernhardt and Wilhelm dormitories,
constructed in 1965 and designed by Trautwein and Howard
(Moravian College Archives).
echoed the older campus buildings with use of
stone on the exteriors and blended easily into the
overall campus architectural vocabulary. They
were also sited in small clusters over the hillside,
which fostered an intimate, village-like relationship
among each grouping. The first pair, Rau and
Hassler, was completed in 1960 and featured South
Mountain stone exteriors and hillside views across
the Monocacy Valley. They were designed by the
Trautwein and Howard architectural firm, which
went on to design all the major campus buildings
of the 1960s, including the Haupert Student Union
(1962) and the Bernhardt and Wilhelm dormitories
(1965). Reeves Library, completed in 1967 (figure
3-31), was designed in “German colonial style”
with a mansard roof, belvedere and dormers,
directly referencing the Single Brethren’s House
and the Church Street choir houses (Weinlick
1977:106-113). The repeated use of Trautwein and
Historic preservation, like postmodernism,
became an integral part of Moravian’s campus and
Bethlehem’s revitalization in the 1950s. It preceded,
by nearly a decade, the nationwide awareness of the
importance of preserving the historic resources of
the past, which culminated in 1966 with the passage
of the federal Historic Preservation Act. Thus
Moravian and the City of Bethlehem were ahead
of their time in their awareness and appreciation of
the precious historic resources in their midst.
In 1958, restoration work in downtown Bethlehem
began with the renovation and restoration of Main
Hall (1854) on the Church Street Campus. The
interior was modernized with badly needed new
dormitory spaces on the upper floors and a lounge
and snack bar in the basement, but the first-floor
Blue Parlors, an original and much loved feature,
were retained. The original living room of the hall
had been altered for use as the president’s office,
but this was now restored to its 1854 configuration
and used as a reception room. Meanwhile, the
exterior was returned to an earlier period through
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 49

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the removal of a later coat of white paint and
repointing of the brickwork, plus restoration of
the windows, doors, and other details (figure 3-32).
Finally, a connecting hyphen between Main Hall
and the Single Brethren’s House was removed,
permitting the restoration of the east wall of the
Single Brethren’s House (Weinlick 1977:105-106).
In its newly restored condition, Main Hall set
an important precedent for both the college and
the city, demonstrating the viability of historic
preservation and how it could evoke an earlier time
while providing facilities for modern use.
Figure 3-32. Main Hall near the end of restoration work
(Moravian College Archives).
The Kemerer Museum, at that time housed on
the first floor of the Single Brethren’s House, was
the consultant on the restoration work on Main
Hall. The museum focused on local history in the
nineteenth century. Historic Bethlehem formed
in this period as an organization dedicated to the
eighteenth century period of Bethlehem’s history.
Together, these two groups worked with the city
on revitalizing the historic core of old Bethlehem.
The College participated in the gradual restoration
of its own buildings, including Frueauff House, the
Single Brethren’s House, and West Hall, creating a
highly visible chain of carefully restored eighteenth
and nineteenth century buildings along the south
side of Church Street (Weinlick 1977:106).
Historic Bethlehem’s first Master Plan was written
in 1963 by landscape architect Thomas J. Kane.
It laid out a number of goals for restoring and
improving the downtown. The plan involved
not only building restoration, but archeological
investigation; reconstruction of vanished buildings,
landscape features, and sites; and new landscaping
in most areas. Several target areas were discussed,
including the Old Industrial Area complex, the area
formerly known as Der Platz (near the Hill-to-Hill
Bridge and the Church Street-Main Street
intersection), and the Moravian Pleasure Grounds
area south of Church Street. Although the entirety
of the plan was not completed, the plan nonetheless
reflects careful attention to reviving the historic
landscape and buildings of eighteenth century
Bethlehem (Kane 1963).
In 1966, the city passed new legislation creating
a Bethlehem Historic District and a local historic
district ordinance to protect the buildings within it.
In 1972, the Bethlehem Historic District was listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. Among
the contributing structures for both districts are
the Church Street campus buildings owned by
Moravian College (Moravian College 2007:23-24).
Restoration work on the other buildings proceeded
over time once the Main Hall work was complete,
with most occurring in the late 1970s. Smaller
historic preservation projects have occurred here
and there over the following 30 years, with more
planned for the future. The Single Brethren’s House
had its east wall restored in 1958, as mentioned. In
1967, considerable work was carried out, including
removal of the nineteenth century back porches.
In 1976, as part of the Bicentennial celebration, its
exterior stonework was restored on the remaining
sides (figure 3-33). Further window restoration was
carried out in 2007 (Schamberger 2008, personal
communication).
The significance of the Single Brethren’s House and
its eighteenth-century counterparts in American
architectural history cannot be overstated. In 1968, it
was carefully documented by the Historic American
Figure 3-33. The Single Brethren’s House, early in restoration
process (Moravian College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 50

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Building Survey (HABS), creating a permanent
archival record of its existing conditions and
uncovering valuable historic construction evidence
which ultimately would help guide its restoration.
The work was carried out under the auspices of the
Bethlehem Project, undertaken jointly by Historic
Bethlehem Inc. (Vincent P. Foley, Executive Director,
1968), Moravian College and the Historic American
Buildings Survey (James C. Massey, Chief, 1968)
with the cooperation of the Moravian Church.
The buildings were measured and drawn in the
summer of 1968 by student assistant architects
Lawrence E. Park (Cornell University), Donna
C. Mitchell (University of Kansas), William A.
Okazaki (Washington State University), and Allan
H. Steenhusen (Iowa State University) under the
direction of John D. Milner, architect for Historic
Bethlehem Inc. (HABS PA-1141 1968; Schamberger
2008, personal communication)
Clewell Hall, a high style residence hailed in the
National Register nomination as “an exceptional
Second Empire house“ (PHMC 1971-1992), was
rehabilitated in 1971 and now serves as a dormitory.
Frueauff House was restored from a three-story
building to its original two stories at the same time.
The Bicentennial period saw work on West Hall and
its connected buildings to the south. West Hall was
restored in 1976. Old Chapel (1848) was restored on
the exterior in 1977, and its interior was renovated
in 1980 to create Hearst Hall. Peter Hall (1867) was
restored inside and out over 1977 and 1978. In
1998, historic stained glass windows in the former
chapel were revealed and restored. South Hall
was renovated in 1978, and its east windows were
restored in 2008. The interiors of the main building
complex were redone purposely to create spaces
for music and fine arts programs (Schamberger
2008, personal communication).
The detached Gymnasium (1890) became an art
studio in 1963 and was renovated on the exterior
in 1978. In 1983, the Gymnasium was remodeled
as the Payne Art Gallery. At the same time, Foy
Concert Hall was constructed as a connecting
building between Payne Gallery and South
Hall. The gallery was renovated in 2001 to meet
Smithsonian curatorial standards. In 2009, the
gallery is scheduled for exterior restoration and
interior climate control alterations (Schamberger
2008, personal communication).
Figure 3-34. Late nineteenth century view of the Widows’
House. The building looks much the same today (Moravian
Church Archives).
retained a high level of integrity over time and did
not need extensive restoration work. Moravian
widows still occupy this historic building, along
with Theological Seminary students.
Historic Bethlehem, Inc. now operates multiple
museums, including the flagship Moravian
Museum housed in the Gemeinhaus. It also
interprets the Colonial Industrial Quarter, which
includes standing structures, reconstructions,
and archeological sites. The 1869 Luckenbach
Gristmill and the 1750-1761 Smithy are important
components of this interpretation, along with
wayfinding information. Additional museum
properties operated by Historic Bethlehem include
the Kemerer Museum of Decorative Arts, the 1810
Goundie House, and Burnside Plantation. The
museums and sites are operated in association with
the Smithsonian Institution. The organization also
hosts a number of special activities, lectures, and
museum programs each year to increase public
knowledge, use, and appreciation of Bethlehem’s
unique heritage and historic buildings (Historic
Bethlehem, Inc. 2007).
The College acquired a second landmark eighteenthcentury
Moravian building, the Widows’ House
(1768), in the mid-1990s (figure 3-34). This building
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 3 • College Context • 51

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Four
Stewardship at Moravian College
4.0 Introduction
The primary goal of the Moravian College
Preservation Master Plan is to assist college decisionmakers,
planners, staff, and facility managers in
the stewardship of campus building and landscape
resources while accommodating future change.
With respect to significant historic resources, this
usually means preserving historical integrity.
Critical to a successful program of stewardship at
Moravian College is the recognition that both the
idea and practice of a stewardship ethic are central
to the college’s mission. Such relevance can be seen
in two primary ways:
• The campus and its historic resources create
an environment that directly supports and
sustains the mission, and
• Appreciation of and care for significant
resources demonstrate one way in which
Moravian College’s mission is active in the
world.
As documented in the following chapters,
Moravian College is the steward of a rich collection
of diverse historic buildings and landscapes that
represent its long and layered history. Because of
the historic architectural and landscape significance
of Moravian College’s campus resources, historic
preservation considerations should be germane to
routine maintenance and to plans for the continuing
evolution of the campus.
This preservation plan understands, however,
that while Moravian College has a unique historic
character shaped by Moravian faith and values,
the college’s mission is to create modern programs
and institutions that must continue to evolve and
change to meet the needs of students, faculty, staff,
and visitors. Balancing the ongoing need for change
with an understanding of preservation goals and
stewardship responsibilities has been and will
continue to be a challenge.
This chapter presents a vision for stewardship at
Moravian College, summarizes the community’s
significance, and outlines preservation objectives
for the campus. These objectives, combined with
preservation concepts pioneered by the U. S.
Department of the Interior, create the basis for a
recommended treatment philosophy and approach
for Moravian College. This approach is outlined
toward the end of this chapter and serves as
the foundation for the design and development
guidelines and recommendations that follow in
subsequent chapters.
4.1 Moravian College:
Mission and Character
Moravian College’s educational values include
an emphasis on community, engagement with
the world, personal integrity, and the cultivation
of mind, body and spirit. Learning is regarded
as a continuous lifelong process, creativity and
the arts are prized, and individual service for the
common good is encouraged. A sense of tradition
and stewardship of Moravian College’s heritage
remain part of the school’s ethos. These values
have been passed down over two centuries and
remain vital to the College’s mission today. Over
time, the school has welcomed an increasingly
diverse body of students, including myriad races,
faiths, nationalities, socioeconomic brackets, ages,
and academic interests. Undergraduates share
the campus with theological students, graduate
students, and continuing education students.
Moravian College’s vision for the future, as
communicated through the College’s 2008-2015
Strategic Plan, includes:
• A community of the great embrace,
welcoming men and women from all walks of
life, locally, nationally, and globally;
• A community of liberal learning, where
scholarship, intellectual curiosity and creative
expression invigorate all facets of our lives;
A community of service
• , which equips and
empowers men and women to serve others
with professional skill, grace, and integrity,
including those who live out their lives on the
periphery of society;
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 53

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• A community of wise stewards, who care for
and enhance our treasures of heritage, people,
and place for generations to come (Moravian
College 2009).
Moravian College strives to prepare its students
for engagement and leadership in a fast-changing
and diverse world, but at the same time encourages
mindfulness about preservation of both its campus
and its traditions into the future. An architectural
legacy is specifically addressed in Initiative Four of
the Strategic Plan:
Create the proper physical environment
needed for excellence in teaching, learning,
and performing.
Moravian proudly maintains and uses
colonial-era buildings as part of its beautiful,
historic campus. In order to ensure that these
highly valued facilities are properly maintained,
we will devote significant resources to the
restoration and upkeep of our older facilities
(Moravian College 2009).
Preparation and adoption of the Moravian
College Preservation Master Plan and the pending
college-wide master development plan by Ayers/
Saint/Gross are vital in making the vision a reality.
Integrating recommendations from these plans into
everyday maintenance, planning, and budgeting
processes will foster an institutional ethic for
preserving these nationally significant historic
resources while accommodating well-planned
growth.
4.2 Vision for Stewardship
Preservation Objectives
With respect to historic resources and significance,
the following preservation objectives have been
identified for Moravian College:
• Formalize the College’s principles and practices
regarding historic preservation of [its]
architectural resources and landscapes as part
of an overall facilities master plan.
• Perform a comprehensive analysis of [its]
historic structures and landscapes in order to
maximize their usefulness and vitality.
• Re-evaluate which buildings, if not currently
listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, should be considered for nomination.
• Create a plan from which to raise financial
support for the preservation and stewardship of
[its] historic architecture.
• Improve our interpretive efforts in raising
awareness and appreciation of [its] historic
resources (Moravian College Getty Campus
Heritage Grant Narrative 2008:9).
4.3 Historical Significance
In presenting a review of existing historic resources
at Moravian College in this preservation plan, the
terms “significance,” “integrity,” and “existing
conditions” are used. These terms have specific
meanings within the field of historic preservation.
Although these terms are not commonly used by the
public, understanding their meaning is important
to appreciation of the preservation concepts and
approach outlined in the preservation plan and
included in its design guidelines.
Significance
In order to maintain the significant historic building
and landscape resources that define the character
of Moravian College’s campus and contribute to
its historical importance, it is important to first
understand how historical significance is defined.
The National Register of Historic Places provides
criteria for evaluating the significance of a historic
property. These criteria are used as the benchmark
for establishing the significance of a historic
resource.
The quality of significance in American
history, architecture, archeology, engineering,
and culture is present in districts, site,
buildings, structures, and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. That are associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history, or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past; or
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 54

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or
history (U.S. Department of the Interior
1990:2).
The Moravian College campuses include historic
building and landscape resources that are significant
to all four of the categories listed above. As discussed
in detail in Chapters 2 and 3, both campuses are
associated with several historic contexts that span
over 250 years of European settlement. Moravian
College is significant in the areas of settlement
and community planning, architecture, social and
educational history, and historic preservation.
Through archeological investigations and the
1968 architectural documentation of the Single
Brethren’s House by the Historic American Building
Survey (HABS), it also has yielded, and has further
potential to yield, important historic and prehistoric
information.
These areas of significance are summarized below:
Settlement and Community Planning
Moravian College’s Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus
encompasses some of the earliest large buildings
constructed by Moravian settlers during the
mid-1700s, namely the Single Brethren’s House and
the Widows’ House. These remaining buildings and
their surrounding landscape represent not only the
earliest core of the original Bethlehem settlement,
but community planning principles imported
directly from the Moravian church headquarters in
Herrnhut, Germany. Plans for Bethlehem’s layout
and buildings were dictated by church leaders and
based upon the community of Herrnhut.
Architecture
Moravian College’s eighteenth-century buildings,
together with their neighboring church-owned
counterparts across Church Street, form a renowned
collection of striking Germanic stone buildings.
Designs for the buildings were formulated at
Herrnhut, following local models, and resulted in
architecture that is purely European and largely
unadulterated by the assimilating forces that
shaped other architectural traditions brought to
the New World. Though time and local conditions
resulted in some changes to the original designs,
such as removal of the heavy tiled roofs, these
buildings nonetheless are remarkable not only for
their designs, but for their survival in largely intact
form into the present day.
Subsequent buildings at Moravian College,
particularly on the North Main Street campus,
provide echoes of these early Bethlehem buildings
through the use of stone, brick lintels, segmental
arches, gambrel roofs, and dormers. The tall brick
nineteenth-century buildings of the Priscilla Payne
Hurd Campus, and the somewhat newer buildings
at the North Main Street Campus also share a
monumental scale with the early buildings, making
all appear large and solid in proportion, conveying
history and permanence.
Social and Educational History
The Moravian male and female boarding schools
that evolved into today’s Moravian College were
formed as part of the communal lifestyle practiced
by the first Moravian settlers. Moravian religious
philosophy, as expressed by Bishop John Amos
Comenius, emphasized education as a means
to draw one closer to salvation. Traditionally, a
child’s education was the responsibility of his or
her parents. However, the Moravian Economy
practiced in Bethlehem’s first two decades was
a lifestyle in which the nuclear family did not
exist. Under the Economy system, people lived
in communal household groups based on age,
gender, and marital status, and those of sufficient
age contributed their labor to the community in
exchange for basic needs. Children lived with other
children of the same age and sex. Hardworking
parents, whose labors supported survival on the
frontier, lived apart from their children and had
no opportunity to teach them basic literacy skills
or oversee their formal education. Boarding schools
for both sexes were formed to address this need.
Though the Economy was phased out in 1762, just
twenty years after Bethlehem’s founding, Moravian
schools persisted and attracted considerable
interest from outside the Moravian community. In
a new civilization where educational opportunities
were scarce, the girls’ seminary was particularly
remarkable and experienced continuous growth,
particularly after opening its doors to non-Moravian
students. The Moravian Theological Seminary,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 55

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
currently located on the North Main Street
Campus, is significant as the first institution to
train Moravian clergy outside of Europe. Over the
past 150 years, both the men’s and women’s schools
were part of nationwide trends in secondary and
higher education, including the development of
standard high school and college curricula; the
embrace of liberal arts; campus planning and
architectural characteristics; and the movement
toward coeducation following World War II.
Historic Preservation
Moravian College was an early partner in
attempts to revitalize and preserve the core of
downtown Bethlehem during the 1950s, and
participated in a lengthy process to restore its
Church Street buildings through the 1970s. The
position of the campuses as anchors at both ends
of the commercial district assists the ongoing
redevelopment. Moravian College’s efforts have
had a major impact on the success of downtown
Bethlehem as a destination for both local citizens
and visitors. Busy shops, restaurants, and other
businesses share the cityscape with historical and
cultural landmarks and commemorative signs, and
traditional Moravian stars are a common symbol
throughout the downtown. The College’s restored
buildings with their candle-lit windows form a
centerpiece for images of historic Bethlehem and a
quaint inspiration for “the Christmas City.”
Archeology
The early core of Bethlehem has already been
investigated in several archeological digs, but the
potential exists for many other subsurface features
and evidence of historic and prehistoric human
occupation of this site. The recent uncovering of
multiple eighteenth-century storage cellars in the
bluff of the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus vividly
illustrates this potential and the high significance
of such sites. There is no doubt that additional
significant sites also exist on both campuses that
are likely to yield important information about the
region’s history and prehistory.
Integrity
Integrity is the authenticity of a resource’s historic
identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s
period of significance. The seven qualities of
integrity, as defined by the National Register,
are location, setting, feeling, association, design,
workmanship, and materials (U. S. Department of
the Interior 1990:4). Integrity measures the degree
to which the historically significant materials,
features, and characteristics of a resource still exist.
Integrity is frequently assessed by how much of a
resource’s historic fabric is intact. Historic building
fabric includes features (such as porches, windows,
stairways, and trim), and materials (such as wood,
stone, and plaster). Historic features and materials
are also present in the historic landscape, for
example spatial organization, land use, circulation,
vegetation, views and vistas, and built features.
Authentic building and landscape features and
historic fabric that survive can make the historic
significance of a resource visible.
When a resource retains most of its authentic historic
fabric, the integrity of the resource is generally
considered high. When there is little historic fabric
remaining, integrity is generally considered low.
Preservation efforts frequently focus on preserving
the integrity of a resource by preserving historic
fabric. Retaining the integrity of a resource is of
paramount importance in preservation. Historic
significance of a building or resource accrues over
time. Changes and additions that have occurred are
frequently considered to be historically significant.
Many historic buildings, for example, incorporate a
mixture of stylistic elements that have been added
to an original structure over many years. These
additions and alterations are a part of the evolution
of the building. They contribute to its story and
significance and therefore also contribute to its
integrity.
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions evaluations deal with a
resource’s physical condition, appearance, and
soundness. These conditions are inextricably linked
to maintenance. Inappropriate maintenance or lack
of maintenance often leads to a loss of historic fabric
and integrity, while appropriate maintenance retains
and repairs historic fabric and supports integrity. In
an existing conditions assessment, each resource or
character area is broken down into elements based
on materials, characteristics, or feature type, and
each element is briefly described and evaluated. The
overall significance and integrity of the resource is
also assessed. This lays the groundwork for making
recommendations on how best to treat problems
and preserve important features of the resource.
The documentation of existing conditions establishes
a basis for comparison during future projects and
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 56

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
investigations. It provides a detailed snapshot of
a resource at the time of documentation, outlining
its characteristics, appearance, and integrity, as
well as noting maintenance issues that threaten
the stability, functionality, and historic fabric of the
resource.
4.4 Historic Designation
Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus
The entirety of the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus
became part of the city-level Bethlehem Historic
District in 1961 (City of Bethlehem 1998:3). As
such, projects on the campus are subject to the
approval of the Historic Architectural Review
Board of Bethlehem. The College is required to
obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for all
proposed work that is visible from the public rightof-way
(Moravian College RFP 2007:6). Detailed
information on the City’s review processes and
requirements can be found in Chapter 10 of this
document.
Along with city designation, the entire Priscilla
Payne Hurd Campus is part of the National
Register-listed Central Bethlehem Historic District.
The district, initially known as Historic Subdistrict
A in the Historic District of Bethlehem as defined
by City Ordinance #1728, was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in 1972 (City
of Bethlehem 1998:3; National Register of Historic
Places 1972). In 1988, the district boundary was
expanded (National Register of Historic Places
1988), and additional information was appended to
the nomination in 1992. The Priscilla Payne Hurd
Campus was already encompassed by the original
district, so the 1988 boundary change had no impact
on its designation status.
The additional information from 1992 contained
a list of contributing buildings, architectural style
information, and other contextual discussion. The
nomination focuses primarily on the eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century built resources concentrated in
the oldest part of the town, and the later boundary
includes some early twentieth century resources.
According to the 1992 data, all of Moravian
College’s historic buildings on the Hurd Campus are
considered contributing resources to this district.
Foy Hall, as a modern building, does not contribute.
These resources should be maintained, repaired,
rehabilitated, or preserved, as recommended in this
report, in order to preserve the larger integrity of the
college’s cultural landscape and the encompassing
historic district within which it resides. The
following chapters provide specific guidance on
how to go about doing so.
Archeological resources located to the rear of the
Hurd Campus, notably a group of eighteenthcentury
root cellars, were documented in 2008.
Three cellars were excavated and documented
in a data recovery operation before they were
removed for the construction of a new dormitory
building. These sites were recommended eligible
to be added as a contributing resource within the
Central Bethlehem Historic District. A fourth cellar
was separate from the others and discovered by
construction workers subsequent to the excavation
of the first three cellars. This resource was not
excavated and has been reburied and left intact
(Gerhardt et al. 2008:14-17).
The high significance and rarity of the archeological
sites discovered on and near the Priscilla Payne
Hurd Campus cannot be overstated. Protection
of the subsurface of the grounds must be a top
priority when considering any future grounddisturbing
activity at the Hurd Campus. Along
with evidence of the Moravian community of the
eighteenth century, and vanished outbuildings and
backyard landscape features from the nineteenth
century, the campus grounds may contain precious
archeological evidence of the Revolutionary War
hospital that was housed in the Single Brethren’s
House over two winters. Given that hundreds of
patients lived and died at the hospital during this
time period, and that the burial locations of these
casualties remain unknown, this archeological
evidence may include unidentified human remains.
It is recommended that proactive designation and
protection of the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus
grounds be made a priority.
North Main Street Campus
The North Main Street campus and its surrounding
neighborhood are not subject to historic designations
to date, and none of the buildings has been deemed
individually eligible. However, JMA believes
that the oldest sector of the campus (bounded by
Main, Elizabeth, Locust, and Monocacy Streets
and containing Comenius, Hamilton, Zinzendorf,
Monocacy and Memorial Halls) may be eligible
as a small historic district. It is recommended that
Moravian College pursue formal designation for
this campus sector both with the City of Bethlehem
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 57

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and with the National Register of Historic Places.
A successful listing on the National Register will
not only honor the Moravian College North Main
Street Campus as a significant historic resource, but
will also provide a layer of protection from future
government undertakings that may impact it.
The neighborhood surrounding the North Main
Street Campus contains a variety of historic
buildings, many of which belong to Moravian
College. In its current condition, the neighborhood
possesses a level of historical integrity that may
make it eligible for the National Register. While
the establishment and growth of the Moravian
College campus was an important factor in its
development, the neighborhood’s overall historic
significance lies within the larger context of
Bethlehem’s industrial-age development. As
such, it would be appropriate to consider the
neighborhood as a potential historic district within
the city, but it should not be included as a part of
a Moravian College historic district. JMA believes
that any impetus for historic designation of the
neighborhood should come from the city or local
residents and property owners, and not from the
College. Moravian College is welcome to support
a future designation if such circumstances arise
and designation is deemed to be in the College’s
best interest in terms of overall stewardship and
campus preservation. However, no action towards
neighborhood designation is recommended at the
present time.
4.5 Preservation Treatments
and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards
The philosophy behind the recommendations
in the Preservation Master Plan is based upon a
set of federal guidelines entitled The Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, commonly called the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards. The Standards (36 CFR [Code
of Federal Regulations] Part 68) were established
by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
to provide consistent, national standards and
guidelines for the treatment of historic resources.
Because of their wisdom, flexibility, and usefulness,
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are widely
used throughout the field of historic preservation to
aid property owners, designers, and preservation
professionals in making good decisions affecting
their historic buildings and landscapes. They are
intended to promote responsible preservation
practices and help protect the nation’s irreplaceable
historic resources. The Standards can be applied to
virtually all types of properties, whether they are
buildings, landscapes, bridges, roadways, statuary,
or archeological remains.
The Standards address four specific types of
treatments: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration,
and Reconstruction. Of the four, Preservation
standards require retention of the greatest amount of
historic fabric, features, and materials. Rehabilitation
standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to
a property to meet continuing or new uses while
retaining historic character. Restoration standards
allow for an accurate depiction of the property’s
appearance at a particular time in its history.
Reconstruction standards establish a framework
for recreating vanished historic elements based on
documentation (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:2).
These four preservation treatments are used in
subsequent chapters of this preservation plan as the
basis for specific recommendations for identified
historic resources and features. They are more fully
described below:
Preservation
Preservation is defined as the process of applying
measures necessary to sustain the existing form,
integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work,
including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize
the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing
maintenance and repair of historic materials and features
rather than extensive replacement and new construction.
New exterior additions are not within the scope of this
treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading
of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and
other code-required work to make properties functional
is appropriate within a preservation project.
1. A property will be used as it was historically, or
be given a new use that maximizes the retention
of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and
spatial relationships. Where a treatment and
use have not been identified, a property will
be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until
additional work may be undertaken.
2. The historic character of a property will be
retained and preserved. The replacement of intact
or repairable historic materials or alteration of
features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 58

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical
record of its time, place, and use. Work needed
to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing
historic materials and features will be physically
and visually compatible, identifiable upon close
inspection, and properly documented for future
research.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired
historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes,
and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will
be preserved.
6. The existing condition of historic features will
be evaluated to determine the appropriate level
of intervention needed. Where the severity
of deterioration requires repair or limited
replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
material will match the old in composition,
design, color, and texture.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,
will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and
preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:18-
19).
Preservation as a Treatment
When the property’s distinctive materials, features, and
spaces are essentially intact and thus convey the historic
significance without extensive repair or replacement;
when depiction at a particular period of time is not
appropriate; and when a continuing or new use does not
require additions or extensive alterations, Preservation
may be considered as a treatment (Weeks and Grimmer
1995:21).
Of the four treatments, Preservation retains the
most historic fabric and is the least invasive. It
offers the greatest protection to historic features,
and is valuable in instances where it is critical to
preserve as much physical evidence of a resource as
possible. However, it makes little accommodation
for future changes, and is appropriate only for
resources that are substantially intact to begin
with. Several particularly intact, sensitive and
significant resources at Moravian College, such as
the basement and two attics of the Single Brethren’s
House, the attic of West Hall, the top floor of
South Hall, and sensitive archeological areas on
the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus, should receive
continued Preservation treatment.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making
possible a compatible use for a property through repair,
alterations, and additions while preserving those
portions or features which convey its historical, cultural,
or architectural values.
1. A property will be used as it was historically
or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features,
spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will
be retained and preserved. The removal
of distinctive materials or alteration of
features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical
record of its time, place, and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development,
such as adding conjectural features or elements
from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired
historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes,
and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will
be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired
rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture, and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features will be substantiated by documentary
and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,
will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials will not be used.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 59

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
8. Archeological resources will be protected and
preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related
new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships
that characterize the property. The new work
will be differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials, features,
size, scale and proportion, and massing to
protect the integrity of the property and its
environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new
construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be
unimpaired (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:61-
62).
Rehabilitation as a Treatment
When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are
necessary; when alterations or additions to the property
are planned for a new or continued use; and when its
depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate,
Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment (Weeks
and Grimmer 1995:66).
Often referred to as adaptive re-use, Rehabilitation
protects and preserves the historic features,
materials, elements, and spatial relationships
that convey historical, cultural, and architectural
values. In this context, new, expanded, or upgraded
facilities should be designed to avoid impacts to
character-defining historic elements. They should
also be constructed of compatible materials.
Retention of original historic fabric should be the
primary consideration in undertaking a program of
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse.
Rehabilitation accommodates needed change while
preserving historic fabric to the greatest extent. Of
the four treatments, Rehabilitation provides the
most flexibility and can be used for resources with
varying degrees of historical integrity. As such, it is
the appropriate treatment for most buildings and
landscapes at Moravian College.
Nearly all of Moravian College’s historic building
interiors, and some of the exteriors, have already
undergone Rehabilitation treatments. Any change
in use has typically resulted in work to adapt each
building to its new use. The treatments vary in
their appropriateness but set interesting examples
of how the school has restructured its campus over
time. For example, Monocacy Hall, originally a
gymnasium, became a theater and a library annex
before its conversion to its current use as college
offices. The sensitive addition of the new atrium
on the south end provided ADA access to all levels
without destroying remaining historic fabric in
the building. The Single Brethren’s House, with
its thick walls, was well suited for adaptive reuse
as soundproofed music classrooms and practice
areas. Specifics of each building’s treatment will be
discussed in Chapter 8 of this preservation plan.
Restoration
Restoration is defined as the act or process of
accurately depicting the form, features, and
character of a property as it appeared at a particular
time by means of removal of features from other
periods in its history and the reconstruction of
missing features from the restoration period. The
limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other
code-related work to make properties functional is
appropriate within a restoration project.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or
be given a new use which reflects the property’s
restoration period.
2. Materials and features from the restoration
period will be retained and preserved. The
removal of materials or alteration of features,
spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize the period will not be undertaken.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical
record of its time, place, and use. Work needed
to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials
and features from the restoration period will be
physically and visually compatible, identifiable
upon close inspection, and properly documented
for future research.
4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that
characterize other historical periods will
be documented prior to their alteration or
removal.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes,
and construction techniques or examples of
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 60

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
craftsmanship that characterize the restoration
period will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period
will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of
a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture, and, where
possible, materials.
7. Replacement of missing features from the
restoration period will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence. A false
sense of history will not be created by adding
conjectural features, features from other
properties, or by combining features that never
existed together historically.
8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,
will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials will not be used.
9. Archeological resources affected by a project
will be protected and preserved in place. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures will be undertaken.
10. Designs that were never executed historically
will not be constructed (Weeks and Grimmer
1995:117-118).
Restoration as a Treatment
When the property’s design, architectural, or historical
significance during a particular period of time outweighs
the potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and
finishes that characterize other historical periods; when
there is substantial physical and documentary evidence
for the work; and when contemporary alterations and
additions are not planned, Restoration may be considered
as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a particular
period of time, i.e., the restoration period, should be
selected and justified, and a documentation plan for
Restoration developed (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:121).
Restoration is an intensive process which essentially
freezes a resource at a specific time in its history.
While it retains significant historic fabric from the
desired historic period and reconstructs missing
elements of that period, it also removes later historic
fabric that may have become significant in its own
right, and requires scrupulous investigation of past
conditions to guide the restoration work. Given its
narrow focus on a particular time, it is not adaptive
to future changes, particularly if the interior is part
of the treatment.
Most of the buildings on Moravian College’s
Priscilla Payne Hurd campus have already
undergone an exterior Restoration treatment. These
include the Single Brethren’s House, Main Hall,
West Hall, Old Chapel, New Chapel, South Hall,
and the Frueauff House. Restoration work on most
of these was confined to exterior paint removal
and window restoration, but in a few cases, the
work undertaken was quite drastic and required
wholesale removal of later materials, additions and
details, including porches, hyphens, entranceways,
and in the case of the heavily restored Frueauff
House, an entire floor. The Single Brethren’s House
was also a virtual transformation, as its nineteenthcentury
stucco, windows, front entrances, and
back porches were removed, and its exposed stone
exterior was restored to what was believed to be
its eighteenth century appearance. It is unlikely
that Restoration will be a treatment used again for
projects at Moravian College except for possible
isolated, special circumstances, such as the possible
restoration of selected landscape features.
Reconstruction
Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting,
by means of new construction, the form, features, and
detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building,
structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its
appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic
location.
1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished
or non-surviving portions of a property when
documentary and physical evidence is available
to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal
conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential
to the public understanding of the property.
2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building,
structure, or object in its historic location
will be preceded by a thorough archeological
investigation to identify and evaluate those
features and artifacts which are essential to
an accurate reconstruction. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
3. Reconstruction will include measures to
preserve any remaining historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 61

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate
duplication of historic features and elements
substantiated by documentary or physical
evidence rather than on conjectural designs
or the availability of different features from
other historic properties. A reconstructed
property will re-create the appearance of the
non-surviving historic property in materials,
design, color, and texture.
5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a
contemporary re-creation.
6. Designs that were never executed historically
will not be constructed (Weeks and Grimmer
1995:165-166).
Reconstruction as a Treatment
When a contemporary depiction is required to
understand and interpret a property’s historic value
(including the re-creation of missing components in a
historic district or site); when no other property with the
same associative value has survived; and when sufficient
historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate
reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a
treatment (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:169).
A reconstruction is a new resource made to replace
an historic resource that has been lost, and is
used only in the instance of a significant loss.
Reconstruction has not been used to treat Moravian
College’s historic resources previously, although it
was used in the former Industrial Quarter opposite
the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus to help interpret
the city’s early industries. Like Restoration,
Reconstruction is not anticipated to be relevant
to future projects at Moravian College with the
possible exception of the re-creation of selected
landscape features.
In planning for the stewardship of historic buildings
and landscapes at Moravian College, Preservation
and Rehabilitation are the most appropriate and
applicable treatments for consideration and use.
These terms have been applied in recommending
overall treatment approaches to individual
buildings, landscape character areas, and specific
landscape features in subsequent chapters of this
Preservation Master Plan.
4.6 A Treatment Philosophy
and Recommended
Approach for Moravian
College
Working within the context of the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards and considering Moravian
College’s specific preservation objectives, outlined
previously, the recommended philosophical
treatment approach for the Preservation Master Plan
is one of sensitive rehabilitation. This approach
recognizes that Moravian College is not a static
environment and must continue to evolve to
meet the needs of its academic program offerings
and student body. However, Moravian College’s
strong regard for its remarkable history provides
a solid basis for preservation-minded stewardship.
Beginning as early as the 1814 conversion of an old
choir house to a girls’ boarding school, Moravian
College has demonstrated significant leadership
in historic preservation as it continuously adapted
and reused its cherished historic buildings and
grounds for most aspects of modern-day college
life. Its historic buildings are highly visible models
of preserved architecture, which form prominent
gateways into Historic Bethlehem at opposite ends
of Main Street. The concept of sensitive rehabilitation
recognizes Moravian College’s many successes in
the preservation of its campuses over time, but lays
the groundwork for fine-tuning its approach to
future stewardship of its historic resources.
This philosophy espouses the recognized treatment
approach of rehabilitation, the process of creating and
maintaining a compatible use in an historic property
through careful planning, minimal alterations, and
compatible additions. It also accommodates the
current conditions of the College’s historic fabric,
much of which has undergone one or more historic
preservation treatments. Sensitive rehabilitation
makes provisions for the needs of tomorrow, but
also preserves the resources significant to Moravian
College’s history, reinforces Moravian College’s
distinctive sense of place, and reflects the values
inherent in the college’s mission and strategic plan.
The retention, rehabilitation, and enhancement
of historic campus resources will reinforce the
College’s connection to the educational ideals of its
founders, its commitment to integrity of character,
and its traditions of community service and
leadership. Successful preservation of the historic
campus will ensure that the centuries-old physical
link between Moravian College’s beginnings and its
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 62

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
present day remains unbroken, visible and relevant
into the future.
The sensitive rehabilitation approach supports the
preservation of historic buildings and landscape
characteristics that contribute to the significance
of Moravian College’s multiple historical contexts.
These resources and characteristics are related to:
• Moravian settlement and community
planning for Bethlehem;
• European/Moravian architecture and land
use for communal lifestyle;
• The Pleasure Grounds, Steel Field, and
North Main Street campus landscapes;
• Development of the North Main Street
neighborhood and the city of Bethlehem;
• Nineteenth and early twentieth century
collegiate trends and their reflection in
campus planning and development;
• Physical expansion of Moravian College
into today’s dual campuses;
• Moravian College’s role in historic
preservation and revitalization of
downtown Bethlehem.
The built architectural features and materials,
recreational grounds, streetscapes, campus
organization, views, and human scale found at
Moravian College are distinctive assets. This
important physical legacy reinforces and promotes
interaction and provides a tangible link to the
past. Understanding and reinforcing these unique
characteristics are central to preservation. When
students, faculty, residents, and visitors walk
through this thriving academic environment,
they should recognize the special characteristics
that make it different from every other place.
Familiar buildings and landscapes, not just
the most significant ones, all contribute to this
distinctive identity. Since historic resources are
strongly identified with campus character, their
preservation is crucial in creating what planners call
a sense of place. A treatment approach of sensitive
rehabilitation will strengthen and give perceptible
meaning to Moravian College’s sense of place.
Subsequent chapters of this preservation plan
provide general design and development guidelines
on how to approach change within the Moravian
Campus landscape within the context of a sensitive
rehabilitation approach on a building-by-building
and landscape-by-landscape basis.
Standards for Rehabilitation
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties provides an individual
set of standards for each of the four commonly
identified historic preservation treatments
discussed above: Preservation, Rehabilitation,
Restoration, and Reconstruction. As mentioned
earlier, Rehabilitation is the most appropriate
preservation treatment where extensive changes
are anticipated to meet changing programmatic
needs. The discussion below builds upon the
previous discussion of preservation treatments to
provide additional detail with respect to sensitive
rehabilitation treatments for historic resources at
Moravian College.
The Standards for Rehabilitation are essentially
“best practices” for historic preservation projects.
They ensure that important issues about the
care of historic buildings and landscapes are not
forgotten in the process of making decisions about
other issues. When these guidelines are used in
the context of a new project involving an historic
building, they provide a starting point for the
discussion of proposed changes to the building’s
historic character and fabric. They were developed
to ensure that policies toward historic resources
were applied uniformly, even if the end result was
different in every case.
All preservation efforts, whether they are publicly
or privately funded, can be informed and enhanced
by understanding the Standards for Rehabilitation.
Because the Standards outline a sensitive approach
for assessing changes to historic properties, they are
often included in preservation plans, ordinances,
and regulations that govern activities affecting
local historic districts. These Standards articulate
basic principles that are fundamental to historic
preservation. Although they have been modified
over the years to accommodate changing views of
historic significance and treatment options, their
basic message has remained the same.
The durability of the Standards for Rehabilitation
is testimony not only to their soundness, but also
to the flexibility of their language. They provide
a philosophy and approach to problem solving
for those involved in managing the treatment of
historic buildings, rather than a set of solutions
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 63

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
to specific design issues. Following a balanced,
reasonable, and disciplined process is often more
important than the exact nature of the treatment
option that is chosen. Instead of predetermining an
outcome in favor of retaining or recreating historic
features, the Standards for Rehabilitation ensure that
all the critical issues are considered. The Standards
for Rehabilitation are useful in consideration of the
construction of new buildings in an historic context
and the alteration of older buildings as necessary
for reuse, safety, accessibility, or maintenance. As
with any public policy issue, the public interest in
preserving historic buildings and landscapes must
be balanced with other public interests.
The ten standards that comprise The Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are quoted
in full below, followed by a brief discussion of the
implications of each.
Standard 1 -- a property will be used as it was
historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials,
features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
Standard 1 recommends compatible use in the
context of adaptive re-use and changes to historic
buildings and landscapes. This standard encourages
owners and managers to find uses that retain and
enhance historic character, not detract from it.
For example, the work involved in re-use projects
should be carefully planned to minimize impacts
on historic features, materials, and spaces. The
destruction of character-defining features should
be avoided.
At Moravian College, a number of buildings
demonstrate this principle. Old Chapel/Hearst
Hall and New Chapel/Peter Hall both began with
ground-floor refectories and top-floor chapels.
This use has continued into the present, with the
adjoining ground floors combined as Clewell
Dining Hall, and the two chapels now being
used as performance spaces. The Gymnasium at
the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus was no longer
needed following the merger of the women’s and
men’s schools and the relocation of sports activities
to the North Main Street campus. As the merged
school decided to concentrate its arts programs at
the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus, the Gymnasium’s
soaring interior became first an art studio, and then
a gallery, and its exterior was preserved largely
intact.
Standard 2 – The historic character of a property
will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features,
spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize
a property will be avoided.
Standard 2 recommends the retention and
preservation of character-defining features. It
emphasizes the importance of preserving integrity
and as much existing historic fabric as possible.
Alterations that repair or modify existing historic
fabric are preferable to those that require total
removal.
Historic character is preserved to an unusually
high degree at Moravian College, with a number
of buildings displaying intact distinctive elements
and historic interior spaces. However, some
landscapes have been altered by drastic changes to
their composition. For example, the conversion of
part of the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus Pleasure
Grounds to a parking lot required removal of the
ceremonial gateway entrance and circular fountain
that once characterized the core of the resource.
Standard 3 – Each property will be recognized as a
physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development,
such as adding conjectural features or elements from
other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
Standard 3 focuses on authenticity and discourages
the conjectural restoration of an entire property,
feature, or design. It also discourages combining
and/or grafting historic features and elements
from different properties, and constructing
new buildings that appear to be historic. Literal
restoration to an historic appearance should only
be undertaken when detailed documentation is
available and when the significance of the resource
warrants restoration. Reconstruction of lost
features should not be attempted without adequate
documentation.
The concept of a physical record has been explored
in different ways at Moravian College. The Single
Brethren’s House was given a careful physical
investigation for clues to its evolution over time
(HABS 1968), and restoration was guided by these
findings. While its exterior was returned to an
early appearance, evidence of changes inside has
been preserved and, in the case of the covered-over
fireplaces and early central heating elements,
highlighted as points of historical interest. Despite
restoration of the original paired central entrances,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 64

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the original central stairwell was not replicated.
One of the two Federal-style end stairwells, dating
from the conversion of the building to a school in
1814-1815, was preserved intact and is now the
primary stairwell in the building.
Frueauff House is an example of a building where
this Standard was not applied. The house was
altered by ca. 1870 to be a story taller than its original
height and featured modest Italianate details. The
house remained in this configuration for nearly a
century. In the 1960s burst of enthusiasm to restore
downtown Bethlehem to its early appearance, the
added floor and mid-nineteenth-century elements
of Frueauff House were removed and it was
restored to its conjectured Federal early appearance,
utilizing recreated millwork and other details. It is
unclear what physical and documentary evidence
was utilized in this work, but the overall result is a
house lacking in authentic historic fabric.
Standard 4 – Changes to a property that have
acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.
Standard 4 recognizes that buildings and landscapes
change, and that many of these changes contribute to
a building’s historical significance. Understanding
a building’s history and development is just as
important as understanding its original design,
appearance, and function. This point should be kept
in mind when considering treatments for buildings
and landscapes that have undergone many changes.
Most historic buildings and landscapes contain a
visual record of their own evolution. This evolution
can be identified, and changes that are significant
to the history of the building or landscape should
be retained. The opportunity to compare multiple
periods of time in the same building lends interest
to the structure and helps communicate changes
that have occurred within the larger landscape and
community context.
At Moravian College, there are several examples of
historic buildings with later additions or changes
that have their own significance. Comenius Hall
was originally constructed as a standalone building,
but its interior and exterior were soon augmented
by the addition of Borhek Chapel on its north
and Harvey Library on its south. These buildings
were constructed in different but complementary
architectural styles and contribute immensely to
the overall significance of Comenius Hall.
Standard 5 – Distinctive materials, features,
finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will
be preserved.
Standard 5 recommends preserving the distinctive
historic components of a building or landscape that
represent its historic character. Workmanship,
materials, methods of construction, floor plans, and
both ornate and typical details should be identified
prior to undertaking work.
Many examples of fine craftsmanship can be found
at Moravian College. The skills of eighteenthcentury
stonemasons are evident in the facades of
the Widows’ House and Single Brethren’s House.
Fine details like the Federal-style stairways and
arched moldings in the Single Brethren’s House
and the early-twentieth-century stained glass of
Peter Hall are key characteristics of these buildings.
The elaborate main facade of Comenius, with its
stonework and ornamental use of terra cotta and
tile detail, remains a hallmark of the campus. Next
door, Zinzendorf Hall retains nearly all of the
distinctive woodwork that characterizes its primary
interior spaces.
Standard 6 – Deteriorated historic features will
be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature will match the
old in design, color, texture, and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features will
be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
Standard 6 encourages property owners to
repair historic character-defining features instead
of replacing them when historic features are
deteriorated. In cases where deterioration makes
replacement necessary, new features should closely
match historic conditions in all respects. Before
any features are altered or removed, property
owners are urged to document existing conditions
with photography and notes. These records assist
future choices that are appropriate to the property’s
historic character.
This Standard has already been applied in several
cases at Moravian College, notably the repairs
that have been made to street-facing windows
and other details on several of the Priscilla Payne
Hurd Campus buildings. However, the historic
rear-facing windows on several buildings, including
South Hall and Old Chapel/Peter Hall, have been
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 65

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
replaced with modern synthetic windows which
do not replicate the design, materials, or profile of
the originals. This type of action should be avoided
in future.
Standard 7 – Chemical or physical treatments, if
appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials will not be used.
Standard 7 cautions against using chemical and
physical treatments that can permanently damage
historic features. Many commercially available
treatments are irreversibly damaging. Sandblasting
and harsh chemical cleaning, in particular, are
extremely harmful to wood and masonry surfaces
because they destroy the material’s basic physical
properties and speed their deterioration. Potential
maintenance treatments should not alter or damage
these materials.
At Moravian College, strong masonry cleaning
methods were used on the Priscilla Payne Hurd
Campus buildings as they were being restored.
While the exteriors were cleaned of paint and dirt,
the cleaning also caused considerable damage to the
brickwork. This type of treatment was common at
the time but has since been recognized as harmful
and often unnecessary. It is recommended that
future cleaning be performed as gently as possible
to avoid further damage.
Standard 8 – Archeological resources will be
protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
Standard 8 is addresses the importance of belowground
prehistoric and historic features. This issue
is of paramount importance when a construction
project involves excavation, but depending on the
sensitivity of a particular site, can also apply to
less invasive work like laying a new walkway. An
assessment of a site’s archeological potential prior
to work is recommended. If archeological resources
are found, some type of mitigation may be required.
Solutions should be developed that minimize the
need for excavation of previously unexcavated
sites.
At Moravian College, the Priscilla Payne Hurd
Campus grounds have high archeological sensitivity
and should be protected from disturbance to the
greatest possible extent. Preliminary archeological
investigation is recommended prior to commencing
any type of ground-disturbing activity there.
Standard 9 – New additions, exterior alterations, or
related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that
characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and will be compatible
with the historic materials, features, size, scale
and proportion, and massing architectural features
to protect the integrity of the property and its
environment.
Standard 10 – New additions and adjacent or
related new construction will be undertaken in
such a manner that, if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment would be unimpaired.
Standards 9 and 10 are linked by issues of the
compatibility and reversibility of additions,
alterations, and new construction. Both standards
are intended to 1) minimize the damage to historic
fabric caused by building additions, and 2) ensure
that new work will be different from, but compatible
with, existing historic conditions. Following these
standards will help to protect a building’s or
landscape’s historic integrity (U. S. Department of
the Interior [1999]).
Modern-day updates to both Monocacy and
Colonial Halls successfully reflect this principle.
Monocacy received a new south atrium which
provided an ADA-accessible entrance and elevator
to all levels of the building, while preserving the
original south wall and window openings of the
former gymnasium within the new lobby. Across
Main Street, Colonial Hall’s two standalone wings
were united with a new corner addition, which
expanded the interior space, provided ADA access
throughout the building, and, reusing an original
gateway detail, created a modern but compatible
new courtyard entrance for the admissions office.
In conclusion, the basis for the Standards for
Rehabilitation is the premise that historic resources
are more than objects of aesthetic merit; they
are repositories of historical information. It
is important to reiterate that the Standards for
Rehabilitation provide a framework for evaluating
preservation activities and emphasize preservation
of historic fabric, honesty of historical expression,
and reversibility. All decisions should be made on
a case-by-case basis. The level of craftsmanship,
detailing, and quality of materials should be
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 66

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
appropriate to the significance of the resource.
When the Standards for Rehabilitation are carefully
and consistently applied, they meet the test of
common sense.
4.7 Principles for
Accommodating Change
The philosophy behind this Preservation Master
Plan is that a preservation approach to stewardship
should contribute to a viable, healthy campus by
preserving and strengthening character and by
accommodating change in a sensitive manner. A
primary goal is to identify and preserve characterdefining
building and landscape elements and
thereby enhance the campus as a significant and
distinctive place. Continued education of students,
faculty, staff, and visitors regarding the history and
significance of the College and its buildings and
landscapes is important in generating appreciation
and support for the appropriate treatment of its
resources. Appropriate maintenance is vital to
the conservation of character-defining building
and landscape elements. Flexibility in planning
and design is the key to developing solutions for
changing needs that will last for the long-term.
The concept of rehabilitation, encouraging and
facilitating the long-term preservation of characterdefining
building and landscape features, can be
summarized in the following general principles
that are based upon the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and should be considered in planning
maintenance, reuse, renovations, new construction,
and other future work at Moravian College:
• Continue to use a property as it was
designed to be used, or find a new use that
minimizes necessary changes to characterdefining
features.
• Identify and retain distinguishing
building and landscape qualities and
characteristics.
• Maintain, protect, and repair existing
character-defining features, materials, and
finishes. If features are deteriorated beyond
repair, replace in-kind.
• Be authentic: if a feature is missing or must
be removed, use accurate documentation
to guide replacement.
• Respect the evolution of historic changes,
fashion, taste, and use.
• Do not use maintenance methods or
materials that damage significant building
and landscape fabric.
Where needed changes requires new construction:
• Respect the college’s evolving master plan.
• Follow an established design review
process.
• Accommodate the needed program to
the maximum extent possible without
destroying the character of existing
resources.
• Understand that future change will
continue to occur.
• Respect the existing building and landscape
context.
• Maintain a high quality of design and
craftsmanship.
• Take a humanist approach – design places
where people want to be.
• Take a sustainable approach – be
responsible to society and the local and
regional ecology.
• Where change is necessary, existing
college buildings and landscapes offer
opportunities for creative new uses.
Often found with multiple layers of
history and aesthetics, existing buildings
and landscapes can inspire creative and
compatible designs for new construction.
• New construction should not destroy
character-defining building or landscape
features or materials.
• Additions and alterations to historic
buildings and landscapes should speak of
their own time but should be compatible
with the character of the existing resource.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 4 • Stewardship • 67

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Five
Cultural Landscapes at Moravian College
5.0 Introduction
This chapter presents an inventory of existing
cultural landscape features at Moravian College,
and an assessment of their physical condition.
The purpose of this inventory and assessment is
two-fold: to compare existing and historic physical
conditions to determine how the landscape has
evolved over time, and to create a baseline of
data for preparation of treatment guidelines and
recommendations. Ultimately, the information
presented in this chapter will help Moravian College
administrators understand the opportunities and
constraints related to preserving the campus’
historic cultural landscape. Photographs and maps
that illustrate feature conditions and their integrity
are found throughout the text and referenced
accordingly.
5.1 Methodology
This chapter’s findings are based upon field
surveys undertaken by JMA in the summer of 2008.
While the entire campus was examined at a broad
scale to understand how the cultural landscapes
of Moravian College physically and functionally
interact, the focus of these investigations was on
historic landscape resources that are at least 50 years
old (pre-1959). Areas of campus that are not historic
were subject to an overview visual inspection, but
not surveyed in detail.
Features of historic significance found in the
landscape were identified through research of
primary and secondary sources. Historic features
that contribute to the significance of the campus
landscape are identified as “contributing resources”
in the table summary that concludes this chapter.
Management issues and condition assessments that
pose a threat to the integrity of these contributing
resources were also identified. Features that may
be historic but whose date of origin could not be
identified have been denoted as not determined
(ND).
To assist in evaluating the integrity of a historic
property, JMA used the guidelines set forth by the
Secretary of the Interior in National Register Bulletin
15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, which states that:
[i]ntegrity is the ability of a property
to convey its significance….Historic
properties either retain integrity (convey
their significance) or they do not. Within
the concept of integrity, the National
Register criteria recognize seven qualities,
or aspects, that in various combinations,
define integrity. The seven aspects of
integrity are: location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. To retain historic integrity a
property will always posses several, and
usually most, of these aspects. (Department
of the Interior 1990:44)
If a character area retains integrity to a specific
historic period or periods, the resources that remain
from this period have been noted.
5.2 Context and Setting
Located in southeastern Pennsylvania, the
Moravian College landscape is part of the Great
Valley physiographic province, a large limestone
formation measuring eight to twelve miles in width
that curves from Virginia northward through
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (figure
5-1). The Great Valley is the eastern edge of the larger
Ridge and Valley province of the Appalachians and
lies adjacent to the Piedmont Province which leads
eventually to the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Lehigh
River flows across the northern end of the Great
Valley; the site of Moravian College is part of the
Lehigh River drainage area. As part of the Great
Valley formation, the bedrock beneath the college
consists of medium-gray thick-bedded dolomite
and limestone siltstone at its base. Subsoil in the
area is yellow to reddish-yellow clay (Gerhardt et
al. 2008:4; National Heritage Corporation 1977:20).
Moravian College is located in the center of
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The site chosen for the
original settlement of Bethlehem had a number
of features attractive to the first European settlers.
Foremost was an abundant spring that would
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 69

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-1. Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. Annotated to show location of Bethlehem and Lehigh River (Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo. Accessed December 12, 2008).
North Main
Street Campus
Steel Field
Hurd Campus
Figure 5-2. USGS topographical map of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Annotated to show locations of the separate campuses (United
States Geological Survey).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 70

Main Street
Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
provide water in all seasons and was a primary
reason for the purchase of this particular tract.
The hillside on which the town was located was
wooded with a steep descent to the Lehigh River
and Monocacy Creek. The creek flowed south along
the west side of the future city and then turned east,
meeting the river southeast of the town site, which
formed a long east-west peninsula between the
two waterways. On the south side of the Monocacy
Creek peninsula was a ford across the river. The
new town was sited “some distance from the river”
beside an old Indian trail that extended north and
west from the ford, crossing the peninsula and
Monocacy Creek, and running uphill past the new
site (Murtagh 1967:23).
Moravian College consists of three campuses: the
Hurd Campus, the North Main Street Campus, and
Steel Field. The Hurd Campus was constructed at
the location of part of the original settlement of
Bethlehem, atop the bluff overlooking the confluence
of the Lehigh River and Monocacy Creek (figure 5-2).
The North Main Street Campus, approximately
eight blocks north of the Hurd Campus, was built
on a hill above the northern reaches of Monocacy
Creek. Steel Field was constructed on the eastern
slope of a minor north-south tributary to the creek,
approximately three blocks east of the North Main
Street Campus.
The settlement that became the Hurd Campus
developed alongside the early Bethlehem industrial
complex, which arose to the west of the central
core of the town along Monocacy Creek and just
one block from the campus. The need for water
and a sufficient current for mill power dictated the
selection of the site, which surrounded the original
town spring. A millrace, no longer extant, was
dug parallel to the Monocacy to power a grist and
fulling mill and an oil mill. During a later expansion
of the industrial area in 1829, the Lehigh Canal was
constructed parallel to the river and is extant on
the other side of Monocacy Creek, past the south
boundary of the Hurd Campus (Kane 1963:3-5;
Murtagh 1967:13-15; Myers 1981:35).
City of Bethlehem
Moravian College lies within the jurisdiction of
the City of Bethlehem and is subject to compliance
with the city’s Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance, as well as the city’s zoning and building
permitting regulations (City of Bethlehem).
Church Street
Hurd
Campus
Figure 5-3. Bethlehem Historic District map, annotated to show the location of Hurd Campus (“Historic and Conservation Districts,”
City of Bethlehem web site, http://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/dept/planning_Zoning_Permits/historicDistricts.htm. Accessed December
12, 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 71

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The Hurd Campus of Moravian College lies within
the boundaries of the Bethlehem Historic District
(figure 5-3). Within this district, a Certificate of
Appropriateness is required prior to the issuance
of a building permit. Plans for any changes to
exteriors that are visible from a public right-of-way
are subject to review by the Historical Architectural
Review Board (HARB).
5.4 Character Areas
Preservation planners use landscape character
areas as a tool to organize landscape features and
land uses according to their distinct aesthetic and
physical characteristics. Once identified as distinct
character areas, landscapes with similar features,
opportunities, and constraints are more easily
understood in terms of their evolution and future
management options.
For purposes of this study, ten individual landscape
character areas have been identified within the
overall Moravian College landscape (figure 5-4):
• Hurd Campus
• Steel Field
• Comenius Hall
• Old Quad
• Monocacy Quad
• Colonial Hall
• Sports Quad
• Hillside
• Betty Prince Field
• Campus Ring
Each of the character area descriptions below
includes an evaluation and assessment of
natural systems and features, buildings, spatial
organization, land use, circulation, vegetation,
views and vistas, landscape structures, and site
furnishings and objects particular to that area.
Where possible, known archeological features are
also identified. This is followed by a summary of
historic resources and an evaluation of historic
integrity.
Several features are referred to as “possibly
historic” or “may be historic”. This indicates that
there was not enough information available to
support the historicity of a feature or the exact date
of its installation, but enough evidence existed to
suggest the feature may be over 50 years old. For
these features, more research should be conducted
to verify their age.
For each character area, existing landscape
features and conditions were photographed and
documented through field notes. Site photographs
have been incorporated into the chapter to illustrate
features and condition issues described in the
text. Based on this inventory, base mapping was
updated to illustrate existing conditions. Unless
stated otherwise, features were found to be in good
condition.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 72

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Hurd Campus Character Area
General Character
This character area encompasses the more than
250-year-old original core of Moravian College,
now called the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus
(Hurd Campus), and includes the oldest group of
buildings and spaces associated with the college,
as well as buildings and spaces associated with
the original Moravian settlers of Bethlehem (figure
5-5).
The area now comprising the Hurd Campus was
purchased by the Moravian Church as part of
a 500-acre tract in 1741 and the buildings and
associated spaces were originally part of the highly
structured Moravian social system, as described in
Chapter 2 – Historic Overview. Several residential
buildings, as well as communal gardens, were built
on the property. In 1814, the property was sold to
the Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies, which
had been founded in 1742 by Countess Benigna
von Zinzendorf. The Seminary had previously
been quartered in the Bell House, among other
locations.
Today, the Hurd Campus includes the area that
lies between Church Street to the north, Monocacy
Creek to the south, Main Street to the west, and
Sakon Place to the east It is primarily characterized
by its landform – a curved bluff sloping southwest
to the level area of the Monocacy Creek floodplain.
The most historically significant buildings on the
campus are grouped along Church Street at the
top of the bluff and along the original alignment
of Main Street. These buildings frame the north
and west edges of an open space with steep slopes
covered with brushy vegetation forming a visual
boundary to the east, and riparian vegetation
along Monocacy Creek providing both a visual and
physical edge to the south. The space is interrupted
by several private parcels and small parking lots at
the top of the bluff and a new residential building
for the college at its center (figure 5-6). Circulation
within the area consists primarily of service and
access drives, which double as pedestrian paths.
The center of the campus is used primarily as
a pass-through zone from campus buildings to
parking lots.
Character Area Assessment
The Hurd Campus character area is an essential
component of the college’s historic campus, as well
as a key factor in the development of the original
Moravian settlement and subsequent development
of Bethlehem. The Single Brethren’s House, one
of the most emblematic features of Moravian
College and of Bethlehem itself, is the terminus
of Bethlehem’s wide Main Street, which was once
the central square of this community, der Platz. The
trapezoidal spatial configuration of der Platz is still
discernable in the landscape.
To the south of the Single Brethren’s House and the
other historic buildings extending along Church
Street is a sloping, mostly grassy landscape that
has hosted a wide range of uses over time, from
community gardens managed by the original
Moravian settlers, to the Pleasure Grounds, a
complex conglomeration of gardens, fields, and
walking paths managed by the school for both
passive and active recreation.
While the area does not retain all of its landscape
characteristics from the historic period, enough
survives to give the informed visitor a sense of
the various roles the campus has played since
its development. Historic landscape features
remaining include the overall sloping topography
of the site and the upper edge of the bluff on
which the historic buildings were constructed, as
well as level areas on which various gardens had
been established. One of the walking paths of the
Pleasure Grounds survives in the form of a service
drive that leads to the rear of the Single Brethren’s
House. In addition, several trees have survived
from the historic period.
Construction of a large parking lot southwest of Foy
Concert Hall in the 1960s and recent construction
of the new residence hall along the bluff have
negatively affected the integrity of the historic
landscape due to removal of a number of historic
features, such as the cast-iron fountain, sundial,
tennis courts, playing fields, topographic details,
archeological sites, large shade trees, and historic
views of the campus.
Natural Systems and Features
The Hurd Campus is situated atop the bluff above
the confluence of Monocacy Creek with the Lehigh
Canal, just to the north of the Lehigh River (see figure
5-2). The primary natural features of the character
area are its landform and topography and Monocacy
Creek, which forms its southern boundary. The
landform rises out of the level floodplain along
Monocacy Creek, a sharply sloping hillside oriented
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 73

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-5. Hurd Campus character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 74

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Monocacy Creek has undergone a number of
changes since the Moravians settled the area. A
millrace was constructed to serve the industrial
area to the west of the Hurd Campus and then
later removed. In addition, the creek itself was
likely realigned sometime in the nineteenth
century, around the same time the Lehigh Canal
was constructed. Features that were located on
Monocacy Creek, such as Wonder Island and the
bridge that crossed the creek to the east, are no
longer extant (figure 5-7).
Figure 5-6. New residence hall construction located downslope
from the historic campus buildings. View is from the southwest
end (JMA 2009).
generally southwest to northeast, flattening out
where most of the buildings are grouped. Grading
has been used to create terracing for building
construction, with several retaining walls in place
to hold the cut slope. The creek, floodplain, slope,
and bluff constitute historic resources; their historic
use as garden spaces and effect on the early spatial
organization on the site contribute to its integrity.
Contributing features:
• Monocacy Creek
• Floodplain
• Slope
• Bluff
Missing features:
• Original alignment of Monocacy Creek
and millrace
• Wonder Island
• East bridge
Single Brethren’s House
East bridge
Wonder Island
Figure 5-7. Map of the Moravian settlement of Bethlehem, dated 1751, showing Wonder Island on Monocacy Creek just south of the
Single Brethren’s House (Moravian Church Archives, annotated by JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 75

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Spatial Organization
The overall spatial organization of the Hurd
Campus reflects its roots in the original Moravian
settlement of Bethlehem (refer to Chapter 2 –
Historic Overview). The spatial character, then and
now, is generally defined by the linear arrangement
of the buildings along Church Street above a central
open space or garden.
The oldest building on the campus, the Single
Brethren’s House, was the terminus of Main Street
as it widened at its intersection with Church to
become the settlement’s town square, der Platz (figure
5-8). The Platz was the major organizing element of
the town into the 1800s and its slightly trapezoidal
shape is still perceptible in the landscape. Eventually,
Main Street was extended south of Church Street,
turning the corner to avoid West Hall. A linear
alignment of buildings developed along this section
of Main, enclosed the open garden space to the west
as newer structures were added in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries.
The inner core of the campus has changed
significantly from its original form. It has been
used for a variety of purposes over the course of
its settled history, including subsistence gardens,
Main Street
tree-lined walking paths, tennis courts and playing
fields, performance space, and study area. At the
time of the Moravian settlement, the area was
used as community gardens and was laid out in
a formal, geometrical configuration common to
European gardens of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries (figures 5-9 and 5-10). During construction
of the new residence hall, several root cellars, one
of which dates to the eighteenth century, were
discovered in this area and were likely used to store
produce from these gardens (Gerhardt et al. 2008).
Figure 5-9. Pownal’s 1754 view of the Moravian settlement
showing the Single Brethren’s House at the center and the area
to the south as working yards and gardens (Moravian Church
Archives).
Der Platz
Single
Brethren’s
House
Figure 5-8. Golkowski’s plan of Bethlehem from 1771 showing
the layout of the town around der Platz and the placement of
the Single Brethren’s House at the terminus of the view. The
forced perspective from north to south would have made the
space seem even longer than it was (Moravian Church Archives,
annotated by JMA 2009).
Figure 5-10. Map of the Moravian settlement of Bethlehem by
Golkowski, dated 1758, showing the gardens south and east of
the Single Brethren’s House (Moravian Church Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 76

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
In the nineteenth century, this area evolved into
the Pleasure Grounds, expressing the Romantic
landscape style with its system of curving informal
walking paths leading down to Monocacy Creek
below the school and ornamented with a variety
of trees and shrubs (figures 5-11 and 5-12). Later,
the Pleasure Grounds developed into a series of
smaller garden spaces and playing fields, including
the central green, the Sundial Garden, the Rose
Garden, the Tennis Courts, and the Sunken Garden
(where games such as field hockey were played)
(figures 5-13 through 5-16).
Today, most of these garden spaces no longer exist
(figure 5-17). The area of the Sundial Garden is now
a large parking lot, and the area that held the Tennis
Courts and Sunken Garden is the site of the new
residence hall. The area where the central green
and Rose Garden stood, and the bluff, which was
more heavily wooded in the Female Seminary era,
are the only remaining open spaces on the campus.
Figure 5-13. Viewbook image of students in the Rose Garden
behind Main Hall ca. 1929 (Moravian Viewbook [1929]).
Figure 5-14. Terrace behind Main Hall containing the Rose
Garden in the 1930s (1930s Yearbook).
Figure 5-11. Roepper’s 1855 map of the Female Seminary
and surrounding Bethlehem, showing the edge of the bluff
of Monocacy Creek and the location of the Pleasure Grounds
(Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 5-15. Viewbook image of students playing tennis on the
lower level of the Hurd Campus ca. 1929 (Moravian Viewbook
[1929]).
Figure 5-12. View of the Female Seminary grounds from
the south, showing the curving paths and rugged, romantic
character of the Pleasure Grounds (Moravian Souvenir 1856).
Figure 5-16. Lower level of the Hurd Campus, 1936. Note that
corner post of tennis court is visible on the right edge (1930s
Yearbook).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 77

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-17. Hurd Campus period plan, ca. 1936 (JMA 2009).
Sources:
1936 Yearbook
Moravian Viewbook [1929]
1912 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 78

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The new residence hall under construction in this
area led to the removal of the three root cellars
dating to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Contributing features:
• Main Street
• Church Street
• Monocacy Creek
• Bluff/slope
• Central green
• Axial placement of Single Brethren’s House
on der Platz
• Der Platz space
• Pleasure Grounds space
Missing features:
• Community gardens of early Bethlehem
• Female Seminary gardens and recreational
facilities
◦ Sundial Garden
◦ Rose Garden
◦ Tennis courts
◦ Sunken Garden
Land Use
Land within the Hurd Campus character area has
been primarily used for institutional and residential
purposes since it was purchased by the Moravian
Seminary for Young Ladies in 1814. Prior to the
establishment of the school, religious institutional
use, in the form of church-owned residential
buildings, dominated the area.
Over the property’s life as an educational
institution, some of the buildings and landscapes
have undergone a change in use. Buildings that
were once residential, such as the Single Brethren’s
House, are now used as classrooms, while the
former Gymnasium is now the Payne Art Gallery.
The Widows’ House, Main Hall, Clewell Hall,
and Frueauff House are still primarily residential.
The Widows’ House, purchased by the College in
1992, contains 13 apartments and two guest rooms.
It currently houses a mix of seminary students
and Moravian widows. The new Residence Hall,
currently under construction, will be used for
student housing.
Agricultural and medical uses of the Hurd Campus
grounds were documented during the pre-Seminary
era, when the land was used as vegetable and herb
gardens, providing both food and medicinal herbs
for community members. The Single Brethren’s
House also served as a hospital during the
Revolutionary War, adding another facet to the use
of this property for medical purposes. The land
was also used for storage, both in sheds (visible in
historic views) and in underground brick cellars
built into the hillside. After the practical uses by the
Moravian community ceased and the land became a
school campus, the open space at the middle of the
campus was used for passive and active recreation,
but in recent times, the majority of active recreation
was relocated to the Main Street Campus and the
space is used primarily for band practice, parking,
and circulation.
Contributing features:
• Educational/Institutional
• Residential
Missing features:
• Agricultural
• Religious/Communal
• Active recreational
• Medical
Buildings
The Hurd Campus area contains Moravian College’s
oldest academic buildings, including the Single
Brethren’s House and the Widows’ House. Both
reflect variations on stone-constructed vernacular
Germanic architecture. Other historical styles are
also represented, including Classical Revival in the
Payne Art Gallery and French Second Empire in the
Clewell House. Other buildings have details that
can be attributed to the Italianate and Queen Anne
styles. Please see Chapter 8 – Historic Buildings of
this Preservation Plan for photographs and more
details about these buildings, as well as condition
evaluations.
A number of smaller buildings are no longer extant
within this character area. These include a number
of small outbuildings behind the Single Brethren’s
and Widows’ houses (see figures 5-8 through 5-11);
the Principal’s House, which was replaced by Main
Hall; gazebos or summerhouses in the Pleasure
Grounds (see figure 5-16, left side); and the band shell
that was located in the Sunken Garden area.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 79

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Contributing features:
• Single Brethren’s House (1748)
• Widows’ House (1768)
• Frueauff House (1819)
• Day House (1840)
• Old Chapel/Hearst Hall (1848)
• Main Hall (1854)
• West Hall (1859)
• Peter Hall/New Chapel (1867)
• Clewell Hall (1867)
• South Hall (1873)
• Payne Art Gallery (1890)
Figure 5-18. Main Street, looking south towards the Single
Brethren’s House, prior to 1887 (Moravian College Archives).
Missing features:
• Outbuildings
• Root cellars
• Principal’s House
• Gazebos/summerhouses
• Band shell
Circulation Features
Figure 5-19. A similar view in 2008 (JMA 2008).
The Hurd Campus character area is accessible
to both pedestrians and vehicles. The campus
is bounded on three sides by public streets, with
smaller private access drives on the interior of the
campus. Sidewalks parallel each of the boundary
streets; entrance walks and plazas are clustered
around buildings.
Vehicular Circulation
Main Street is the primary connection between the
Hurd Campus and the rest of Bethlehem. It follows
the path of a north-to-south Native American trail
that once passed through the area. Main Street was
not paved until 1887, and has traditionally been
lined with large elms planted in the street lawn
between the sidewalk and the road, as it is today
(figures 5-18 and 5-19). South of Church Street, Main
Street curves gently around West Hall and the end
of the Hill-to-Hill Bridge toward Monocacy Creek.
The two-laned, asphalt-paved Main Street becomes
concrete south of the intersection and is flanked by
concrete curbs and sidewalks on both sides.
Perpendicular to Main is Church Street, which is
oriented east-to-west and forms the north edge of
the building cluster that comprises this campus.
Figure 5-20. Postcard view of Church Street, looking west, ca.
late 1800s (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 5-21. A similar view in 2008 (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 80

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Church Street, originally called Sister’s Lane, was
established in the 1740s as the Moravians developed
Bethlehem. It intersects with Main in front of the
Single Brethren’s House; together they form the
southeast corner of the former Platz. Vehicular
circulation on Church Street is one-way today,
with parallel parking available along its south
side. Until 1890, the street was unpaved, but even
then featured the broad sidewalks and street trees
that continue to lend Church Street its pedestrian
character (figures 5-20 and 5-21).
Sakon Place, also known in the past as both New
Street and Bartow Alley, forms the eastern boundary
of the Hurd campus. This two-way asphalt street
has parallel parking available on both sides. These
parking areas, set into the curb, are paved with
granite block. The street is separated from the
campus by a wide turf lawn, set with a grove-like
stand of trees.
On the west side of the campus, an asphalt drive
leads off of Main to provide access to the south
parking lot. The entrance is flanked by two grey
stone pillars. This entrance replaced a brick, stone,
and cast iron gateway that was located further
down the hill (figures 5-22 and 5-23). The access
drive slopes to the south toward Monocacy Creek
and a large parking lot, then bends around the
end of Foy Concert Hall, where it rises up the hill,
curving toward the back of the Single Brethren’s
House. This alignment provides access for service
vehicles, though it was originally established as
a gravel path through the Pleasure Grounds (see
Pedestrian Circulation, below for more information)
(figures 5-24 and 5-25). From the corner of the Single
Brethren’s House to South Hall, this drive is edged
with medium-sized river rocks, which are intended
to mitigate stormwater runoff. This drive also
provides access to the parking area south of the
new residence hall. Parking for service vehicles is
available in front of the passageway under Peter and
South Halls, on a stamped concrete pad abutting
the east side of South Hall and Payne Art Gallery,
and in front of the planting bed to the south of the
Main Hall porch (figure 5-26).
The large asphalt parking lot below Foy Concert
Hall has space for approximately 100 vehicles
(figure 5-27). It was installed in 1967, covering the
area where the tennis courts, the Sundial Garden,
and a decorative cast iron fountain once stood
(Schamberger 2008, personal communication).
Figure 5-22. Granite piers at the entrance to the main Hurd
Campus parking lot (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-24. Pedestrian walk and service access to rear of Single
Brethren’s House (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-23. West entrance to the Pleasure Grounds ca. 1911
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 5-25. Historic view of the winding path through the
Pleasure Grounds (Moravian Church Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 81

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Medium and large trees shade the lot, held in
planting beds with rounded asphalt curbs. The
south and west sides of the lot are bounded by
Monocacy Creek and riparian vegetation. Small
light posts are set around the parking lot at regular
intervals.
Two private, non-historic driveways extend off of
Church Street onto the college property. A small
private asphalt drive to the parking area for the
Frueauff House leads to the space between it and
Main Hall. The drive is flanked by a picket fence
and a strip of ground planted with hostas and
young maple trees (figure 5-28). The drive extends
along the length of Main Hall, where it opens up
to a small asphalt pad, on one side of which is a
garage.
A second drive off of Church Street, between the
Widows’ House and the adjacent Moravian Church
Parsonage, leads to a parking area for the parsonage,
the Widows’ House, and the two private residences
to the west of Clewell Hall (figure 5-29). The entrance
of the drive is paved in granite blocks where it meets
with the Church Street sidewalk, and transitions to
asphalt at the edge of the Widows’ House, where it
is flanked by low concrete walls and a planting area
on the parsonage side. The drive leads to parking
areas for the parsonage, church administrative
offices, the Widows’ House, and the houses at 49
and 45 W. Church Street. It is lit with box lights at
irregular intervals.
Figure 5-26. Cobbles are used to control erosion along the
service drive. Parking for service vehicles is available in several
locations (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-27. The parking lot behind Foy Concert Hall (JMA
2008).
Pedestrian Circulation
Buildings on the south side of Church Street are set
back about fifteen feet from the curb, with porches
and stairwells intruding into the walking path (see
figure 5-29). The planted street yard separates the
curb from the sidewalk in most places. A variety
of trees grow within the street yard, including
sycamores from the 1960s, lindens, and ornamental
pear trees. Street signs, municipal street lights, and
utility poles are also located there. The sidewalk is
a patchwork of brick, several different concretes,
and granite blocks, and is interrupted by driveways
leading to parking areas behind the buildings.
The Church Street sidewalk narrows as it curves
around West Hall to Main Street. It is lined on its
east side by a bed of ornamental grasses in front
of a low stone wall bearing a carved inset reading
“Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus.” From this walk,
pedestrians can access the plaza in front of Payne
Art Gallery via a set of concrete steps set under a
Figure 5-28. The Frueauff House driveway (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-29. The entrance to the Widows’ House parking area
(JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 82

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-30. A metal archway and low stone wall along the west
edge of the campus (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-31. Paved area that comprises the Payne Art Gallery
plaza (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-32. Postcard view of the Gymnasium ca. early 1900s.
This building is now the Payne Art Gallery (Moravian College
Archives).
contemporary black metal archway (figure 5-30)
The Payne Art Gallery plaza fills the space between
the gallery, South Hall, and New Chapel/Peter Hall
and can be accessed by service vehicles by a ramp
extending along the west façade of the gallery
(figure 5-31). Both the plaza and its associated drive
are paved with red and gray pre-cast concrete units.
This plaza is a fairly recent addition since historic
photographs show a simple grassy bank and what
appears to be a small garden in this space (figure
5-32).
An arched portico that passes under South Hall
connects the plaza with the interior of the campus
and frames historic views looking east into the
garden space (figures 5-33 and 5-34). A metal gate on
the west side of the portico and a lantern hanging
from the eastern arch appear in photographs from
the 1920s. They were installed in 1916. A small
brick plaza at the eastern edge of the passageway
separates it from the asphalt service drive, and a
black metal bollard prevents vehicular access. The
plaza extends north into an entrance ramp to the
New Chapel/Peter Hall.
A passageway between the Single Brethren’s House
and Main Hall connects the interior of the campus
to Main and Church streets. This ten-foot wide
alley is not covered, although a narrow building
connecting Main Hall and the Single Brethren’s
House occupied the space from the 1850s until
1958, when the porch at the back of the Single
Brethren’s House was also removed (figures 5-35 and
5-36). The walkway is paved with poured concrete
aggregate, and a black metal bollard at each end
blocks vehicular traffic (figure 5-37). Doorways
leading into the Single Brethren’s House and Main
Hall can be accessed from this passageway. Views
Figure 5-33. View into the campus interior from the portico
(JMA 2008).
Figure 5-34. Viewbook photos from portico: left is view into the
Pleasure Grounds and right is view from same location towards
the bridge, both ca. 1920s. Note that lantern has been relocated
to the eastiside of the arch (Moravian Viewbook [1929]).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 83

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
south into the interior of the campus and north to
Main Street and the Central Church are framed by
the building walls.
Most of the buildings of the Hurd Campus are
accessed from Church Street via painted wood
plank steps (figure 5-38). A few have concrete access
walks, connecting sidewalks, or parking areas
directly to building entrances. An access walk
paved in brick connects from the brick plaza at the
east side of the South Hall portico, to an entrance to
the New Chapel/Peter Hall.
Pedestrian circulation internal to the campus
includes the multi-use service drive, mentioned
above, that was once the main path into the
Pleasure Grounds (see figures 5-24 and 5-25). Historic
photographs show that it curved up to the Single
Brethren’s House, then around past the back porch
of Main Hall and south again, forming the edges
of a lozenge-shaped formal lawn aligned with
the passageway to Church Street (figure 5-39). The
path then curved west to rejoin itself and descend
the slope past the flag pole towards the cast-iron
fountain and brick gateway. The path appears to
have been gravel-paved historically and at one
time was lined on both sides with gutter made from
granite pavers and at another with a concrete curb
and gutter system. Other paths diverged from this
one, some leading to the playing fields along the
bluff above the old root cellars and another leading
along the base of the bluff in the same direction
Figure 5-35. Passageway between Single Brethren’s House and
Main Hall (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-36. Similar view from 1943, showing structure that
once spanned the passageway (1943 Yearbook).
Figure 5-38. Wooden porches provide access to Hurd Campus
buildings along Church Street (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-37. Detail of the passageway showing bollards and
doorways (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-39. View of east arm of the main path in the Pleasure
Grounds, looking towards Main Hall (Moravian College
Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 84

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
(figure 5-40 and see figure 5-16). A four-piered brick
gateway once provided access from Main Street
into the Sundial Garden and the Playing Fields,
beyond. A narrow path, lined with silver poplars,
led from the pedestrian opening in the gateway to
the main path towards the central green.
• Paths leading to the Playing Fields
Southwest campus entrance with brick
columns
• Granite cobble gutters
Views and Vistas
A number of historic illustrations depict views of
what became the Hurd campus in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (figures 5-41 and 5-42 and
see figures 5-9 and 5-12). It is not known if these were
actual views or imagined and idealized images of
the town and college. Because the old Hill-to-Hill
Bridge has been demolished it is not likely that the
view to the Pleasure Grounds from that point is still
available. However, these historic views present an
overall picture of the historic landscape setting of
the campus.
Figure 5-40. Path to the playing fields along the bluff. Note old
root cellars visible to the right (Moravian College Archives).
In general, the few circulation features remaining
from the historic period are in good condition. The
main path into the Pleasure Grounds is currently
maintained in asphalt in what appears to be its
original alignment, although the cobbles on its
edges differ in character from the original granite
gutters. In addition, the sidewalk along Church
Street, is cracked and uplifted in places, creating
a tripping hazard. In areas where paving is not
adequately sized, turf has been worn away at the
edges from foot traffic and service vehicle parking.
Contributing features:
• Main Street
• Church Street
• Sakon Place
• Church Street sidewalk
• Service road in Pleasure Grounds space
(originally the main path)
• Passage between South and New Chapel/
Peter Hall
• Passage between Single Brethren’s House
and Main Hall
Missing features:
• Small paths in Pleasure Grounds
Historic photographs show framed vistas of the
Pleasure Grounds as seen through the passageway
under South Hall and between the Single Brethren’s
House and Main Hall (see figures 5-33 through 5-37).
From the South Hall passageway, an axial view to
Figure 5-41. View of the Pleasure Grounds of the Hurd Campus
as seen from the southwest (Moravian Souvenir 1856).
Figure 5-42. View of the Hurd Campus as seen from the
southwest, 1784 (Moravian Souvenir 1856).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 85

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the Widows’ House was framed by the symmetrical
placement of arbors in the Rose Garden (figure
5-43). The connecting structure between the Single
Brethren’s House and Main Hall was added when
Main was built and removed in 1964 when the
porch was removed from Single Brethren’s House.
the Single Brethren’s House into der Platz and down
Main Street. These are still available today (see
figures 5-18 through 5-21).
Contributing features:
• Views up and down Church and Main
•
streets
View from Single Brethren’s House
belvedere to Lehigh Valley
Missing features:
• View from bridge to Pleasure Grounds
• Vista to Rose Garden and Widows’ House
from South Hall portico
Vegetation
The vegetation on the Hurd Campus has changed
significantly over the course of its history. The open
area to the south of the row of buildings along
Church Street has been the site of vegetable gardens,
tidy formal allées, unruly woodland vegetation, and
ornamental plantings. Little of the original planting
material or patterns survive, though some of what
is there today attempts to recall past vegetation and
garden designs.
Historic Vegetation
Figure 5-43. A historic view through the South Hall passageway
shows the Widows’ House framed between two arbors in the
Rose Garden (1947 Yearbook).
Another vista that would have been available
historically from the Hurd Campus would be
to the Lehigh Valley from the Single Brethren’s
House belvedere. As described in the Pennsylvania
Magazine of History and Biography:
The belvedere, from which a fine view of
the valley of the Lehigh could be obtained,
in ante-revolutionary days was a favorite
resort from some of the governors of the
Province, where they were entertained
with cake, wine, and music, when en route
to Easton to make treaties with the Indians,
or on social visits to the Allens at Trout Hall
(Jordan, 1896)
The belvedere is not accessible at the present time
and it is not known if this vista is still available. It
may be blocked by buildings or vegetation.
Other historic views would include linear views
up and down Church Street, as well as views from
Historic vegetation patterns contributing to the
integrity of Hurd Campus includes street trees
along Church Street, large trees in the area behind
the Single Brethren’s House and Main Hall, turf
lawns behind Main Hall and Clewell Hall, and rose
bushes surrounding the rear wing of the Widows’
House. It is possible that some large trees behind
the Single Brethren’s House are historic, but the
other plants replace or represent what was there
historically.
Street trees have been a feature of Church Street
since its earliest days, with several engravings from
the 1700s showing trees planted at regular intervals
along the street (figure 5-44 and see figure 5-10). The
original species of the trees on Church Street is
difficult to determine, but historic photographs in
the Moravian Church Archives indicate that Church
Street was lined with tulip poplars and Main Street
was lined with London planes. Today, Church
Street is lined with a variety of trees, including
sycamores, lindens, ornamental pear trees, and
maples. Though these trees are not historic, their
placement and function contributes greatly to the
historic integrity of the street. The largest of the
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 86

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-44. View of the Moravian settlement by Garrision, dated
1757. Note trees lining most roads, including Church Street at
the center of the drawing (Moravian Church Archives).
trees are the sycamores (figure 5-45), ranging from
12” to 20” caliper, which were planted between
1958 and 1964, as is evidenced from before and
after photographs of the restoration of the Main
Hall front entrance steps.
Large trees located on the bluff behind the Single
Brethren’s House and Main Hall may be a remnant
of several former landscapes. The two large (63”
and 82” caliper) lindens dominating the central
space behind the Single Brethren’s House may be a
remnant of the allée that once lined a path through
the Pleasure Grounds (figure 5-46). Other large trees,
including 42” and 55” caliper honey locusts (figure
5-47), a 40” caliper Norway maple (figure 5-48), and
a 54” caliper sycamore (figure 5-49) located at the
crest of the slope and set over turf, may be vestiges
of the grove-like woodland vegetation established
on the slope between the late 1800s and early
Figure 5-46. Large lindens that are likely historic (JMA 2008).
1900s. Photographs from about 1870 and onward
show footpaths winding around large shade trees
in similar locations (see figures 5-14, 5-16, 5-25, 5-39
and 5-40).
Although little is known about the presence of
smaller plants, such as shrubs, perennials, and
annuals, historic photographs show that roses
were planted around the Widows’ House and the
Pleasure Grounds summer house. Roses grow
around the Widows’ House today, although their
age has not been determined (figure 5-50).
Figure 5-45. Large sycamores on Church Street that may date
from the early 1960s (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-47. This 55” caliper honey locust behind the Widow’s
House may be historic (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 87

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-50. Possible historic location of Widows’ House garden.
Roses are still grown around the base of the house (JMA 2008).
Non-Historic Vegetation
Figure 5-48. This Norway maple may be historic. (JMA 2008).
Non-historic plantings include several beds of
ornamental plants, stands of trees, and screening
vegetation located throughout the campus.
Ornamental beds are located at the base of the
stone wall that parallels Main Street, within the
area between West Hall and the Chapel, around
the statue of Countess Benigna von Zinzendorf, in
the small beds east of Peter Hall and south of Main
Hall, and in the garden of the Frueauff House (see
figures 5-30 and 5-31). These plants include perennial
flowers, shrubs, hostas, ornamental grasses, and
several small trees, including dogwood, maple,
spruce, hawthorn, and ornamental pear trees.
Other non-historic tree plantings include the
trees within the large parking lot in the southwest
corner of the site and the grove of trees between
the Clewell Hall lot and Sakon Place (figure 5-51).
These trees include maples, ginkgos, honey locusts,
pines, oaks, and ornamental apple and pear trees.
A few non-historic plant groupings are intended to
screen undesirable elements, such as the cedar and
arborvitae surrounding the A/C units next to Foy
Concert Hall (figure 5-52).
Figure 5-49. This sycamore may be vestige of the woodland
vegetation that previously covered this area (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-51. Hawthorns at the north end of Sakon Place (JMA
2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 88

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The last large elm on Church Street, located at the
northeast corner of Main Hall and visible in a 1964
photograph, was removed in 2007 for safety reasons
(Schamberger 2008, personal communication).
Trees, probably also elms, lined Main Street as well.
A few of these trees are visible in photographs from
as late as 1954 (figure 5-54 and see figure 5-23), though
none remain today.
Figure 5-52. Screen shrubs adjacent to West Hall (JMA 2008).
Missing Historic Vegetation
As a part of the early Moravian settlement, the parcel
contained gardens producing medicinal herbs,
vegetables, and other plants for the sustenance of
the community. Maps dating to 1751 show these
gardens as rectangular plots divided by paths
covering most of the slope. They are depicted in
eighteenth century engravings of the city, as well as
several other illustrations, as lined with white picket
fences (see figures 5-9 and 5-42). The gardens served
in their sustaining capacity in conjunction with the
nearby fruit orchards and farms, as well as the later
citizen gardens on Sand Island. Additionally, the
plot of land where the Widows’ House now stands
is illustrated as a formal parterre garden, featuring
turf beds edged with shrubs with an intervening
network of paths (see figures 5-10 and 5-44). None of
this garden vegetation survives today.
The Moravians’ communal way of life began to
give way to nuclear family living and in the early
nineteenth century, the area between Church Street
and Monocacy Creek began to evolve into the
Pleasure Grounds, a recreational space featuring
both formal and informal tree-lined walking paths
twisting among sloping lawns and specimen trees
such as elms and weeping willows. The few large
lindens that dominate the central space behind the
Single Brethren’s House may be a remnant of the
allée that once lined the path (see figures 5-12, 5-16,
and 5-39), while the sloping lawns of the Pleasure
Grounds are recalled by the turf stretches west of
Peter Hall, south of the Single Brethren’s House,
and south of Clewell Hall (figure 5-53 and see figures
5-35 and 5-46).
As mentioned previously, Church Street has
been planted with street trees since the early
days of Bethlehem. Early engravings show only
representations of trees, but photographs from the
late 1800s show elms and oaks lining the street.
Historic photographs also depict an allée of silver
poplars lining a pedestrian walkway that descended
from the Pleasure Grounds down to the ornamental
fountain, below. There may be remnant trees from
this feature still remaining in the landscape (figure
5-55 and see figure 5-16).
Dense woodland vegetation is depicted in historic
photographs as lining the slope below the college,
but it was much denser then than it is today (see
figures 5-35 and 5-40). It appears that many of these
trees were removed for the construction of the new
residence hall, or were lost to age and disease and
not replaced. Possible remnants of this woodland
include the sycamores, honey locusts, and lindens
behind Main Hall.
Figure 5-53. This sloping lawn behind Clewell Hall recalls the
open quality of the historic landscape (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-54. 1954 aerial photo of Hurd Campus. Street trees are
visible along both South Main Street and West Church Street.
Also visible is the woodland that existed along the slope below
these buildings and the riparian vegetation along Monocacy
Creek (1954 Yearbook).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 89

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Landscape Structures
Landscape structures within the Hurd Campus
include a number of retaining and freestanding
walls, as well as gate and plinth compositions that
mark entrances. There is a variety of walls ranging
from concrete to field stone. Between Main Hall
and the Frueauff House is a three-to-four foot high
stone retaining wall that supports the Frueauff
House garden. It is topped with a painted wood
picket fence on its southwest and south sides (figure
5-56). A second stone wall retains the stream bank
on the south side of Monocacy Creek; it is visible
from the lower levels of the Hurd Campus (figure
5-57). These two walls appear to be historic.
Figure 5-55. Viewbook photo of allée of silver poplars leading
through the Pleasure Grounds ca. 1929 (Moravian Viewbook
[1929]).
Historic photographs also show a number of
smaller plants that are missing today. These include
the English ivy that covered the Single Brethren’s
House, Main Hall, and the Payne Art Gallery;
roses and other flowering plants, such as tulips,
in the Rose Garden; and shrubs along the bases of
buildings (see figures 5-13, 5-14, 5-25, 5-32, 5-36, and
5-39).
Contributing features:
• Allée to Single Brethren House (large
lindens may remain)
Missing features:
• Medicinal herb and vegetable gardens
• Citizen gardens on Sand Island
• Fruit gardens/Orchards
• Pleasure Grounds
◦ Sloping lawn
◦ Trees and shrubs along paths
◦ Weeping willow/specimen trees
◦ Elms
• Formal garden behind the Widows’ House
• Allée of silver poplars
• Elms
• English ivy
• Rose Garden
• Foundation shrubs
A third stone retaining wall was constructed to
hold the slope around a honey locust behind
the Frueauff House. In addition, concrete walls
have been constructed on the campus adjacent to
buildings and provide ramped or staired entrances
or create window wells. All of these walls appear to
be non-historic.
Missing structures include the formal brick gateway
to the Pleasure Grounds (see figure 5-23), the tennis
courts (see figure 5-15), the cast iron fountain (see
figure 5-16), the stacked stone retaining wall that
supported the south end of the Rose Garden (see
figure 5-14), and the stone garden wall behind Main
Hall (see figure 5-39).
Figure 5-56. Retaining wall topped with picket fence between
Main Hall and Frueauff House (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-57. Retaining wall along Monocacy Creek (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 90

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Contributing features:
• Retaining wall between Main Hall and
Frueauff House
• Retaining wall along Monocacy Creek
• Retaining wall around honey locust behind
Frueauff House
Missing features:
• Formal brick gateway into campus
• Tennis courts
• Cast iron fountain
• Rose Garden retaining wall
• Stone garden wall
Site Furnishings and Objects
The Hurd Campus contains a variety of types and
styles of site furnishings, including fences, gates,
railings, bollards, benches, lighting, sculpture,
signage, and other items. Some of these items
contribute to the historic character of the area and
some detract from it. Descriptions of these items
are detailed below.
A cream-painted, four-foot tall wood picket fence
surrounds the garden area behind the Frueauff
House. It rests atop the stone retaining wall and
has vertical pickets affixed to a top and bottom rail
(see figure 5-56). A gate with black metal hinges set
in the fenceline allows access to the garden below
(figure 5-58). Historic views of the gardens on this
parcel show picket fences surrounding the plots;
this fence may be an imitation of that style (see
figure 5-9).
picket gate, with 4”x4” corner posts topped with
decorative black metal lanterns (see figure 5-28). On
the east side of the Freuauff House, a six-foot-tall
gate, flanked by two sections of fence, closes off the
space between the house and the Central Moravian
Administrative Office.
In addition to these two wood gates, a metal gate
is located on the west side of the portico under
South Hall. This gate and a lantern hanging from
the western arch appear in photographs from the
1920s (see figures 5-33 and 5-34). They were installed
in 1916. Note that the lantern was later moved to
the eastern arch as it appears today.
West of these features is a black metal gateway that
arches over the entrance to the plaza in front of
the Payne Art Gallery. Its provenance and date of
installation are not known.
Along the property line between the Clewell Hall
and 45 W. Church Street is a post and wire fence
of indeterminate age (figure 5-59). The posts are
concrete with chamfered tops and rectangular wire
mesh affixed to the posts with large metal staples.
This fence is similar to a fence that appears in a
1929 photograph next to the formal entrance gate
that was located on Main Street and may be historic
(see figures 5-23 and 5-32).
On the Church Street front of the Frueauff House
are two gates in a similar style. At the entrance
to the private drive between Main Hall and the
Frueauff House is a double inward-swinging
Figure 5-58. Wood picket fence behind the Frueauff House (JMA
2008).
Figure 5-59. Concrete fence posts that are likely historic (JMA
2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 91

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Other such features include the utilitarian tubular
steel railings, painted black and mounted in a
concrete wall, that guard several service areas
on the campus (figure 5-60); they appear to be of
recent vintage. In addition, a wood post and rail
fence runs the length of the east boundary of the
campus between the Clewell lot and Sakon Place.
It is similar to other such fences on the North Main
Street Campus and is of recent vintage (see figure
5-53).
Figure 5-60. Concrete window well topped with black pipe
railing (JMA 2008).
Also of recent vintage are the bollards used
throughout campus to block vehicular access. Many
bollards used in this capacity are black metal, with
rounded decorative caps and fluted bases. They are
located at each end of the access alley between the
Single Brethren’s House and Main Hall, at the east
end of the passageway under South Hall, and at
the block-laid drive on the west side of Payne Art
Gallery (see figures 5-22, 5-33, and 5-37).
A few more utilitarian-style bollards are located
in the parking lot below Foy Concert Hall. One is
located in front of the flagpole structure just south
of the Concert Hall. An unpainted metal tube with
a black rubber cap and an eyebolt for a chain, the
bollard was likely one of a pair or series of bollards
intended to protect the flagpole.
A cluster of site furnishings is located at the back
of Main Hall. This includes two concrete and wood
benches, a variety of trash containers, and utility
features. Note also that a Bradford pear and large
boulders ornament the spot. The benches also serve
as impromptu bike racks. These items detract from
the historic character of this part of the campus,
although they serve the purpose of outdoor
gathering. This is also the only area where trash can
be collected (figure 5-61).
Other site furnishings and objects include the large
flagpole that is the only remaining feature extant
from the garden area that contained the cast iron
fountain (figure 5-62 and see figure 5-16). It is still
in its original location and in good condition.
However, it is visually crowded by the parking lot
that was constructed there in the 1960s. Adjacent
to the flagpole is a painted statue of a mule (see
figure 5-62). The statue was part of the 2003 Miles
of Mules public art project. It was originally placed
in front of the Single Brethren’s House, facing north
on Main Street, and moved to its current site after
the arts project ended (Moravian College news
release, 2003). In addition to these are a number of
lights, signs, benches, and newspaper boxes placed
in various places in the west part of the campus and
all of recent vintage. An accumulation of signage for
both traffic control, to provide historic information
(plaques), and for wayfinding (banners) detracts
from the historic nature of views of the campus
buildings from the front (see figure 5-38).
Recently installed in the location of the Pleasure
Grounds is a statue of Benigna, the Countess
von Zinzendorf, who is credited with founding
the school in 1742. The statue is centered in a
small garden bordered on two sides by low brick
semi-circular benches. A third and more portable
garden bench faces east (figure 5-63).
Furnishings that are missing from the existing
landscape include the arbors in the Rose Garden
Figure 5-61. Benches, trash containers, utilities, Bradford pear
and ornamental rock. Note that bench serves as bike rack (JMA
2008).
Figure 5-62. Flagpole and adjacent mule statue (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 92

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-63. Statue of Benigna, Countess von Zinzendorf (JMA
2008).
(see figures 5-13 and 5-14), the low wooden benches
that once lined the paths in the Pleasure Grounds
(see figures 5-25 and 5-39), the lighting, plinth, and
fencing that once decorated the area in front of
Payne Art Gallery (see figure 5-32), and the wood
and wire fencing that once surrounded the Pleasure
Grounds and was removed in 1910 (see figure 5-23).
Contributing features:
• Flagpole
Missing features:
• Rose arbors
• Benches in the Pleasure Grounds
• Lights, plinth, and fencing in front of Payne
Art Gallery
• Wood fence around Pleasure Grounds
Archeological Features
More than any other character area at Moravian
College the Hurd Campus character area retains
a high probability that significant archeological
resources are extant which are associated with
the full range of historical settlement and use
of the property. The Brethren’s House was used
as a hospital during the American Revolution
and any archeological resources associated with
that occupation and use would be extremely
significant. Other landscape elements, while no
longer visible above ground, may still be present
beneath the ground. Elements that are likely to
leave archeological footprints or signatures include
footpaths, garden plots, fence lines, structures and
outbuildings. Beginning in the 1750s the maps
showing the area are accurate depictions of the
grounds, including boundaries or division lines,
gardening areas, and outbuilding locations.
The archeological potential of the Hurd Campus
is illustrated by the recent historical archeological
investigation of three storage cellars exposed
during site preparation of the new residence
hall. The archeological examination and archival
research demonstrated that the westernmost of the
three contiguous storage cellars was the earliest,
constructed (circa 1766–1771) and was identified
as a gemeinkeller (a storage cellar in which a wide
range of perishable foodstuffs were kept). No
records specifying the construction date of the two
later cellars were discovered, and the nineteenthcentury
maps of the town, while showing main
buildings, do not depict smaller outbuildings
such as storage cellars. The later two cellars share
a common foundation wall, and based on artifacts
recovered during the investigation date to the
mid-nineteenth-century (Gerhardt et al. 2008). A
fourth storage cellar was located during the early
stages of construction of the new dormitory just
southwest of the Day House, an archeological
remnant of this important feature of the early
Moravian community.
Besides the archeological evidence of historic
settlement, there is a strong probability that
archeological resources may be present associated
with the pre-European (i.e., Native American)
settlement and occupation of today’s Hurd Campus.
Native American archeological sites ranging in date
from the Archaic through Woodland periods have
been located and recorded along the Lehigh River
and its tributaries, in floodplain, terrace, lowland
and upland settings. The majority of recorded Native
American archeological sites are located in upland
settings, making this topographic setting the most
common landform for sites in the region (Siegel
et al. 1999:68). Further, a colonial period Indian
village was located west of the Hurd Campus, at the
confluence of the Monocacy Creek and the Lehigh
River. While no known Native American sites have
been recorded on the Hurd Campus character
area of Moravian College, locations of terraces
and uplands adjacent to floodplains, similar to
the topography of the Hurd Campus, are likely to
contain the archeological remains of prehistoric
peoples.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
The Hurd Campus is nationally significant for its
association with the Single Brethren’s House (1748)
and the initial Moravian missionary settlement
at Bethlehem, as well as later use of this site as a
Revolutionary War hospital. The campus is an
important part of the oldest sector of Bethlehem. It
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 93

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
also gained significance for its 140-year duration as
a boarding school and college for young women.
In its early decades, female schools of this caliber
were rare in the United States. Finally, the Hurd
Campus was a key part of the restoration and
revitalization of historic downtown Bethlehem that
began with the restoration of Main Hall in 1958 and
has continued ever since. Its period of significance
is considered to span the years 1742 to 1959.
In general, the Hurd Campus retains a moderate
degree of integrity through the preservation of its
buildings and the spatial organization seen in its
relationship to Monocacy Creek, Main Street, and
Church Street. Few of the historic buildings have
been significantly altered or removed; changes
have been almost entirely additive or interiorrelated.
The rolling topography, the original
building locations along the bluff, and some of the
original garden spaces are all extant and support
the character of the pre-1960 college landscape. In
addition a portion of the path through the Pleasure
Grounds is still present in the alignment of the
service drive that leads up the hill to the rear of the
Single Brethren’s House.
Some aspects of integrity have been diminished
due to current conditions. The new residence
hall has a negative impact on the integrity of this
character area due to its central placement in
what was an open recreational space, the removal
of trees that created a woodland on the slope
leading to the Monocacy, and the disturbance of an
important archeological site during construction.
Prior to this project, the area that was once the
lower garden around the cast iron fountain was
replaced in the 1960s by a parking lot. In addition,
the original brick and stone campus pedestrian
entrance was demolished and replaced by a granite
vehicular entrance further up the hill. Overall,
historic recreational uses have been replaced with
buildings, parking lots, and vehicular drives. The
paving of the service drive with asphalt and the use
of river cobbles to reduce erosion also detracts from
the character of this historic feature. The current
variety of site furnishings and their placement also
diminish the integrity of this character area.
The Hurd Campus character area is in overall
fair physical condition. Condition-related and
hence, integrity, problems observed during field
investigations conducted on behalf of this project
are primarily those related to construction of the
new residence building and construction of the
parking lot in the 1960s.
Steel Field Character Area
The Steel Field character area encompasses
approximately fourteen acres of fields and
building facilities that serve the athletic program
of Moravian College (figure 5-64). The original Steel
Field, including a playing field and grandstand,
was constructed by Bethlehem Steel in 1916 to serve
its employees. The property was later acquired
by Lehigh University and then sold to Moravian
College in 1962 (Moravian Buys Steel Field).
Steel Field is located on Elizabeth Avenue, less than
one block east of the edge of the North Main Street
Campus. The boundaries of this character area
are Elizabeth Avenue to the north, Center Street
to the east, Fairview Street to the south, and Long
Street to the west. While the other streets easily
accommodate two-way traffic, it appears that Long
Street was originally an alleyway that served the
houses along New Street to the west.
An undated plan, likely drawn sometime between
1962 and 1965 and entitled “Moravian College
Existing Athletics,” indicates that the southern
boundary of Steel Field was once Laurel Street,
just one block north of Fairview (figure 5-65). This
plan shows layouts for soccer, softball, and varsity
baseball fields, as well as tennis courts. A second
plan indicates that Steel Field was later expanded
south to Fairview to accommodate more recreational
facilities, including varsity football, soccer, and
baseball fields, as well as additional softball fields
and tennis courts (figure 5-66). This plan also shows
the Field House, which was constructed in 1966.
Today, Laurel Street is closed between Long Street
and Center Street. Most of the pavement has been
removed with the exception of vehicular access to
the Field House parking lot. The length of Laurel
Street within that block has been replaced by a
sidewalk.
Natural Systems and Features
The Steel Field character area does not include any
notable natural features.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Buildings
Three buildings are located within the Steel Field
character areas: the Grandstand (1916), the Field
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 94

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-64. Steel Field character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 95

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-65. Plan showing layouts of athletic fields in Steel Field
prior to development by Moravian College (Moravian College
Archives).
Figure 5-66. Plan showing planned development of Steel Field
by Moravian College (Moravian College Archives).
House (1966), and a small concrete block building
(2005) across the main field from the Grandstand
(figures 5-67 through 5-70). 2005 renovations also
included installing Sportex artificial turf, a new
8-lane track, replacement of the structural steel in
the grandstand, waterproofing the exterior, painting
the interior and repairing the ceiling (Schamberger
2008, personal communication) (see figure 5-70).
The Grandstand, located on Elizabeth Avenue on
the north end of the site, is a brick and steel building
constructed in 1916 by Bethlehem Steel for its
employees, primarily in support of the Bethlehem
Steel Soccer Club (figure 5-71). The club was active
as an industrial amateur league between 1913 and
1930 and later went on to become a professional
club that founded the American Soccer League
(Bethlehem Steel Soccer Club). The building itself
does not appear to be greatly altered since 1916,
although a few changes are evident in comparison
of existing conditions with historic photos (see
figures 5-67, 5-68, and 5-71). The most notable
changes include the replacement of the transparent
side screens of the grandstand with brick and the
“bricking up” of the windows along the back wall
Figure 5-67. Steel Field grandstand ca. 1918 (Yates 1976).
Figure 5-68. Steel Field Grandstand. Note that side wings and
rear windows have been enclosed (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 96

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
of the stadium and at the base of the building. These
changes, while likely instigated for interior climate
control, affected the visual weight of the building.
Beginning in 1963, Steel Field was used for soccer,
baseball, and intramural basketball. In the late
1960s, the college improved the site with a new field
house, new bleachers near the grandstand, a new
baseball field, and upgrades to the existing fields.
The improved Steel Field was dedicated in 1967. The
Hoffman Memorial Tennis Courts were constructed
in memory of Howard Hoffman, who promoted
the sport during his time as a professor and then
left a sizable estate to the College. Funds from the
bequest were used to build the courts, which were
dedicated in 1969. In 2005, the Grandstand was
renovated and a number of changes were made to
its appearance.
Figure 5-69.
Field House built ca. 1966 (JMA 2008).
For more detailed building analysis and discussion,
refer to Chapter 8 of this report.
Contributing features:
• Grandstand
Spatial Organization
The Steel Field character area is generally
organized into two primary spaces: the North Field
and the South Field (see figure 5-64). The North
Field comprises the area contained in the original
facility, prior to expansion past Laurel Street. The
South Field includes the block between Laurel and
Fairview.
The South Field is spatially simple, consisting of
an open ball field edged by chain link fencing and
vegetation that separates the field from the houses
on its east and west sides, as well as Fairview Street
to the south and the tennis courts to the north.
Figure 5-70. Open playing field and landscape of trees and turf
in the southern half of Steel Field. The recently constructed shed
on concrete slab is visible next to the bleachers (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-71. 1924 Bethlehem Steel Soccer Club in front of
grandstand on Steel Field. Note that side wings and rear
windows are open (Bethlehem Steel Soccer Club 2005).
The North Field is more complex and can be
further divided into six smaller spaces. Because
of the fill added to the site to create the main
field, a steep slope divides the street side of the
Grandstand from the seating side and creates an
enclosure along the street that spatially divides the
streetscape from the rest of the field. At the top of
the slope is the main field, which is enclosed on the
north and south sides by the Grandstand and steel
bleachers. It is bordered on the east side by chain
link fencing, beyond which is visible the façades of
the residences that face Center Street. It is enclosed
on the west side by screening shrubs and the rear
façades of the houses that front New Street and the
garage structures behind them on Long Street. Just
south of the main field are an open field on the west
and a softball field on the east. South of these are
the Field House, its parking lot, and tennis courts
enclosed with tall chain link fencing.
Contributing features:
• Main field
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 97

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Land Use
The north part of Steel Field is used exclusively
for recreation and has been at least since 1916.
The original use of the area between Laurel and
Fairview is not known, but it is currently used for
recreation.
Circulation Features
Primary circulation features affecting Steel Field
are Elizabeth Avenue to the north, Center Street
to the east, and Long Street to the west. Three
vehicular entrances into the site are apparent, two
providing access to the Grandstand and main field
from Elizabeth and Center, and one to the Field
House from Long Street. Sidewalks along Elizabeth
Avenue and Center Street provide pedestrian
access around and into the site. The block of Laurel
Street within Steel Field was closed after 1966 and
the pavement removed, except for the driveway
to the Field House parking lot. The rest of Laurel
was replaced with a sidewalk entering from Center
Street and leading to the center of the complex.
Contributing features:
• Elizabeth Avenue
• Center Street
• Long Street
• Sidewalks along Elizabeth and Center
• Portion of Laurel Street to Field House
parking lot
Views and Vistas
Views and vistas available within the Steel Field
character area include linear views of the streetscape
along Elizabeth, Center, and Long that likely date
to the time of construction of the Grandstand. The
most prominent views, however, are provided from
the Grandstand into the main field and beyond.
Here one can see not only the action on the field, but
the fabric of the historic townscape that surrounds
the field (see figure 5-70).
Contributing features:
• Linear views of streetscape
• Views of field and townscape from
Grandstand
Vegetation
The palette of vegetation is quite simple within
Steel Field. The primary elements are turf and
trees. The turf provides a playing surface for the
baseball, softball, and open fields while trees along
the edge provide a translucent screen between the
area and its surroundings and between interior
fields. The main playing field was once a natural
turf field, but was renovated in 2005 to artificial turf
(see figure 5-70). Ornamental shrubs were planted
at the northwest corner of the field as part of the
recent renovation.
Contributing features:
• Street trees
Landscape Structures
Structures within the landscape of Steel Field include
two sets of temporary open steel bleachers that
supplement the seating provided in the Grandstand
and the brick retaining wall that encloses the east
end of the main field. All of these features appear to
have been constructed in the recent past.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings and objects found with the Steel
Field character area are primarily related to sports
functions. The fields and tennis courts are each
surrounded by chainlink fencing, ranging from
four feet to upwards of approximately twenty or
more feet in height. Other features include goals,
signs, and field lights. It appears that most if not all
of these features have been recently installed.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Archeological Features
No archeological resources are presently known
or recorded within the Steel Field character area.
The topographic setting of this character area and
the historical development of the area suggest that
the potential for prehistoric (Native American)
archeological resources to be extant is considered to
be low. It is likely that archeological evidence of the
pre-1916 historical agricultural uses of the area may
be present, although the likelihood of significant
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 98

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historical archeological resources is considered to
be low.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
The Grandstand is an example of an early twentieth
century event-viewing structure. Constructed of
steel fabricated by its original owner, U.S. Steel, it
had a roof and glass side walls to shelter spectators
and interior space below the bleacher seats to
accommodate a gymnasium. The surrounding
landscape was originally designed to host soccer
games, particularly those of the Bethlehem Steel
Soccer Club.
The Steel Field Grandstand building and its
landscape have a moderate level of integrity.
Major changes to the building include the bricking
up of original windows at the front and back of
the building, both under the bleachers and at the
top rear of the viewing section, removal of clear
paneled side walls, and the addition of partial brick
side walls in the viewing section. Since its original
construction, changes have been made to the field
to transform it into a track and football facility.
Comenius Lawn Character Area
The Comenius Lawn character area encompasses
the front and side yards of Comenius Hall, the
first college building to be constructed on the
North Main Street Campus tract (figure 5-72). The
tract was donated by the Moravian Congregation
of Bethlehem in 1889 for expansion of the college
and included a hill that slopes to the east and south
to a tributary of Monocacy Creek and west to the
creek, itself. A farmhouse, built in the 1820s (now
known as Hamilton Hall), was already located
at the crest of this hill and was purchased by the
College in 1889 along with the tract. Comenius Hall
was constructed in 1891 approximately 100 feet to
the east of the farmhouse.
This character area comprises slightly over two
acres bounded by Main Street to the east, Locust
Street to the south, and Elizabeth Avenue to the
north. The west boundary is considered to be the
back façade of Comenius Hall. This character area
encompasses Comenius Hall and its generous front
lawn dotted with large, historic trees dating to the
late Victorian era.
Natural Systems and Features
The hilltop upon which Comenius Hall was
constructed is the most dominant natural feature in
the character area.
Contributing features:
• Hilltop topography
Buildings
Comenius Hall was designed by architect A.W.
Leh in the Richardsonian Romanesque style
and constructed in 1891 (figure 5-73). The ornate
exterior was adorned with Moravian tilework
and a slate roof. At the time, all needs of the
school could be met within this single building,
which contained dormitories, classrooms, and a
basement gymnasium. In 1893, the Gothic Revival
Borhek Chapel was constructed on its north end.
A corresponding addition on the south end of
Comenius was planned but was not built at this
point (Moravian College 2007:7-8; Yates 1976:262).
This addition, the Harvey Memorial Library, was
not constructed until 1907 (figure 5-74). For a more
detailed building analysis and discussion, refer to
Chapter 8 of this report.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 99

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-72. Comenius Lawn character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 100

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
(now used as college offices) to the north; and the
streetscape of Main Street to the east. This space is
punctuated by a mixed planting of large and small
deciduous and evergreen trees. The canopies of
the larger, historic trees provide a sense of vertical
enclosure.
Figure 5-73. Comenius Hall prior to construction of the Harvey
Library in 1907 (Moravian College Archives).
Because Comenius Hall was built on the edge
of the hill, it was necessary to extend an earthen
terrace out about sixty feet to the east to support
the entrance and circular drive. The slope between
the entrance terrace and the lawn emphasizes the
verticality of the building and creates a subtle
bowl-like enclosure of the lawn on its west side.
Contributing features:
• Comenius lawn
Land Use
Figure 5-74. Comenius Hall after construction of the Harvey
Library. Note increase in tree size and amount of ivy coverage
(Moravian College Archives).
Contributing features:
• Comenius Hall
• Borhek Chapel
• Harvey Memorial Library
Spatial Organization
The Comenius Lawn character area encompasses
one large, open space, the lawn that leads down
from the east façade of Comenius Hall to Main
Street (figure 5-75). The space is bounded by the
façade of Comenius Hall on the west side, the line
of street trees along the extension of Locust Street
to the south, the façades of the brick residences
Figure 5-75. Open lawn in front of Comenius Hall (JMA 2008).
Comenius Lawn is used primarily for passive
recreation and commemoration of the establishment
of the college and various classes who donated funds
to construct features on campus. Its secondary,
supportive use is for education as part of the college
campus. As a part of the original tract related to the
Hamilton House, its previous use was agricultural.
Circulation Features
Comenius Lawn is characterized by three types
of circulation features: public streets, the circular
drive, and concrete walkways. Main Street bounds
the east side of the character area. That Main Street
had already been extended to that area of Bethlehem
by the time Comenius Hall was built is evident in
historic photographs depicting the circular driveway
that has historically connected Main Street to the
front door of the building. In 2003, Main Street was
widened a few feet, eliminating street parking and
creating a planted central median (see figure 5-75).
Locust Street bounds the south side of the character
area and appears to have been narrowed some time
in the past from 45’ to 20’ in width, likely for safety
issues (figure 5-76). Elizabeth Avenue bounds the
north side of the character area and still functions as
a public through-street. All three streets are paved
in asphalt with concrete curbs and gutters.
The circular driveway, as depicted in historic
photographs, led from the corner of Main and
Locust Streets to the front of Comenius Hall and
returned to the corner of Main Street and Elizabeth
Avenue (figure 5-77 and see figures 5-73 and 5-74).
The paving of the northern arm of this driveway
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 101

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-76. Narrowing of Locust Street on the south edge of
Comenius Lawn (JMA 2008).
two buildings. The new walk appears on a postcard
from around that time that depicts Comenius Hall
and the newly-installed plantings on either side of
the walkway (figure 5-79). The walkway also appears
in a 1954 aerial photograph of the North Main Street
Campus (figure 5-80). Both images show glimpses
of the stone landing that was originally constructed
at the top of the stairs, directly across from the front
door of Comenius (figure 5-81). The landing, along
with its globe lanterns, was removed at a later date
and replaced with a concrete slab and metal pipe
railings.
This concrete walk starts at a concrete landing on
the east side of the circular drive, then proceeds
down three sets of concrete steps as it descends the
earthen terrace slope and then extends east to Main
Figure 5-77. South arm of circular drive (JMA 2008).
that led to Elizabeth Avenue was removed in 2007
and replaced with a geo-system with a turf overlay
to maintain access for emergency vehicles (figure
5-78). The original curb cut is still extant. The
long-range plan for the College is to remove the
remaining driveway (Schamberger 2008, personal
communication).
Figure 5-79. Postcard depicting the front of Comenius Hall after
1930 (Moravian College Archives).
The central walkway was constructed in 1930 when
Colonial Hall was built, in order to connect those
Figure 5-78. Geogrid and turf replacement of northern arm of
circular drive (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-80. Aerial photograph from 1954 showing the North
Main Street Campus from the east. At the center is Comenius
Hall and at the bottom right is Colonial Hall (Revista 1954).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 102

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Missing features:
• North arm of circular drive
• Stone landing at top of stairs
Views and Vistas
The dramatic view from Main Street, up the
sloping lawn to Comenius Hall, is one of the most
important features of this character area today (see
figure 5-75). The potential impact of this view is
somewhat inhibited by elements such as the large
shrubs that flank the central walk and ornament the
statue of Comenius, as well as street furnishings
such as benches and trash receptacles.
Figure 5-81. Stone landing at the top of the stairs across from the
front door of Comenius Hall (Moravian College Archives).
Contributing features:
• View of Comenius from Main Street
Vegetation
Figure 5-82. Axial view from the front of Colonial Hall to
Comenius Hall (JMA 2008).
Street (figure 5-82). There, the walk is framed by a
stone gateway (see Landscape Structures, below).
Other circulation features include concrete
sidewalks along Main Street and Locust Street, a
narrow concrete sidewalk that runs alongside the
south arm of the circular drive, a concrete access
ramp and sidewalk associated with the Chapel,
and a concrete sidewalk that leads from Locust to
the Old Quad (see figures 5-76 and 5-77).
Contributing features:
• Main Street
• Locust Street
• Elizabeth Avenue
• South arm of circular drive
• Central walkway
The Comenius Lawn character area possesses a
variety of significant vegetation, some dating to
the late nineteenth century. Of particular note are
the four large trees, extant, that were planted after
the construction of Comenius Hall and appear in
historic photographs that appear to date to shortly
after the construction of the Harvey Memorial
Library in 1907 (see figures 5-73 through 5-75, 5-77,
and 5-79). The two large purple beech and two large
oaks that frame the central pavilion of Comenius
Hall are of relatively slow-growing species and
appear to be the same trees depicted as saplings in
the historic photographs. These photographs also
suggest that a variety of trees were planted in the
lawn area at that time, including purple beech,
oak, cedar, maple, and an evergreen that may be
either fir or spruce. A similar variety of species
exists today, including purple beech, pine, maple,
dogwood, magnolia, oak, gingko, and cedar.
This mix of species that highlights differences
in color and texture is not unusual in public
landscape design from the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century. This romantic style of planting
design was made popular by the publications of
Andrew Jackson Downing, particularly A Treatise
on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening,
in which he promotes as appropriate for Gothic
style buildings the Picturesque landscape, with
its “bold projections, deep shadows, and irregular
outlines” (Downing 1850:75). Trees selected for
such a landscape “should in many places be old
and irregular, with rough stems and bark, and
pines, larches, and other trees of striking, irregular
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 103

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
growth, must appear in numbers sufficient to give
character to the woody outlines” (Downing 1850:74).
In addition, he recommends “[f]oreign trees of
picturesque growth.” This mix of textures and colors
is attractive to many people, he asserts, because of
the “imperfection of our natures by which most of
us sympathize more with that in which the struggle
between spirit and matter is most apparent, than
with that in which the union is harmonious and
complete; and partly because from the comparative
rarity of highly picturesque landscape, it affects us
more forcibly when bought into contrast with our
daily life” (Downing 1850:77).
Of particular relevance to the Picturesque character
of Comenius Lawn is the importance that Downing
placed on the ornamentation of stone walls
with English ivy (Hedera helix), particularly for
Gothic buildings: “This vine is the inseparable
accompaniment of the old feudal castles and
crumbling towers of Europe, and borrows a great
additional interest from the romance and historical
recollections connected with such spots. Indeed
half the interest, picturesque as well as poetical,
of those time-worn buildings, is conferred by this
plant, which seeks to bind together and adorn with
something of their former richness, the crumbling
fragments that are fast tottering to decay…” He adds
that “on stone buildings, it fastens itself firmly, and
holds both stone and mortar together like a coat of
cement. The thick garniture of foliage with which
it covers the surface, excludes stormy weather, and
has, therefore, a tendency to preserve the walls,
rather than accelerate their decay” (Downing
1850:314-315). Historic photographs show that the
front of Comenius Hall was once almost totally
covered in English ivy, which contributed to its
Picturesque character (see figures 5-73, 5-74, and
5-79). The ivy began deteriorating in 1940, and
was removed in 1977 (Schamberger 2008, personal
communication).
After the construction of Colonial Hall directly
across Main Street from Comenius, the central walk
was installed to connect the two buildings. Historic
photographs suggest that shortly after installation,
the central walk was ornamented with a mix of
plantings, including evergreen and flowering
shrubs. Today, the walkway is dominated by a
group of yews (Taxus baccata) that are overlarge for
their placement and block the view of the lower
façade of Comenius Hall. They are currently kept
under control by heavy pruning (see figure 5-82).
Their date of installation is not known. A small
planting of creeping juniper and variegated hosta
flanks the stairway at its lowest set of steps.
Other yews and a type of arborvitae (Arborvitae
sp.), apparently of the same vintage, also grow
along the foundation of Comenius on the east side
and suffer from the same “right plant in the wrong
place” fate. These have been hedged on the top
and pruned heavy from the bottom, giving them
a Japanese bonsai-like appearance. They also block
views of the stone and tilework of the lower part of
the building (figure 5-83).
Figure 5-83. Over-large yews and arborvitae block views of the
front wall of Comenius Hall (JMA 2008).
On the east end of the central walk, where it meets
Main Street, the stone gate pier and wall composition
is ornamented by plantings of yew, vinca, and
daffodils. The statue of John Amos Comenius is
ornamented at its base by a planting of a type of
dwarf arborvitae (Thuja sp.) and small azaleas. The
monument sign, described below, is ornamented
with flowering small trees and shrubs with a mix of
variegated hosta and other low groundcover. These
all appear to be of recent vintage.
Contributing features:
• Purple beech and oaks
Missing features:
• English ivy
Landscape Structures
Landscape structures within the Comenius Lawn
character area include the central walk gateway,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 104

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the brick gateway that marks the entrance into the
campus from Locust and Main, and the monument
sign at the corner of Main and Elizabeth.
The central walk gateway was constructed prior to
1954, when it was shown in an aerial photograph
(see figure 5-80). It may have been built in concert
with the central walk in the 1930s after Colonial Hall
was constructed as the inside of the north pier is
inscribed “Class of 1932.” The gateway is composed
of two rough-cut limestone piers designed in the
Figure 5-84. Stone entrance gateway to the front of Comenius
Hall (JMA 2009).
Gothic style with shallow faux buttresses, but with
flattened cut stone pedestal tops that support black
metal lanterns (figures 5-84 and 5-85 and see figure
5-82). This gateway was renovated in 2003 when
the work on Main Street was done (Schamberger
2008, personal communication). The renovation
included the removal of these piers and replacement
of the same atop bases of cut stone. The spacing
of the piers was also widened. Attached to each
pier is a low, curved, cut stone wall that supports
black metal fencing and curves inward to create
an entrance foyer, which is paved in faux-brick
concrete units. There is a matching gateway directly
across Main Street that frames the walk to Colonial
Hall and that was renovated at the same time as
the Comenius gate. These renovations have served
to raise both sets of piers about twelve inches
above their original placement and widen their
spacing, which has changed their relative scale to
the streetscape and the buildings they frame. Their
stone bases are cracked and show damage at the top
where mis-cuts for the metal piers were made and
not repaired (figure 5-86). In addition, the lanterns
atop these piers were replaced in 2003 with smaller
lanterns with faux finishes that are out of scale with
the bulk and height of the piers.
Figure 5-86. Detail of the extension of the new base for the
entrance gate piers. Note cracking and damage where miscuts
were made for the metal posts and not repaired (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-85. Stone entrance gateway to the front of Comenius
Hall prior to the installation of the John Amos Comenius statue,
which would be located where the white wood sign is shown.
Note new lantern style and other changes (Moravian College
Archives).
Another gateway located within this character area
is the brick and stone composition that marks the
entrance of Locust Street into the campus (figure
5-87 and see figure 5-76). It is composed of two brick
piers laid in a rusticated pattern with flattened
pedestal tops of cut stone that support black metal
lanterns. Attached to each pier is a short, curved,
low wall that supports a black metal railing. This
addition was built in May 1980 and the north pier is
inscribed: “Gift of the Class of 1980” (Schamberger
2008, personal communication).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 105

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-87. Brick and concrete entrance gateway from Locust
into the campus. (JMA 2008).
The most recently installed landscape structure
in this character area is the monument sign
at the corner of Main Street and Elizabeth
Avenue, constructed in May 2003 (figure 5-88)
(Schamberger 2008, personal communication).
The sign is composed of what appears to be cast
concrete, inscribed with the words, “Founded 1742,
Moravian College.” The sign is supported on a low
limestone wall and two limestone piers, all capped
in stone or concrete. The wall extends to form a
narrow planter in front of the sign.
Contributing features:
• Central walk gateway
Figure 5-89. Statue of John Amos Comenius located in the front
lawn of Comenius Hall. (JMA 2008).
Moravian Church in Czechoslovakia to Moravian
college as “an expression of friendship between
the people of Czechoslovakia and the people of the
United States” (figure 5-89).
Other site furnishings and objects include the metal
handrail that flanks the stairway of the central walk,
four benches and three trash receptacles along Main
Street, four benches and one trash receptacle along
the trace of the north arm of the circular drive, and
spotlights aimed at the front of Comenius Hall and
at the Comenius statue (see figures 5-75, 5-78, and
5-89).
Large, white, PVA drainage pipes have been
installed to direct water away from the building.
Their size and color detract from the historic
character of the area (see figure 5-83).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Archeological Features
Figure 5-88. Moravian College monument sign at Main and
Elizabeth. (JMA 2008).
Site Furnishings and Objects
Most of the site furnishings and objects within
the Comenius Lawn character area are of recent
vintage, including the statue of John Amos
Comenius, which was installed in 1960. The base
supports a bronze plaque that described the statue
as a gift from Charles University in Prague and the
No archeological resources are presently known
or recorded within the Comenius Lawn character
area. The area has been heavily landscaped and
modified since the creation of the college. Despite
the landscaping, archeological remains associated
with the farm complex that occupied this area
prior to the creation of the college may be present.
A working farm would have included a dwelling
house (nearby Hamilton Hall, see Old Quad
Character Area description), barns, wells, privies,
sheds, other outbuildings, trash midden areas, and
fencelines – archeological remains of these resources
may still be extant beneath the present ground
surface. The locations of those former structures at
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 106

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the farmstead are not currently known. Further, the
topography of the character area, a small hillock
about a tributary to Monocacy Creek suggests that
area retains a low potential for prehistoric (Native
American) archeological remains.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
Comenius forms the core of the historic North
Main Street Campus. Its imposing east façade with
its foreground of expansive lawn and framed by
large, historic trees, is the predominant image for
the campus. Its architecture is a unique and creative
interpretation of the Romanesque, incorporating
Moravian tiles and a variety of stone into an ornate
composition of arches and gables. With its fine
workmanship, evocative presence, and importance
in the history of Moravian College, Comenius is
inarguably the most significant of the North Main
Street Campus’ historic buildings. Additions such
as the stone gate piers at the Main Street entrance
only add to its historic character.
The exterior of Comenius Hall retains a high level
of integrity. The ornate exterior terra cotta, tile, and
stonework are well preserved. The original design,
setting, feeling, and association of the building
and its landscape are still perceptible. Features
associated with materials and workmanship that
detract from the historic character of the façade and
landscape, such as the overgrown shrubs, metal
pipe railings, and the damage to the entrance gate
piers are easily overcome.
Old Quad Character Area
The Old Quad character area is the rectangular space
created by Comenius Hall to the east; Memorial Hall
to the south; Monocacy, Zinzendorf, and Hamilton
Halls to the west, and W. Elizabeth Avenue to the
north (figure 5-90). It gains its character by this sense
of enclosure, the façades of the buildings, and the
shade trees within that provide a leafy ceiling for
the space.
Natural Systems and Features
The Old Quad character area does not include any
notable natural features.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Buildings
As described above, Comenius Hall was built of
stone in a Richardsonian Romanesque style in 1891.
Two years later, the Borhek Chapel was added to
the north end and in 1907 the Harvey Library was
added to the south end. When Comenius Hall was
constructed, the Hamilton House was already
in existence, having been built in the 1820s as a
residence for the farm that comprised the original
tract of the North Main Street Campus.
Zinzendorf Hall, a brick building with a hipped,
dormered roof and Dutch Colonial details, was
constructed next to Hamilton House as a refectory
and laundry for the college. Hamilton, Comenius,
and Zinzendorf were officially occupied by the
college in September 1892. A new gambrel-roofed
brick gymnasium, now known as Monocacy Hall,
was added in 1913, completing the west enclosure of
the Old Quad space. In 1923, the Memorial Science
Building, now Memorial Hall, was constructed in
Colonial Revival style, enclosing the south end of
the Old Quad.
For a more detailed building analysis and
discussion, refer to Chapter 8 of this report.
Contributing features:
• Comenius Hall
• Hamilton Hall
• Monocacy Hall
• Zinzendorf Hall
• Memorial Hall
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 107

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-90. Old Quad character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 108

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Spatial Organization
The space of the Old Quad is enclosed by the vertical
walls of the surrounding buildings; by shrubby
vegetation at the corners, between buildings, and
at the north end; and by the canopy of trees above
(figure 5-91). This enclosed space is pierced by
openings between buildings that allow pedestrian
access and by the driveway at the north end that
provides access for service vehicles.
Figure 5-92. Zinzendorf Hall on the left side and Comenius
Hall on the right begin to enclose the Old Quad space in 1907.
An orchard of small trees is visible within the space (Sue
Schamberger).
Figure 5-91. View into Old Quad from the southwest corner
(JMA 2008).
A photograph of the Old Quad from 1907 suggests
that the space may have once contained an orchard
or other dense planting of small trees (figure 5-92).
This photograph also appears to have been taken
prior to the construction of Monocacy Street. A
second historic photograph, taken later, but prior
to the construction of Monocacy Hall, shows the
street in place (figure 5-93).
Aerial photographs from 1954 and 1956 show that
the quad space later became more open, cleared of
trees, and used primarily for vehicular access and
parking (figure 5-94 and see figure 5-80). It appears
that in the 1950s each of the five buildings was
oriented to a street, with Hamilton, Monocacy,
and Zinzendorf oriented to Monocacy Street,
Memorial to Locust, and Comenius to Main. It is
not surprising, then, that if these buildings are still
serviced primarily from the quad that there is some
conflict between vehicular and pedestrian use.
Contributing features:
• Space enclosed by buildings
Land Use
Use of the area comprising the Old Quad character
area has changed over time, starting with
agricultural use associated with the farm that once
occupied the school tract, then service and parking
Figure 5-93. The Refectory (now Zinzendorf Hall) in the
forefront with Hamilton Hall, the Resident Professor’s House,
behind it and Comenius Hall to the right, ca. 1890s (Moravian
College Archives).
Figure 5-94. Aerial photograph from 1956 showing the North
Main Street Campus from the northeast. Comenius Hall is the
the center and the Old Quad behind it (Revista 1956).
up to at least the late 1950s. In 1967, the quad was
closed off to most vehicular access, except service
vehicles and accessible parking at the north end.
The quad is used in the manner of an urban park,
with paved walkways and areas such as benches
and open lawn used for study and recreation.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 109

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Circulation Features
The most dominant circulation feature in the Old
Quad is the pattern of sidewalks that provides
pedestrian access from other parts of campus into
and through the quad space. These sidewalks
circumnavigate the space and criss-cross diagonally
through the quad, and were laid out in response to
natural foot-traffic patterns (figure 5-95). Most of the
walkways are paved in concrete with an attractive
scoring pattern that enhances the pedestrian scale
and purpose of the space today (figure 5-96 and see
figure 5-91). A small plaza at the rear of Memorial
Hall, designed in a symmetrical layout, is composed
of a mixture of bricks and concrete pavers.
The aerial photograph from 1956 shows a parking
area at the north end of the quad (see figure 5-94). The
entrance led from Elizabeth Avenue, approximately
in the same location as today, into the east side
of a circular drive that appears to have provided
vehicular access and parking for Comenius,
Hamilton, and Zinzendorf, and possibly Monocacy
and Memorial Halls. While there is now a two-space
parking area at the north end of the quad, the only
historic characteristic related to vehicular use is the
location of the vehicular entrance.
Generally, these circulation systems are in good
condition, with the exception of the asphalt paving
at the north end, which needs repair. However, there
is a conflict between pedestrian and vehicular use
of this space. Although the only vehicular access is
on the north end, service vehicles occasionally drive
into the space and park on the sidewalk, even as far
as the south end of the Old Quad (see figure 5-96).
Contributing features:
• Service drive entrance location
Views and Vistas
Because of the enclosed nature of the Old Quad
character area today and the heavy, low branching,
vegetation within and on its edges, views into and
out of the quad are limited (see figure 5-91). With
the exception of parts of Comenius Hall, views to
the façades of the historic buildings surrounding
the quad have have been compromised somewhat
because of the presence of a number of service
features, such as air conditioning units, basement
access doors, and utilities. However, from the edges
of the quad, glimpses of the arching windows
and fenestration patterns of Comenius Hall are
intriguing.
Figure 5-95. Memorial Hall in the 1970s with the Old Quad
in the foreground. Note that the pathways are not yet paved
(Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 5-96. Service vehicles often park on the sidewalk. Utilities,
benches, lights, and trash cans are also visible (JMA 2008).
Historic photos show views into what later
became the quad is mentioned above and depicts
Zinzendorf and Monocacy prior to the construction
of Memorial Hall, but that particular view of the
area is not available today (see figures 5-92 and
5-93).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Vegetation
Historically, it appears from the historic photograph
of 1907 that the quad area may have once been
an orchard or ornamental planting of small trees
lined with evergreens that appear to be white pine
(see figure 5-92). The 1956 aerial shows that these
trees were later removed and the area cleared for
a driveway and parking (see figure 5-94). None of
the vegetation within the Old Quad appears to be
historic.
Today, the quad is dominated by a grove of
honey locust, which provides dappled shade in
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 110

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the summer. In the winter, the symmetry of their
arrangement is more evident (figure 5-97). Other
trees located within the quad include three Bradford
pear at the crossing between the Old Quad and the
library to the west, as well as a number of small
trees such as a weeping cherry, a grouping of pines
and dogwoods at the northern end of the quad, and
lines of small trees at the base of Comenius and
opposite, along the facing buildings (figure 5-98).
A variety of shrubs are used as foundation plantings
at the base of all of the buildings surrounding the
quad and are mixed with flowering perennials in
small planting beds located throughout the quad
(see figure 5-98).
Figure 5-97. View of the symmetrical arrangement of honey
locust. Memorial Hall is in the background (JMA 2008).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Landscape Structures
The only landscape structure contained within the
Old Quad is the raised stone planter at the center
of the entrance to the quad from the direction of
the library (figure 5-99). The planter was installed in
1995; at its west side is a bronze plaque that reads:
“In fond memory of the students, faculty, and staff
of the former Moravian College and Theological
seminary, founded in Nazareth on October 2, 1807,
moved to Bethlehem in 1858, located on this site
in 1892, and merged with the former Moravian
College for Women in 1954 to create the modern
Moravian College. Dedicated May 6, 1995.”
Contributing features:
• None identified
Figure 5-98. Smaller trees and planting beds within the lawn of
the Old Quad (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-99. Raised planter on the west side of the Old Quad
(JMA 2008).
Site Furnishings and Objects
All of the site furnishings and other objects contained
within the Old Quad character area appear to be
recently installed. Furnishings include benches
made of steel and wood, steel trash containers,
one steel bicycle rack (painted blue), a few utility
meters, and several light standards supporting
Colonial-style lanterns (figure 5-100 and see figure
5-96). Also scattered within the landscape are a
few large boulders that appear to have been placed
as ornamental features in the style of a Japanese
garden. Their significance is not known.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Figure 5-100. Benches, lights, bike racks, and trash cans in the
Old Quad (JMA 2008).
Archeological Features
No archeological resources are presently known or
recorded within the Old Quad character area. Prior
to the creation of the North Main Street Campus the
Hamilton House, built circa 1820, was already in
existence as a residence for the farm that comprised
the original tract. While the character area has been
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 111

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
modified by college landscaping, archeological
potential of this property is considered to be high.
Material remains associated with the occupants
of the farm complex may be present. Besides the
house, a working farm would have included barns,
wells, privies, sheds, midden areas, and other
outbuildings – archeological remains of these
resources may still be extant beneath the present
ground surface. The locations of those former
structures at the farmstead are not currently known.
The potential for prehistoric (Native American)
archeological resources is likely to be low in this
character area. Archeological resources (features
and artifacts) associated with the college buildings
are also likely to be present.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
As a group, the buildings that surround the Old
Quad vary in significance and integrity, but the
presence of a number of utility features further
detract from the character of the open, shaded,
contemplative space that is desired by the college.
Hamilton Hall has only moderate integrity due to
the loss of its rural setting and its significance is
primarily historical. On the other hand, Comenius
is the most significant of the North Main Street
Campus’ historic buildings and retains a high level
of integrity. Zinzendorf was constructed at the same
time as Comenius and its exterior has a high level of
integrity, particularly as the eccentric, stone-topped
window wells on its west side have been retained
and add to its historic character. Monocacy Hall is
not overly distinctive and there has been some loss
of exterior features, but Memorial Hall’s exterior is
in excellent condition.
While the Old Quad space has only moderate
integrity from the historic period, it has great
potential to be successful as an adaptively re-used
space. With the exception of the north end, the quad
is no longer used for parking or other vehicular
uses and it possesses a functional and attractive
circulation system that is in good condition. Shade
trees have been added that create a translucent
ceiling to the space and this adds to its sense of
enclosure. Scatterings of small plantings and site
furnishings detract from the simplicity of the
space, but this is easily remedied. Of most concern
is the poor appearance of utility features located
along building walls, which recollects the original
service function of the space. However, this is
easily remedied with consolidation, relocation, and
screening.
Monocacy Quad Character Area
The Monocacy Quad character area is defined
on the east by the west sides of Monocacy Hall,
Zinzendorf Hall, and Hamilton Hall; on the west by
Reeves Library; on the south by Locust Street, and
on the north by W. Elizabeth Avenue (figure 5-101).
This area was once a residential block of Monocacy
Street, which still extends from the north and south
ends of the area (see figure 5-80). In 1966, seven large
late nineteenth to early twentieth century houses
that faced onto Monocacy Street were demolished
and the street was vacated and absorbed into the
campus grounds to accommodate the Reeves
Library (Weinlick 1977:112) (see figure 5-94).
Natural Systems and Features
The Monocacy Quad character area does not
include any notable natural features.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Buildings
Five buildings enclose the Monocacy Quad area:
Hamilton House, Zinzendorf Hall, Monocacy Hall,
Memorial Hall, and the Reeves Library. Hamilton
was originally a farmhouse and was constructed
in the 1820s; it and Zinzendorf Hall were officially
occupied by the college in September 1892. A new
gambrel-roofed brick gymnasium, now known as
Monocacy Hall, was added south of Zinzendorf
in 1913. In 1923, the Memorial Science Building,
now Memorial Hall, was constructed in Colonial
Revival style, and completed the east enclosure of
the Monocacy Quad space.
After the residences were demolished along that
block of Monocacy Street, Reeves Library was
constructed in their place and completed in 1967.
The new 200,000-volume library replaced both
Harvey Library, at the south end of Comenius
Hall, and the Library Annex, which was in what is
now Monocacy Hall. Reeves Library was further
expanded when additions to each end were
constructed in 1992 (Schamberger 2008, personal
communication).
For more detailed building descriptions, analysis,
and discussion, refer to Chapter 8 of this report.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 112

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-101. Monocacy Quad character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 113

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Contributing features:
• Hamilton Hall
• Zinzendorf Hall
• Monocacy Hall
• Memorial Hall
Spatial Organization
The Monocacy Quad is well defined on its east
and west sides by the façades of the buildings
mentioned above. Additional enclosure is provided
by the trunks and canopies of the large sycamores
that line the space on both sides (figure 5-102). The
space is physically blocked on the north end by
a composition of vegetation and fencing, but the
opposite end opens onto Monocacy Street.
Contributing features:
• Façades of Hamilton, Zinzendorf, and
Monocacy Halls
• Large tree trunks and canopies
Figure 5-102. View into Monocacy Quad from its northeast
corner. Note the double row of street trees marking the old
Monocacy Street alignment (JMA 2008).
Land Use
The land that now comprises the Monocacy Quad
functioned until the 1960s as a combination of public
street right-of-way and streetyards associated with
the residential structures that once lined Monocacy
Street within that block. This land is now used to
provide circulation between campus buildings.
Figure 5-103. The library plaza from the southeast (JMA 2008).
Circulation Features
Monocacy Street, the sidewalks that lined it on both
sides, and the front walkways to residences once
comprised the primary circulation features in this
area. In 1966, the residences along this block were
demolished, the street vacated, and the paving
removed. Circulation within Monocacy Quad
now consists of several concrete sidewalks and the
entrance plaza to Reeves Library (figure 5-103 and
see figure 5-102).
At the south end of the quad is a paving feature
that may be an attempt to control through traffic
down Locust Street. The design is a raised
colored-concrete plaza with an off-center design
featuring a round emblem reading “1742”. Due
to the asymmetry of the design, it is a confusing
feature and detracts from the simple, linear historic
character of the space (figure 5-104).
Figure 5-104. Traffic control feature at the south end of the
Monocacy Quad (JMA 2008).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Views and Vistas
Historically, the block of Monocacy Street now
contained within the Monocacy Quad presented
linear views of the streetscape to the north and
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 114

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
south. Reeves Library was constructed with a
setback similar to those of the original residences
once existing on Monocacy Street, so the linear
view of the streetscape space was preserved. Views
south along Monocacy Street are still available from
the open southern end of the quad. In the winter
months, views north along Monocacy Street are
also available even though planting beds located on
the north end of the quad physically close the space
(figure 5-105). In the summer, the planting material
obscures the view of Monocacy Street to the north,
though this is easily remedied.
trees and other shade trees at the north end of the
space (see figure 5-105, right side). The enclosure
presented by this grove is enhanced by a large bed
of shrubs and perennials, ornamented by a split-rail
fence that was installed parallel to Elizabeth Avenue
(figure 5-106). The date of installation of this feature
and the small trees within the space is not known.
Contributing features:
• Large sycamores, >/=30” caliper
• Large white ash, 53” caliper
Figure 5-105. Monocacy Street is visible north of the quad during
the winter (JMA 2009).
From the entrance plaza of Reeves Library, an
attractive axial view is available into the Old Quad
area. Central to the view is a planter, now raised,
that was placed in the center of the walkway that
leads from the Library plaza towards Comenius
Hall (see figure 5-99).
Contributing features:
• Axial view down Monocacy Street to the
south
Vegetation
Vegetation within the Monocacy Quad consists
primarily of a number of large sycamores that line
the space that was once Monocacy Street (see figures
5-102 and 5-105). It is likely that the larger of these
trees were street-side plantings dating to at least
several decades prior to the construction of Reeves
Library in the 1960s. It appears that the college has
attempted to preserve the sense of linear space
enhanced by these trees by continuing the linear
plantings, but the substitution of maples and a
weeping mulberry for the original species erodes
the original symmetry of the space.
Other vegetation within the space includes a very
large (53” caliper) white ash tree at the southwest
corner of Zinzendorf Hall and a number of maple
Figure 5-106. Plantings at the north end of Monocacy Quad
(JMA 2008).
Landscape Structures
The entrance to Reeves Library comprises a large
brick and concrete stairway and ramp structure that
features two large concrete orbs installed atop the
large brick and concrete piers flanking the central
entrance stairway (see figures 5-102 and 5-103). This
feature was constructed in 1992, at the same time as
the side additions to the library (Schamberger 2008,
personal communication).
At the southern end of Reeves Library is a small
amphitheater consisting of a circular seat wall
constructed of interlocking concrete block, then an
earthen bank sloping up to a taller retaining wall
constructed of the same block (figure 5-107). This
Figure 5-107. Amphitheater at the south end of Reeves Library
(JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 115

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
second wall supports a tall, sheared evergreen
hedge. The courtyard serves as a classroom for
informal instruction and was constructed in 1992
(Schamberger 2008, personal communication).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings and objects within the Monocacy
Quad character area include wood and steel
benches, steel trash cans, light standards supporting
Colonial-style lanterns, building identification
signage, the split rail fence at the north end of the
quad, and several boulders placed as ornament in
a few planting beds (see figures 5-102 through 5-107).
It does not appear that any of these site furnishings
and objects is historic.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Archeological Features
No archeological resources are presently known
or recorded within the Monacacy Quad character
area. Prior to the creation of the North Main Street
Campus the Hamilton House, built circa 1820, was
already in existence as a residence for the farm that
comprised the original tract. While the character
area has been modified by college landscaping,
archeological potential of this property is
considered to be high. Material remains associated
with the occupants of the farm complex may be
present. Besides the house, a working farm would
have included barns, wells, privies, sheds, midden
areas, and other outbuildings – archeological
remains of these resources may still be extant
beneath the present ground surface. The locations
of those former structures at the farmstead are
not currently known. The potential for prehistoric
(Native American) archeological resources is likely
to be low in this character area.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
As a redeveloped historic streetscape, this character
area has significance only in its relationship to the
larger historic campus and town fabric. Historic
integrity is only fair due to the removal of the street
and the houses that lined its west side.
Colonial Hall Character Area
The Colonial Hall character area includes the
western third of the block between Elizabeth
Avenue to the north, Locust Street to the south,
and Main Street to the west (figure 5-108). Within
this area are Colonial Hall and two early twentiethcentury
residences at the southwest corner of the
block. A number of large trees provide a shady
canopy over much of the area; flowering trees and
shrubs provide a layer of vegetation throughout.
Natural Systems and Features
The Colonial Hall character area does not include
any notable natural features.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Buildings
Colonial Hall was constructed in 1929 to provide
student dormitory housing for the college. In 1930,
a second building was constructed perpendicular
to Colonial Hall and initially housed the Moravian
Church Archives (figure 5-109). A third building
was originally planned to mirror the Archives
building and complete a quadrangle on that
corner, but it was never built. Colonial Hall and the
Archives building were constructed of stone in a
style echoing the European buildings of the early
Moravian settlement, with modern revival details,
such as wooden shutters installed on the buildings
combined to create a picturesque small complex
surrounding a wide lawn (Moravian College
2007:7-9; Reker and Reid 1992:17).
In 2001, an addition was made between these two
buildings and enclosed what had been an open
walkway with an entrance constructed of stone with
a brick arch at the juncture of the buildings (figures
5-110 and 5-111). The addition was constructed
in brick, perhaps an attempt to differentiate new
from old construction and yet relate to the original
brick arch. The arched entrance was reconstructed
and the lantern that hung over it was retained and
reinstalled over the new entrance. Instead of being
attached to the reconstructed brick arch, it was
installed about two feet higher, on the stone wall.
On the southwest corner of the block are two early
twentieth century brick residences, originally
constructed as variations on the basic American
Four-Square type, a boxy, two-story house with
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 116

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-108. Colonial Hall character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 117

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
four rooms up and down (figure 5-112). This type
was popular in the United States around the turn
of the century and often was constructed with
Craftsman details, including wide front porches,
heavy brackets supporting the eaves, and hipped
roofs. These buildings along Main Street now house
two sororities, Tri Sigma (ΣΣΣ) and Zeta Tau Alpha
(ΖΤΑ).
Figure 5-109. View of Colonial Hall from the west. The original
Colonial Hall faces Main Street and the building that was the
Moravian Church Archives is to the left (JMA 2009).
For a more detailed building analysis and
discussion, refer to Chapter 8 of this report.
Contributing features:
• Colonial Hall
• Early twentieth-century residences
Figure 5-112. American Foursquare houses at the corner of Main
and Locust Streets (JMA 2009).
Spatial Organization
Figure 5-110. Original open walkway between Colonial Hall and
the Moravian College Archives (Moravian College Archives).
Figure 5-111. The same view showing the addition (JMA 2008).
Colonial Hall and its additions form an L-shape
that encloses a small courtyard and lawn (see
figure 5-109). Entrance to this courtyard is through
a gateway formed by a pair of stone piers and a
low curb that supports curved picket fencing. The
gateway provides a sense of enclosure on the west
side of this courtyard. At least as late as the 1950s,
the area in front of Colonial Hall was divided by a
double row of shrubs that lined the walkway (figure
5-113). However, these were later removed and
street trees added along Main Street that provide
more enclosure.
Today, to the south of the courtyard, the landscape
opens up onto a wide, rolling open lawn that curves
around the two older residences and leads down
a slope towards the Bahnson Center (figure 5-114).
The spaces formed by building walls between the
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 118

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historic residences is narrow and reflects the typical
urban scale of what remains of this early twentiethcentury
residential block (see figure 5-112).
Contributing features:
• Enclosure formed by Colonial Hall
Land Use
The Colonial Hall character area was set aside
primarily for residential use until Colonial Hall
was built in 1929. Afterward, uses were mixed and
included both residences and offices.
Circulation Features
Three city streets border the Colonial Hall character
area: Main Street to the west, Elizabeth Avenue to
the north, and Locust Street to the south. These
three streets are asphalt-paved and have curb and
gutter systems. Main Street has a central planted
area installed in 2003 to unify the two sides of
Main Street and create a safer pedestrian crosswalk
(Moravian College 2003). All three streets are also
lined with concrete sidewalks as is typical of the
rest of downtown Bethlehem.
Figure 5-113. Colonial Hall ca. 1950s, with shrubs lining the
front walkway (Moravian Church Archives).
A number of concrete walkways curve through
this character area, connecting the Colonial Hall
buildings with other areas within the block and
to the sidewalks that edge the surrounding streets
(see figures 5-109 and 5-114). Colonial Hall is itself
accessed by a walkway that extends from the
gateway on Main Street to its terraced entrance
plaza (see figure 5-82). The walkway also connects
Colonial Hall directly with Comenius Hall, located
to the west across Main Street. The terraced
entrance plaza for Colonial Hall was constructed in
2001 and presents a complex of stone and concrete
stairs, ramps, and planting beds centered on the
new entrance created by the addition that connects
the two buildings. Other than the streetscape
sidewalks, the central walkway that leads to the
entrance plaza appears to be the only other historic
feature still remaining.
Contributing features:
• Streetscape sidewalks
• Central walkway
Views and Vistas
When Colonial Hall and its addition were first
constructed, a third wing had been planned, which
would have completed the enclosure of what was
to be a college quad that would have been axially
oriented to Comenius Hall. The third wing was
never constructed and although for many years
the axial orientation was still strong through the
placement of the straight walkway between the
two buildings, that relationship was altered with
the construction of the new entrance plaza at the
corner of the ell (figure 5-115 and see figure 5-82).
This strong axial relationship is further weakened
by the placement of two trees that block the central
Figure 5-114. Rolling lawn to the south of Colonial Hall (JMA
2008).
Figure 5-115. Close-up view of the recently-installed terraced
entrance plaza at Colonial Hall (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 119

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
entrance to what was once the Moravian Church
Archives.
Other significant views within this area are linear
views of the streetscape along Main Street and
Elizabeth Avenue, which are strongly enhanced
by narrow building setbacks, sidewalks, and street
trees along both streets (figure 5-116).
Contributing features:
• Vista to and from Comenius Hall
• Linear views along Main Street and
Elizabeth Avenue
Figure 5-116. View of streetscape of Main Street, looking south
(JMA 2008).
Vegetation
It is likely that several of the large trees located
within this character area could be dated to as
late as the 1950s, but little documentation has
been located to determine exactly which ones. The
large, 40” caliper, oak located at the intersection
of Elizabeth and Main Streets may be one of those
historic trees (figure 5-117). Most small tree, shrub,
and perennial plantings in the area appear to be
recently installed.
Contributing features:
• 40” caliper oak at Main and Elizabeth.
Landscape Structures
Landscape structures within this character area
include the stair and ramp composition that
forms the entrance plaza for Colonial Hall and
the concrete and masonry retaining wall structure
that appears to screen utilities behind the building.
Both structures were constructed in 2001 (see figure
5-115).
The gateway to Colonial Hall from Main Street
was constructed in 2003 to match the gateway
to Comenius Hall (see figures 5-82 and 5-109). It
is composed of two rough-cut limestone piers
designed in the Gothic style with shallow faux
buttresses, but with flattened cut stone pedestal
tops that support black metal lanterns. The piers
rest atop bases of cut stone. Attached to each pier
is a low, curved, cut stone curb that supports
black metal fencing and curves inward to create
an entrance foyer, which is paved in faux-brick
concrete units. The south pier supports a bronze
plaque that reads: “In memory of your service and
ultimate sacrifice during Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Captain Christopher Seifert ’97, 1975-2003” (figure
5-118).
The new structures are in good condition with the
exception of the gateway base, which is cracked in
Figure 5-117. This 40” caliper oak may have been planted in the
1930s (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-118. Close-up of plaque on gateway pier at the entrance
to the Colonial Hall front lawn (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 120

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
places and is marred with misplaced drill holes (see
figure 5-86).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings and objects within the Colonial Hall
character area include wood and metal benches,
building identification signs, traffic signs along the
street, light standards with Colonial-style lanterns,
and utility units (see figures 5-109, 5-115, and 5-116).
A small boulder supports a bronze plaque in the
entrance plaza that reads: “Let this view soothe
your brow as you look across for your enjoyment
now. Dedicated to Beverly Sobol Schachter who
once enjoyed this same view”.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Archeological Features
No archeological resources are presently known
or recorded within the Colonial Hall character
area. The potential in this character area for both
prehistoric (Native American) and historic period
archeological remains (features and artifacts) is
likely to be low.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
Colonial Hall is a unique 1920s interpretation of
the early Germanic architecture of Bethlehem.
The exterior of Colonial Hall is largely intact and
possesses a high level of integrity.
The landscape space shows integrity to early
planning for this building and lacks only the third
wing to make it complete. The axial connection to
Comenius Hall is still in place, however weakened
slightly by the new diagonal orientation of the
entrance plaza. The symmetry of the space could be
resolved if this configuration is mirrored when the
third wing is added. Plantings today do not reflect
historic conditions, but as a rehabilitated space, it is
safer and more user-friendly without the restricting
presence of the double row of shrubs.
Sports Quad Character Area
The Sports Quad character area includes the
sports field at the center of the North Main Street
Campus, the surrounding buildings, and accessory
drives and parking areas (figure 5-119). Its general
character is that of a wide open space ringed
by low, long buildings constructed primarily of
native “south mountain stone,” as described in
the architect’s plans, and shaded by large trees
(Weinlick 1977:107).
Overall, the design of this character area reflects
changing trends in campus design during the
twentieth century. It shows a move away from
the reliance on Beaux Arts symmetry, verticality,
hierarchy of spaces, and use of strong axial
orientation in placement of buildings and landscape
features seen in the earlier arrangement of buildings
on the North Main Street Campus toward a more
free-form and Modernistic expression of form and
function. The placement of the Rau-Hassler and
Bernhardt-Wilhelm Residence Halls in an informal
arrangement is expressive of the nature of the
site—particularly characteristic of a Modernistic
approach. Jo Smith Hall, Johnston Hall, and
the Haupert Student Union, with their low and
broad façades and horizontal banks of windows
are characteristic of the Prairie Style developed
by Frank Lloyd Wright. Even Rau-Hassler and
Bernhardt-Wilhelm, although actually four floors
each in total, are set into the slope so that their
verticality is downplayed.
While, with the exception of Johnston Hall, the
buildings and landscape features within this area
are not quite 50 years old, their expression of
Modernistic design principles may support findings
of historical significance in another 10-20 years.
Natural Systems and Features
The most notable natural feature within the
Sports Quad character area is the slope that leads
to Monocacy Creek, within which the sports
field is sculpted and into which Rau-Hassler and
Bernhardt-Wilhelm were nestled to lower their
vertical impact on the space.
Contributing features:
• Natural slope to Monocacy Creek
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 121

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-119. Sports Quad character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 122

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Buildings
With the exception of Johnston Hall (1952) and its
expansion by the construction of Breidegam Field
House (1991), the buildings surrounding the Sports
Quad Character area were constructed as part of a
ten-year plan of campus expansion begun after the
formation of Moravian College as a co-educational
institution in 1954. Johnston Hall was constructed
in 1952 as the school’s first field house providing
modern athletic facilities as well as a high-capacity
space for large school and community events (figure
5-120).
dormitory, Jo Smith Hall in 1972, which completed
the architectural enclosure of the Sports Quad
Character area (figure 5-121).
Breidegam Field House was built in 1991 as an
extension of Johnston Hall. For this project, the
block of Otis Place north of Locust was vacated
and a row of small houses along its west side was
demolished.
For a more detailed building analysis and
discussion, refer to Chapter 8 of this report.
Contributing features:
• Johnston Hall (1952)
Figure 5-121. Bird’s eye view from the northeast of the completed
Sports Quad after 1972 when Jo Smith Hall was constructed.
Note modernistic style of lighting (Moravian College Archives).
Spatial Organization
Figure 5-120. Unveiling of the mascot statue at Johnston Hall, ca.
1952 (Moravian College Archives).
Eight years later, in 1960, the Rau-Hassler dormitory
complex was built west of Johnston Hall to face the
college sports fields to the east. In 1962, the College
Union Building was completed to the southeast of
Johnston Hall. Seven years later it was renamed
the Haupert Union Building in honor of retiring
President Haupert, and has since been known as
the HUB.
The next building project included more dormitories
designed to face onto the sports field, both named
after their benefactors: Willard C. Bernhardt
Hall in 1964 and Imogene Beck Wilhelm Hall in
1965. The early 1970s saw completion of a fifth
The Sports Quad character area is dominated by
the large, grassed field enclosed by the buildings
mentioned, above (figures 5-122 and 5-123). It is a
broad, but simple enclosure, pierced by openings
between the buildings and by the extension of
Locust Street, which ends in a turn-around in front
of Rau and Hassler. Notable is the entrance plaza of
Johnston Hall.
Figure 5-122. View of the Sports Quad, looking towards the
Haupert Union Building (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 123

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Field House. Current land uses in this area are
primarily residential, athletic, and social.
Contributing features:
• Recreation
Circulation Features
Figure 5-123. View of the eastern half of the Sports Quad,
looking towards Johnston Hall (JMA 2008).
Smaller spaces that relate to individual buildings,
such as entrances or outdoor gathering places,
are differentiated from the larger open space by
specialized paving, site furnishings such as picnic
tables, shrub plantings, and overhead tree canopies
(figure 5-124).
Contributing features:
• Open sports field
Two primary circulation features edge the Sports
Quad: the extension of Locust Street to the north,
which provides vehicular access to the front of
the dormitories. It originally ended in a circular
turnaround, but a driveway was later cut through
to provide a connection to housing constructed
down hill from the quad. Locust is restricted in
use and fairly unobtrusive when viewed from the
sports fields because the field is topographically
lower (figure 5-125).
On the opposite side of the field is a concrete
sidewalk that encircles the field, leading from the
circular drive, around its south and east sides to an
open patio outside the HUB and north to reconnect
with Locust (figure 5-126). Other concrete sidewalks
Figure 5-124. Entrance lobby for Rau-Hassler Residence Hall
(JMA 2008).
Figure 5-125. Locust Street as it descends past the sports fields
to the left (JMA 2008).
Land Use
Historically, this area was part of the farmland that
once occupied this tract outside of Bethlehem. By
the early twentieth century, residential development
had surrounded the historic core of the college and
extended down Monocacy Street to the east of the
Sports Quad. The Sports Quad itself was used as a
baseball field. The houses on Monocacy Street were
demolished in 1966 to make way for the Haupert
Union Building. Small houses located along Otis
Place east of Locust were demolished around 1990
to make way for the construction of Breidegam
Figure 5-126. Concrete walks that edge most sides of the sports
fields (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 124

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
lead from this path, away from the fields, providing
access to the surrounding buildings.
Contributing features:
• Extension of Locust Street past Johnston
Hall
Views and Vistas
Views into the sports fields are available from most
of the buildings surrounding the space, with the
exception of the Breidegam Field House, which
has no windows on that side. There are many
places surrounding the field from which students
can casually view games, such as the open lawns
in front of the dormitories. Recently, the college
constructed a viewing platform as an extension of
the HUB that presents an almost boundless vista of
the sports fields (figure 5-127).
Figure 5-127. Viewing platform at the back of the Haupert Union
Building (west side) (JMA 2008).
Contributing features:
• Views from Johnston Hall entrance plaza
Vegetation
A dominating characteristic of the Sports Quad
is the ring of large trees that shades its perimeter,
including a variety of white and red oaks, maples,
and sycamores (figure 5-128). A grove of pines was
planted on the edge of the field on the southeast
corner, presumably to screen parking in that area,
but they have since become large canopy trees.
Other, smaller, ornamental trees have been planted
on the edges, closer to buildings.
After Breidegam Field House was constructed,
lavish plantings of colorful shrubs were installed
flanking its south entrance and in a small grouping
directly across Locust from the entrance (figure
5-129). It appears that at the same time, the plantings
in front of Johnston were also installed.
Figure 5-128. Ring of large trees around the Sports Quad. Visible
are the façades of Bernhardt and Wilhelm (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-129. Plantings at the entrances to Breidegam (left) and
Johnston (right) (JMA 2008).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Landscape Structures
The most dominant landscape structures within
the Sports Quad character area are the entrances to
Johnston Hall and Breidegam Field House (figure
5-130 and see figure 5-129). The entrance to Johnston
features two native stone wing walls that extend
from the walls of the building, stepping down to
approximately 24” where they are capped with cast
concrete platforms that support two cast concrete
Figure 5-130. Entrance to Johnston Hall. Note native stone wing
walls and mascot sculptures (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 125

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
sculptures of recumbent greyhounds, the college
mascot.
The entrance to Breidegam is newer and more
elaborate, consisting of a cascade of concrete stairs,
landings, ramps, and planters leading from the
hyphen that connects the building with Johnston
and provides the primary entrance.
Between Reeves Library and Johnston Hall is the
large utility structure housing the central electrical
feed for the campus (Schamberger 2008, personal
communication) (figure 5-131).
Contributing features:
• Johnston Field House entrance
of prehistoric (Native American) archeological sites
in the lower Lehigh valley reveal that sites are
frequently located in the floodlplain and on the
terrace and upland immediately adjacent to the
floodplain of drainages such as Monacacy Creek
(Siegel et al. 1999:68-74). Therefore the archeological
potential for Native American sites within the
Sports Quad area is likely to be moderate to high.
Archeological remains of the early twentiethcentury
housing that was demolished in the 1960s
and 1990s may also be present, but the significance
of such remains is considered to be low.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
Johnston Hall was built in 1952 as a modern new
field house for athletics and large events. The
building has a sweeping modernist horizontal
character with its low-pitched roof, horizontal
bands of windows, and deep eaves. However, it also
incorporates details reminiscent of the eighteenthcentury
Moravian buildings downtown, such as
stone veneer exterior walls and simulated buttresses.
Johnston Hall is an example of a mid-twentiethcentury
field house and was the first new athletic
constructed on campus since the Gymnasium was
built in 1913. The exterior of Johnston Hall possesses
high integrity to the 1950s.
Figure 5-131. Utility structure behind Johnston Hall and Reeves
Library (JMA 2008).
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings and objects contained within
the Sports Quad character area include benches,
concrete or metal and wood; trash containers; picnic
tables; lighting standards supporting Colonialstyle
lanterns; a flagpole in front of Jo Smith Hall; a
blue-painted metal bike rack in front of Breidegam;
and a large stone masonry and concrete scoreboard
in front of Jo Smith (see figures 5-124 through 5-126
and 5-129).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Archeological Features
No archeological resources are presently known
or recorded within the Sports Quad character area.
However, the western boundary of this character
area is formed by the terrace and upland adjacent
to the Monocacy Creek floodplain. Previous studies
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 126

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Hillside Character Area
Located on the edge of the North Main Street
Campus, the Hillside character area encompasses
the cluster of small-scale apartment buildings and
duplexes built for student housing (figure 5-132).
These residences curve around the southeast
corner of the Sports Quad, following the line of
the slope that leads to Monocacy Creek. They were
constructed in two distinctly different building
campaigns, one in the 1970s and one in the late
1980s (figures 5-133 through 5-135). While this area
is not over fifty years old, this area is distinct in
that the buildings were constructed specifically for
campus housing in two community clusters and
may become historically significant.
Natural Systems and Features
The natural slope leading to Monocacy Creek is the
most distinctive natural feature in this character
area. The design of the site plan, particularly for
the Hillside Residences responds to the drop of the
slope.
Contributing features:
• Natural slope to Monocacy Creek
Spatial Organization
Hillside is organized into smaller clusters of
buildings. On the north end, three brick and wood
residences (Antes House, Burnside House, and
Lenape House) are clustered around the curve of
the access drive as it ascends the hill towards the
Sports Quad (see figure 5-134). Further down the hill,
two brick, ranch-style residences, DeSchweinitz
House and Beck House, face a small recreation area
containing a sand volleyball court (see figure 5-133).
Hillside 4 faces both this area and Laurel Street,
completing the enclosure of this space.
The other buildings more or less face Laurel Street,
including Hillside 1, 2, 3, and 5 (see figure 5-135).
Hillside 1, 2, and 3 are oriented towards an open
lawn that parallels Laurel Street. Also included
in this group are the Nitschmann House and the
Spangenburg House, which is L-shaped, enclosing
two sides of an open lawn area along Laurel (figure
5-136).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Buildings
Beck House and DeSchweinitz House, built in 1978,
are the oldest buildings in this area. The six Hillside
residences were all built in 1988, followed by
Spangenberg, Antes, Burnside, and Lenape Houses
in 1989, and Nitschmann in 1990 (Schamberger
2008, personal communication).
For a more detailed building analysis and
discussion, refer to Chapter 8 of this report.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Land Use
Land use in the Hillside character area is primarily
residential, comprised of a mix of duplexes and
low-scale multi-unit structures. A small recreational
area is located at the center of the older complex
and includes a sand volleyball court. It appears that
prior to college ownership the only land use in this
area was agriculture.
Circulation Features
Circulation within the Hillside area consists of
Laurel Street, which leads from Main Street, through
campus, curving around the sports fields down
the hill through the Hillside area to meet Mauch
Chunk Road along Monocacy Creek. Comparison
of current maps with the Sanborn map of 1952
suggests that this is its historic location.
About midway down the hill, an asphalt driveway
branches off of Laurel Street and heads north
to provide vehicular access to the north part of
Hillside. At its terminus, it curves around and
meets the circular drive at the end of Locust Street.
Concrete sidewalks lead off of the access drive to
serve the front doors of the residences.
A concrete sidewalk parallels Laurel Street from
Main and continues almost all the way to Mauch
Chunk. A number of concrete walkways lead from
the main sidewalk to provide access to the main
doors of these residences. On the north side of
Hillside 5, walkways lead to a circular pathway
distinguished by ornamental paving with a
planter at the center (see figure 5-135). The purpose
of this node is not known and it complicates
comprehension of the area.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 127

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-132. Hillside character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 128

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
A 27-car parking lot is located on the east side of
Nitschmann House and a number of parallel spaces
are available on both sides of Laurel Street.
Contributing features:
• Laurel Street
Views and Vistas
Views within this area are to and from residential
buildings and are informal and intimate in scale.
Figure 5-133. View of the north portion of the Hillside area.
Beck House and DeSchweinitz House, on the right side, were
constructed in1978 (JMA 2008).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Vegetation
Hillside is dominated by the woodlands on its west
side, which covers the slope from the back of the
residences down to Mauch Chunk Road. The age
of this woodland is not known, but it appears to be
secondary growth arising from what was possibly
agricultural land.
Figure 5-134. View of Antes, Burnside, and Lenape Houses, built
in 1989 (JMA 2008).
There are few shade trees in this area and the ones
that have been planted are still quite small. As the
building campaign progressed, the area was also
ornamented by small plantings of flowering trees
and shrubs (see figure 5-135). None of the vegetation
appears to be historic.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Landscape Structures
There are a number of retaining walls in this area,
constructed of a variety of materials, and none of
which appear to be historic.
Figure 5-135. View of the north side of Hillside 5, constructed in
1988 (JMA 2008).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings within the Hillside area include
black-painted metal benches and trash containers,
as well as black light standards supporting
Colonial-style metal and glass lanterns (see figures
5-135 and 5-136). Additional furnishings and objects
include volleyball equipment and outdoor cooking
equipment (see figure 5-133).
Figure 5-136. View of the Spangenburg House and the
Nitschmann House, constructed in the 1989 and 1990. (JMA
2008).
Contributing features:
• None identified
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 129

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Archeological Features
No archeological resources are presently known or
recorded within this character area. However, the
western boundary of this character area is formed
by the terrace and upland adjacent to the Monocacy
Creek floodplain. Previous studies of prehistoric
(Native American) archeological sites in the lower
Lehigh valley reveal that sites are frequently
located in the floodlplain and on the terrace and
upland immediately adjacent to the floodplain of
drainages such as Monacacy Creek (Siegel et al.
1999:68-74). Therefore the archeological potential
for Native American sites within the Sports Quad
area is likely to be moderate to high.
Archeological resources associated with the
former milling industry may also be present in this
character area.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
This character area does not have historical
significance.
Betty Prince Field Character Area
Located on the western edge of the North Main
Street Campus, the Betty Prince Field character
area encompasses the wooded slope below the
Hillside area and the open, grassed fields that
accommodate college field hockey (figure 5-137).
The field was always owned by the college and used
for intramural sports and recreation until the 1960’s
when it was designated solely for field hockey
(Schamberger 2008, personal communication).
Natural Systems and Features
The natural slope leading to Monocacy Creek
and the floodplain below are the most distinctive
natural features in this character area. The slope is
wooded with what appears to be secondary growth
forest.
Contributing features:
• Natural slope to Monocacy Creek
• Floodplain of Monocacy Creek
Spatial Organization
Betty Prince Field comprises a simple open space
enclosed on the east and south sides by wooded
slopes, bounded on the west side by Mauch Chunk
Road, and on the north side by Elizabeth Avenue
(figure 5-138). Field limits are demarcated by a chain
link fence on the street sides of the field.
Contributing features:
• Open recreational space
Buildings
A small building located on the east side of the field
functions as a storage space. A painted sign on the
side reads: Moravian College Field Hockey.
For a more detailed building analysis and
discussion, refer to Chapter 8 of this report.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Land Use
Land use in the Betty Prince Field is recreational
and has been such for at least 50 years, if not more.
That corner of Mauch Chunk Road and Elizabeth
Avenue was labeled “Ball Park” in the 1952 Sanborn
map.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 130

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-137. Betty Prince Field character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 131

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-138. View of Betty Prince Field from the northeast corner (JMA 2008).
Contributing features:
• Recreational use.
Circulation Features
Betty Prince Field is bounded on the west side
by Mauch Chunk Road and on the north side by
Elizabeth Avenue (figure 5-139). Just north of the
intersection of the two, Mauch Chunk Road turns
west and passes via a small bridge over Monocacy
Creek. In addition to these public streets, access is
also available via a gravel road that leads from the
back of Rau Residence Hall, down the slope to the
northeast corner of the field. It does not appear that
this road is in active use.
A sidewalk along Elizabeth Avenue provides
pedestrian access to the field. A small concrete stair
leads from the sidewalk and down a short slope
onto the flat expanse of the field. The sidewalk does
not appear to be historic.
Contributing features:
• Mauch Chunk Road
• Elizabeth Avenue
Views and Vistas
From the field, one can see industrial buildings that
line Mauch Chunk road to the north and south (see
figure 5-139). These buildings are shown on the 1952
Sanborn map and are historic.
Contributing features:
• Views to factories
Vegetation
The south and east sides of Betty Prince Field are
dominated by secondary growth woodlands which
extend up to the back of the Hillside area above. A
number of large trees provide shade on the west
side and at the northwest corner of the field. They
appear to be planted to provide definition to the
space to separate it visually from its industrial
surroundings (see figure 5-138).
Contributing features:
• None identified
Landscape Structures
No landscape structures were identified in this
area.
Contributing features:
• None identified
Site Furnishings and Objects
Figure 5-139. Intersection of Elizabeth (right) with Mauch Chunk
Road (left) Note historic factory buildings in the background
(JMA 2008).
Site furnishings at Betty Prince Field consist of two
sets of portable aluminum bleachers that provide
seating on the east side of the field, a scoreboard at
the southeast corner, and the chain link fence that
encloses the field on the north and west sides (see
figure 5-138).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 132

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Contributing features:
• None identified
Archeological Features
No archeological resources are presently known or
recorded within the Betty Prince Field character area.
However, the western boundary of this character
area is formed by the terrace and upland adjacent
to the Monocacy Creek floodplain. Previous studies
of prehistoric (Native American) archeological sites
in the lower Lehigh valley reveal that sites are
frequently located in the floodlplain and on the
terrace and upland immediately adjacent to the
floodplain of drainages such as Monacacy Creek
(Siegel et al. 1999:68-74). Therefore the archeological
potential for Native American sites within the
Sports Quad area is likely to be moderate to high.
Archeological resources associated with the
former milling industry may also be present in this
character area.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
More information is needed to determine historic
significance of this space and hence, integrity to
that period.
Campus Ring Character Area
The Campus Ring character area is notable as an
example of the pressures that the need for continued
facility expansion and parking accommodation
can put on a historic neighborhood surrounding a
thriving college campus (figure 5-140). This character
area includes all of the college-owned properties
north of Elizabeth Avenue, south of Locust and east
of Monocacy, south of Laurel Street, and the area
from the back of Colonial Hall, east to Palmer Street,
comprising approximately 10-12 city blocks.
Natural Systems and Features
Natural features within the character area include
the gently sloping topography of the hill that is
topped by Comenius Hall and the dramatic fall of
land from the bluff above Monocacy Creek.
Contributing features:
• Topography
Spatial Organization
The Campus Ring area is organized by a grid of
streets that characterizes nineteenth and twentieth
century urban development patterns in Bethlehem.
This pattern is typical of many American cities and
suburbs developed before World War II. The grid is
organized almost perfectly to magnetic north and
is fairly easy to understand and navigate.
Within this grid are the remnants of the residential
neighborhood that once surrounded the historic
core of Moravian College, being the block between
Monocacy Street and Main, Elizabeth and Locust,
and the west half of the block opposite containing
Colonial Hall (figure 5-141). Most structures within
the neighborhood were either Queen Anne or
American Four-Square dwellings sited about 15
feet from the street right-of-way, creating a tidy
and pedestrian-scaled streetspace. Incremental
acquisition and subsequent removal of these
buildings has created a streetscape characterized by
an open, undifferentiated landscape containing both
historic and modern buildings, dominated in areas
by open-air parking lots (figure 5-142). Buildings
constructed in place of the historic dwellings were
designed with broad setbacks, usually presented as
objects in the landscape rather than contributing to
the existing streetscape (figure 5-143).
Contributing features:
• Remnants of urban grid and streetscape
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 133

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-140. Campus Ring character area map (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 134

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 5-141. Aerial photograph of the south end of the campus, looking west up Locust Street (sports fields top left, Comenius to the
right) showing residential area into which the campus expanded (Moravian College Archives).
Buildings
Campus buildings located within this area include
the Collier Hall of Science (1970), the Hurd
Academic Complex (2003), the Bahnson Center
(1976), FMPC facilities in the northwest corner of
the campus (2005), as well as historic buildings,
once residences, that the college either owns and
uses as offices or housing and those that the college
does not own, but leases for offices or housing.
Figure 5-142. Typical character of Campus Ring, including
parking lots, historic and modern buildings, and expressing the
original grid of the area (JMA 2008).
The other early twentieth century brick residences
within this character area are located at the
northeast corner, facing onto a large parking lot
that was once an extension of Lenox Avenue (see
figure 5-142). They are very similar in design and
construction to the other two residences in this
block, described in the Colonial Hall character area
section. While these were built as residences, they
appear to currently house college offices.
For a more detailed building analysis and
discussion, refer to Chapter Eight of this report.
Contributing features:
• Historic residences
Figure 5-143. The Collier Hall of Science has a large setback
facing Locust Street (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 135

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Land Use
Land use in this character area was originally
agricultural, developed as residential in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and is now
college-related use, either residential, academic, or
office.
Circulation Features
The most dominant circulation feature in this area
is the grid of streets that developed around the
turn of the twentieth century as the residential
neighborhoods of Bethlehem extended to and
around Moravian College (see figure 5-141). With
the exception of a couple of blocks, this pattern has
remained more or less intact despite the erosion of
the historic building fabric of this area. The only
streets that have been removed entirely for campus
development are the block of Monocacy between
Elizabeth and Locust and a block of Lenox Avenue
between Elizabeth and Locust.
Parking lots are the second most dominant feature
in the landscape of the Campus Ring (figure 5-144).
Large expanses providing parking for anywhere
from 15 to 145 cars are located in almost every block
of this area and replaced, at minimum, 20-25 historic
residential buildings. Some also replaced lots that
were used for recreation, such as tennis courts.
Parking lots are scattered throughout the area, but
it appears that at least one-third of the parking is
provided on two blocks north of Elizabeth, across
the street from the core of the North Main Street
Campus.
likely historic in location, if not in material. Other
circulation is internal to each block and provides
access from parking lots to buildings or between
facilities. In addition is the large pedestrian plaza
constructed at the corner of Locust and Monocacy
as part of the Hurd Academic Complex (figure
5-145).
Contributing features:
• Original street grid with sidewalks
Figure 5-145. Pedestrian plaza at the northwest corner of the
Hurd Academic Complex, across Monocacy Street from the
Haupert Union Building (JMA 2008).
Views and Vistas
Historic views within this part of the campus are
limited to linear glimpses of what remains of the
streetscape from the historic period.
Contributing features:
• Views to remnants of historic streetscape
Vegetation
Figure 5-144. Driveway leading from Main Street between
Collier Hall of Science (right) and historic residences (left),
leading to parking lots behind the Hurd Academic Complex
(JMA 2008).
Pedestrian circulation is provided by concrete
sidewalks that parallel the historic streets on
both sides along almost every block. These are
Some large street trees, possibly of historic value,
remain within the Campus Ring, having either
been intentionally preserved or simply out of the
way of development (figure 5-146). In addition some
parking areas have been planted with trees that will
eventually provide shade and a more human scale
(figure 5-147). Other plantings include small trees,
shrubs, and perennials planted in association with
new buildings.
Contributing features:
• Large street trees
Landscape Structures
A variety of landscape structures are present in this
character area, mostly consisting of retaining walls,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 136

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings and objects in this character area
include street, parking lot, and pedestrian-scale
lighting; street signs; parking signs; and utility poles.
Additional field research should be conducted to
further determine the historic nature of small scale
features in this area.
Contributing features:
• Not determined
Archeological Features
While no archeological resources have been
discovered or recorded previously within this
character area, future investigations may uncover
artifacts or features associated with former
agricultural operations.
Signifi cance and Integrity Evaluation
Figure 5-146. Large sycamore on Elizabeth Avenue (JMA 2008).
Figure 5-147. Residential lots acquired by the college and used
for campus parking (JMA 2008).
outbuildings and other utilitarian structures (see
figure 5-145). Additional field research should be
conducted to further determine the historic nature
of structures in this area.
Contributing features:
• Not determined
The Campus Ring Character Area is an example
of an early unplanned suburb which developed
piecemeal based on the actions of different land
owners and developers. While some streets and
blocks were developed with modest workers’
housing, others contain upscale detached homes.
Overall, the neighborhood reflects the gamut of
housing needs driving Bethlehem’s development
during the 1890-1940 period, and how individuals
tried to fulfill them. The Campus Ring contains
excellent examples of a number of different housing
types and residential architectural styles.
Integrity of buildings in the neighborhood varies,
even among those buildings owned by the College.
While all are recognizably of their construction
period, some are well preserved while others
exhibit unsympathetic changes. The setting of the
neighborhood remains relatively intact in many
outer areas of the Campus Ring, but buildings
closer to campus have seen some loss of integrity
of setting. Land acquisitions and construction of
new facilities by the expanding College entailed
the demolition of a number of houses or blocks,
such as parts of Monocacy and Laurel Streets,
and the closing of parts of those streets to traffic.
Newer buildings on the outer edges of the campus
core, such as the Collier Hall of Science and the
Breidegam Field House, form modern blockfaces
across the street from older houses in the Campus
Ring.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 137

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
5.5 Significant Historic
Landscapes and their
Character-Defining Features
The first step in developing treatment for a historic
resource is to identify the form and detailing of key
features that are important in defining its historic
character and which must be retained in order to
preserve that character. For landscapes, characterdefining
features may consist of natural systems and
features, spatial organization, buildings, land use,
circulation features, views and vistas, vegetation,
landscape structures, and site furnishings and
objects.
The following table (5A) lists the significant historic
landscapes identified within Moravian College
and summarize their important character-defining
features. The second table (5B) lists other landscapes
within Moravian College that are not yet historic,
but which contain important features that should
be noted. Within the historic campus, significant
landscapes, such as portions of the Hurd Campus,
the northern portion of Steel Field, Comenius Lawn,
Colonial Hall, Betty Prince Field, and portions of the
Campus Ring, should not be altered or modified to
accommodate new buildings, landscape features,
roads, or other modern amenities that would detract
from their historical value (see Table 5A). All other
historic resources should be repaired, maintained,
rehabilitated, or preserved, as recommended in this
report (see Table 5B).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 138

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Table 5A. Significant Historic Landscapes
Character
Area
Hurd
Campus
Steel Field
Landscape
Description
Open space behind
Single Brethren’s
House and Main
Hall, which has
features remaining
from the historic
Pleasure Grounds
Streetscape along
Church Street
Northern field
organized around
1916 Grandstand,
constructed for
Bethlehem Steel
Soccer Club
Character-Defining Features
• Space enclosed by buildings
• Historic Single Brethren’s House, Main
Hall, West Hall, Old Chapel/Hearst
Hall, Peter Hall/New Chapel, South
Hall, and Day House
• Rolling topography extant from
historic period
• Alignment of service drive similar to
alignment of main garden pathway
• Axial connection between Single
Brethren’s House and Main Hall to
Main Street
• Large shade trees
• Flagpole extant from historic period
• Potential for significant archeological
resources
• Stream corridor edged by narrow
woodlands
• Visual connection to der Platz section of
Main Street
• Alignment of buildings along edge of
bluff above Monocacy Creek
• Broad sidewalk space
• Street trees
• Building porches and landings
• Level, open space of playing field
• Terraced topography developed for
Grandstand and field
• Grandstand
• Street trees along Elizabeth Avenue
and Center Street
• Views to townscape and mountains
• Residential buildings facing east end
of field
Historic Status
Central
Bethlehem
Historic
District
Central
Bethlehem
Historic
District
No official
recognition
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 139

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Table 5A. Significant Historic Landscapes
Character
Area
Comenius
Lawn
Colonial
Hall
Betty Prince
Field
Landscape
Description
Open lawn from
Main Street to
façade of Comenius
Hall, view framed
by trees.
Landscape from
Elizabeth to Locust
and Main to
mid-block.
One of the
oldest surviving
recreational areas
of campus
Character-Defining Features
• Open space from Main Street to
Comenius façade
• Hilltop topography
• Comenius Hall
• Terraced topography developed for
Comenius Hall placement
• Historic trees
• Turf lawn
• Linear pathway connection to Colonial
Hall
• South arm of circular driveway
• Entrance gateway at Main Street
• Open courtyard space created within
“L” of building wings
• Streetscape along Main
• Linear pathway connection to
Comenius Hall
• Large oak at corner of Main and
Elizabeth
• Turf lawn
• Colonial Hall buildings
• American Four-square residential
buildings
• Level, open space of playing field
• Consistent use for athletics since
establishment of college
• Location along historic Mauch Chunk
Road
• Views to historic mills across road and
creek
• Turf groundcover
• Potential for significant archeological
resources
Historic Status
No official
recognition
No official
recognition
No official
recognition
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 140

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Table 5A. Significant Historic Landscapes
Character
Area
Campus
Ring
Landscape
Description
All college-owned
properties north of
Elizabeth, south of
Locust, and east of
Monocacy, south
of Laurel, and
behind Colonial
Hall to Palmer.
Under pressure for
campus expansion.
Character-Defining Features
• Residential streetscapes developed in
the late nineteenth century.
• Concrete sidewalks
• Shade trees edge some of the sidewalks
• Linear views along streets
• Historic residential buildings and
associated outbuildings and landscape
structures
• Gently rolling topography overall,
bluff topography at west edge
Historic Status
No official
recognition
Table 5B. Other Landscapes of Note
Landscape
Name
Old Quad
Monocacy
Quad
Description Character-Defining Features Historic Status
Open space
bounded by
historic campus
buildings
Block of historic
street between
Elizabeth and
Locust
• Adapted re-use of space for pedestrian
circulation, relaxation, and study.
• Recently-planted locusts form
translucent canopy
• Adapted re-use of space for pedestrian
circulation and access to Reeves
Library
• Linear character references previous
use as street
• Historic street trees have been retained
• Scale of Reeves Library in keeping
with historic buildings on opposite
side of central walkway
• Pleasant views to Old Quad from
library entrance
• Enclosed small amphitheater at south
end of library
NA
NA
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 141

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Table 5B. Other Landscapes of Note
Landscape
Name
Sports Quad
Hillside
Description Character-Defining Features Historic Status
Open space
defined by
façades of mostly
mid-twentieth
century buildings
Small-scale,
multi-unit
residential
development
descending down
slopes leading to
Monocacy Creek
• Extension of Locust Street to circle
turn-around
• Topography graded to form gentlysloping
field
• Placement of dormitories along bluff
to west
• Horizontal lines of buildings and use
of native stone
• Space ringed by large shade trees
• Turf groundcover
• Johnston Hall (1952) and greyhound
sculptures
• Laurel Street in historic location
• Groupings of buildings around
recreation space, forming smaller
residential clusters
• Slope leading to Monocacy Creek
• Informal feeling
NA
NA
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 5 • Cultural Landscapes • 142

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Six
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes
6.0 Introduction
Recognizing the importance of the cultural
landscapes of Moravian College and the need of
the college to accommodate growth, this chapter
provides general design and development
guidelines for cultural landscape preservation
within the context of a Rehabilitation approach.
These guidelines are based on the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (Standards) with Guidelines for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Guidelines). This
publication contains ten basic principles created to
help preserve the distinctive character of a cultural
landscape, while allowing for reasonable change to
meet new needs.
6.1 Landscape Preservation
Treatment Approach
Based upon Moravian College’s desire to both
preserve historic resources and accommodate
change and growth, Rehabilitation is recommended
as the appropriate overarching treatment approach
for the campus landscapes. As defined by the
Guidelines, the Rehabilitation approach focuses
on the protection, maintenance, and retention of
historic fabric, but allows for compatible new uses
through sensitive alterations or additions and the
adaptive reuse of existing resources when the
college needs to accommodate change.
These guidelines pertain to landscape issues that
are common throughout the Moravian College
campus, regardless of character area, and should be
considered during the planning and design review
process for any alterations or new projects that
are proposed. Topics include natural systems and
features, spatial organization, buildings, land use,
circulation features, views and vistas, vegetation,
landscape structures, site furnishings and objects,
and archeology. Specific recommendations that
are applicable to conditions and resources within
each character area are identified in Chapter 7 –
Treatment Recommendations.
It should be noted that these guidelines are neither
technical nor prescriptive. In and of themselves,
they cannot be used to make essential decisions
about which features of a historic landscape should
be saved and which can be changed. Rather than
providing a set of solutions to specific design
issues, they provide a balanced, reasonable, and
disciplined approach to problem-solving.
Implemented in conjunction with the more detailed
landscape recommendations contained in Chapter
7, as well as the architectural treatment guidelines
and recommendations in Chapters 8 and 9, this
information will assist Moravian College in
effectively and comprehensively preserving and
protecting its historic resources.
6.2 Cultural Landscape
Guidelines
The cultural landscape guidelines that follow
pertain to historic areas of Moravian College’s
campus and should be used when planning for
any future landscape change. They are intended
to support the more specific landscape treatment
recommendations proposed in Chapter 7, and
should be considered in conjunction with any
project or treatment alternative undertaken within
areas of historical significance. The guidelines
begin with general recommendations. Subsequent
topics are arranged as they were in Chapter 5:
natural systems and features, spatial organization,
buildings, land use, circulation features, views and
vistas, vegetation, landscape structures, and site
furnishings and objects.
General
Implement a process for evaluating how new
projects or undertakings may affect historic
landscape resources. A recommended process is as
follows:
• Identify the type of project to be implemented.
Will it involve demolishing a feature,
constructing a new feature, or relocating an
existing feature?
• Assess how the proposed project may affect the
cultural landscape and historic character of the
campus. Will the project require the removal or
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 143

alteration of historically significant features?
Will the proposed project enhance or detract
from the historic character of the campus?
• Design new features to be visually compatible
with the historic character of nearby features.
Think creatively about how new buildings or
landscapes may incorporate contemporary
design while respecting their historic environs.
This applies to both new features that will be
constructed, as well as to spaces that remain
after a feature is removed or altered.
• Implement the project in a way that minimizes
damage to or loss of cultural resources,
including historic landscape features and
archeological resources.
• Evaluate the end result of the project to
determine how it relates to its historic and
non-historic surroundings. Make notes about
what works well and what does not and apply
these lessons to future projects.
In addition, the following general guidelines are
offered:
• Maintain cultural landscape features of the
Moravian College campus in good condition.
Repair all condition issues identified for
cultural landscapes.
• Consider recommendations made by the
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes
section of the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
when making any changes or proposing
additions to the historic landscape within the
campus (Birnbaum).
• Base all work involving historically significant
features on historic documentation discovered
through primary and secondary research and
described in this plan. If further documentary
evidence is discovered subsequent to the final
publication of this plan, consider adding it in
an appendix and include it in considerations
for treatment.
• Use the latest technologies, including GIS,
remote sensing, and new archeological
methodologies in order to identify landscape
features and accomplish landscape-related
goals.
• Avoid introducing conjectural features into the
historic landscape, which may create a false
sense of the historic and mislead an observer.
• Document all alterations to historically
significant landscape features through
drawings and photography.
• Any alterations or work proposed on
historically significant features should be based
on historical and physical documentation.
• All alterations to historically significant
landscape features should be documented
through photography and/or drawings.
• Ensure that any construction, demolition, or
maintenance activity that involves grounddisturbance
in an area that may contain
subterranean cultural resources is monitored by
a qualified archaeologist. Involve archaeologists
in early planning for new developments, as
well as subsequent planning stages.
Natural Systems and Features
The primary issues regarding natural systems and
features as they affect the cultural landscape within
the Moravian College campus on the campus are
the preservation of topographical features and the
course of Monocacy Creek as historic resources.
The bluff topography of the Hurd Campus and the
rolling quality of the North Main Street Campus are
two of the college’s most defining natural features.
In addition, Monocacy Creek was one of the most
important resources that attracted the first settlers
of Bethlehem and hence the founders of the College.
The following recommendations regarding the
treatment of soils and stormwater relate directly to
the preservation of these features.
Soils
Protection of healthy soils is essential to the
preservation of historic topography through the
prevention of erosion and support of healthy
vegetation that help to keep soils in place:
• Preserve and protect healthy soils by assessing
soil conditions; retaining topsoil; preventing
erosion and sedimentation; minimizing
grading, compaction and soil disturbance; and
avoiding vegetation removal and disturbance.
• Improve health of degraded soils through soil
restoration, reuse, and rehabilitation to achieve
conditions similar to regional reference soil.
• Limit ground-disturbing activities when
implementing new development and
construction. Avoid excessive grading, make
all efforts to control soil erosion and run-off,

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and consider other locations for development
before building in ravines and other areas
with steep slopes or with the potential to
impact water resources, woodlands, and other
important natural resources.
• Reduce waste during maintenance by
recovering yard trimmings for composting.
Compost reduces the need for fertilizers by
supplying nutrients in a slow-release manner.
It also helps soils hold more rainwater onsite,
decreases runoff, and provides increased soil
moisture and filtering capacity.
• Retain existing woodlands along riparian
corridors to help stabilize soils, slow runoff, and
filter impurities before they enter waterways.
• Monitor the bluffs above Monocacy Creek on
both campuses for signs of soil erosion.
• Protect slopes from erosion by maintaining a
healthy vegetative cover.
• Comply with the City of Bethlehem’s 2008
Comprehensive Plan by protecting moderate
to steep slopes (15% to over 25%). Erosion
occurs more swiftly on steep slopes and is less
controllable (City of Bethlehem 2008b).
Stormwater Management
Management of stormwater is essential to the
protection of historic land forms, as well as the
protection of the course and health of Monocacy
Creek:
• Mitigate the stormwater run-off associated with
road, parking, and path development within
the campus by reducing impervious cover.
• Promote sheet flow of stormwater over the
landscape areas rather than concentrating or
channeling flow, which can cause erosion.
• Increase on-site infiltration of stormwater
by using filter strips, grass swales, and rain
gardens, which increase groundwater recharge
by capturing excess water.
• Reduce water pollution, particularly from
parking areas, by reducing impervious cover,
increasing on-site infiltration, eliminating
sources of contaminants, and removing
pollutants from stormwater runoff.
Spatial Organization
The organization of several large, open spaces
within the campus represent the cultural heritage
of Moravia College. Preservation of these spaces
is essential to preservation of the overall historic
character of the campus:
• Maintain spatial relationships established
during the historic period between buildings
and landscapes, and between historic landscape
features.
• Consider the effects of new developments on
historic spatial relationships between buildings
and landscapes.
• Replace features slated for removal with
compatible new features in order to maintain
historic spatial patterns.
• Consider the contribution of vegetation patterns
to historic patterns of spatial organization
within the campus. Replace historic trees and
other plants in-kind, if possible, and in their
historic locations.
Buildings
Refer to overall building treatment guidelines and
recommendations presented in Chapters 8 and 9.
Land Use
When considering a new development project,
consider how its land use will impact the
surrounding historic landscape:
• Maintain, if possible, the distinct historic land
uses that currently exist within each landscape
character area.
• Give equal weight to both natural and cultural
features in treatment and land-use decisions.
• Avoid land-use activities, permanent or
temporary, which threaten or impair known or
potential archeological resources.
• Monitor and regulate use of the landscape to
minimize immediate and long-term damage to
cultural resources.
• Limit, monitor, and control access to areas that
are vulnerable to damage from human use.
• Avoid developing new uses for existing
buildings and landscapes that require new
parking lots within historic landscapes.
Circulation Features
The circulation issues most affecting the historic
landscapes of Moravian College are vehicular
circulation, parking, and pedestrian circulation.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 145

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Driveways and service vehicle access encroach on
spaces traditionally used for pedestrians negatively
affect the historic character of those spaces and
present an opportunity for conflict. In addition,
vehicular parking, which can disrupt the historic
setting of certain buildings, still occurs along many
of the road margins within the historic campus,
in some historic landscape areas, and in localized
lots within proximity to some historic buildings.
Modifications to vehicular circulation and to
existing parking areas would benefit the character
of the historic landscape. Recommendations
for pedestrian-ways have to do with restoring
or preserving historic character and providing
universal access.
The following recommendations can be applied to
the campus as a whole; specific recommendations
for each character area are provided in Chapter 7.
Vehicular Circulation
• Protect and continue to use historic road
corridors, such as Main Street, Elizabeth
Avenue, and Church Street.
• Avoid removing historically significant roads
or drives within the campus. If a historic road
is no longer needed for vehicles, consider
retaining it as a pedestrian pathway.
• Avoid constructing new roads or drives within
historic character areas. If new roads or drives
are essential to accommodate new uses, they
should be compatible with historic patterns and
should not adversely impact existing historic
features.
• Before establishing a new road, consider
re-establishing a roads or drive that was
important during the historic period if its
alignment can meet the needs of the circulation
network.
• Employ professionals trained in identifying
and assisting with traffic and transportationrelated
issues to evaluate circulation and traffic
flow on public streets surrounding or passing
through the campus, as well private drives on
the interior.
• Consider limiting vehicular access within
historic portions of the entire campus not
traditionally served by vehicles to enhance their
historic character. If necessary, make campus
vehicular access as unobtrusive as possible.
Parking
• Consolidate parking as much as possible,
rather than expanding the existing pattern of
dispersed parking areas. Consolidation will
have the following positive impacts:
◦ Better limit the impacts of vehicular
circulation on historic resources by
allowing greater retention of the existing
historic fabric
◦ Reduce the intrusiveness of the automobile
on historic views
◦ Limit vehicular-pedestrian safety conflicts,
and
◦ Provide better opportunities controlling
stormwater runoff via best management
practices.
• If structured parking is developed, ensure that
views of the parking garage do not diminish
the integrity of important historic views.
• Promote carpooling and/or the use of
fuel-efficient cars by creating dedicated parking
spaces for these types of vehicles.
Pedestrian Circulation
• Retain historic sidewalks and pedestrian
circulation patterns as much as possible.
• Ensure that all proposed features associated
with universal accessibility should conform
to ADAAG (Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines) standards. Refer to
Chapter 10 for more information.
• Plan and undertake with care any universal
accessibility programs within the historic
landscape so that projects do not result in the
loss of character-defining features.
• Consider the potential impacts of new
pedestrian walks on important views, sensitive
archeological resources, and accessibility. If
issues of concern cannot be mitigated, consider
using a different alignment for the walk that
meets planned goals.
• Monitor and upgrade pedestrian circulation
features as necessary to address unsafe
pavement conditions. When rehabilitating
historic sidewalks, plazas, terraces, or patios,
the following recommendations apply:
◦ Document, through photographs and
measured drawings, the extent and
condition of the historic circulation
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 146

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
features prior to removal. If possible,
compare existing conditions with historic
photographs of these features to determine
their integrity.
◦ To re-use dry-laid brick and stone that is
in good condition, remove and carefully
stockpile all paving materials from the area
for cleaning.
◦ Carefully regrade the path or patio sub-base
to allow for positive drainage and ensure
that the feature drains away from adjacent
building foundations.
◦ Reset paving units in a manner consistent
with historic construction methods,
patterns, and appearance, taking into
consideration the modifications that may
be required to meet current Americans with
Disabilities Act standards and guidelines.
◦ Reuse pavers that are in good condition
and place in their historic location to the
greatest extent feasible. Avoid setting
historic brick in a mortar base as this will
limit opportunities for re-using these bricks
in the future.
◦ Brick and stone paths and patios with
failing mortar joints may also be re-used
if the pavers are set atop a sand base. The
feasibility of cleaning these pavers should
be evaluated before deciding to replace
them with new materials.
◦ If new pavers are required, they should
match historic pavers in material, size,
texture, color, and pattern of installation to
the greatest extent possible.
◦ Where only a few new replacement pavers
are needed, these should be randomly
distributed to limit their visual impact.
Views and Vistas
Many of the historic buildings and landscape spaces
within campus were designed to take advantage
of prospects afforded by the natural topography
overlooking views of Monocacy Creek, the Lehigh
Canal, the Lehigh River, or the hills beyond. These
views and vistas should be preserved and enhanced.
In locations where the intended views and vistas
have already been compromised, efforts should be
made to restore them to their historic condition.
• Preserve and enhance historic views and
vistas.
• Undertake viewshed analyses when planning
new development. These will help planners and
managers determine how proposed features
will impact historic views.
• Establish new views and vistas in selected areas
to strengthen visual connections between new
and historic landscape spaces within campus.
• Use vegetation or masonry walls to match
historic walls to screen undesirable views in
lieu of modern fencing and walls that may be
incompatible with the historic landscape.
• Undertake periodic maintenance efforts to thin
or remove vegetation that is obscuring important
views. All pruning should be performed under
the direction of Moravian’s horticultural staff
and/or professional foresters.
Vegetation
The primary goals concerning vegetation at
Moravian College are the preservation of historic
trees, the installation of new vegetation that
contributes to the historic character of the campus
landscape, and potential locations for new tree
plantings in non-historic areas.
Many historic trees and patterns of vegetation
have been identified that contribute to the historic
character of the campus. The gradual loss or
inappropriate replacement of trees and other plants
that existed during the historic period, however, has
led to some erosion of this character. The challenge
is to maintain historic character by developing a
program for tree and shrub replacement sensitive
to the history of the site.
Development of campus landscape maintenance
guidelines, with minimum standards for all
landscape work on the campus, would be useful.
These guidelines might include building and site
design considerations, landscape specifications,
scheduled maintenance, tree care, fertilization,
plant health care and integrated pest management,
and road and path specifications. The following
guidelines are offered here as a framework for
issues having to do with historic vegetation, new
vegetation located within historic character areas,
or new plantings within non-historic character
areas.
Preservation of Historic Vegetation
In support of the landscape guidelines, an inventory
of historic trees within the cultivated/developed
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 147

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
areas of campus is recommended. The inventory
might include information such as species, location,
approximate age, trunk diameter, height, and
hazard rating based upon International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) standards. Trees located in the
non-cultivated or undeveloped areas of campus
(i.e. woodlands) could be described by primary
species group and habit.
Within this inventory, trees associated with a
notable local or regional historical event, person,
structure, or landscape could be identified as a
landmark or heritage tree. While there is no specific
age (typically estimated by trunk diameter) that
defines a historic tree, it is recommended that,
as with buildings, structures, and objects, any
tree over fifty years in age be considered historic
and significant if associated with historic events,
persons, structures, or larger historic landscapes.
The following guidelines apply to the preservation
of historic trees:
• Map all historic trees on campus using GPS
technology and add this data to the campus GIS
database to aid in the recognition, mapping, and
management of important campus resources.
• Label and designate all historic trees. Avoid
attached labels directly to the tree, but install
small identification markers adjacent to the
tree and facing the closest pedestrian path.
• Maintain historic trees unless they are dying,
dead, diseased, or pose a safety hazard to the
public or to a structure.
• Consider installing lightning rods on the
largest and most significant trees, if they do not
already exist.
• Avoid using de-icing salts near historic trees as
much as possible; their high-sodium content
can damage plant materials. Even run-off from
adjacent pavement can concentrate salts in the
soil and damage plants.
• Ensure that any possible impacts (or mitigation
of impacts) to historic vegetation are considered
as part of the standard review for any new
construction or renovation project.
• Ensure that the design of new buildings or
landscapes addresses preservation of historic
trees and the developer is encouraged to utilize
creative land planning techniques to achieve
this purpose.
• Following approval of any new development
or major renovation project, preserved trees
shall be pruned for balance, structural integrity,
ornamental appearance, and/or treated for
disease, as necessary.
• Ensure that the root zones of historic trees are
not compacted by inappropriate temporary
uses that may not be regulated by development
review, such as parking, snow storage, or
storage of equipment or materials.
• Existing vegetation, especially trees, in
construction areas should be protected from soil
compaction and closely monitored throughout
the construction period. Tree roots typically
extend at least to, and usually well past, the
drip line of the tree. At a minimum, the area
within the drip line should be protected from
soil compaction from construction equipment,
which will inhibit water penetration to the root
zone and threaten the health of the tree.
• Implement a cyclical maintenance program
that includes periodic inspection of all historic
trees for damage, disease, and/or evidence of
decline in order to prevent deterioration or
loss of plant material. Treat each condition
appropriately and ensure that maintenance
actions are documented for record. Frequent
maintenance of vegetation will also prevent
damage to adjacent and nearby resources, such
as historic buildings and sidewalks.
• Educate horticultural/maintenance staff on the
significance of historic vegetation, and ensure
that they receive training that is appropriate
to the unique conditions within each area of
campus.
Removal of Historic Vegetation
• Remove or cut back overgrown shrubs that are
too close to building walls and require heavy
sheering. Consider replacements with varieties
that do not require regular pruning.
• Remove historic vegetation only when it poses
a hazard to humans, cultural resources, or other
natural resources due to its potential to drop
limbs, fall, or transfer disease to other plants.
When removing vegetation, the following
recommendations apply:
◦ Use the most ecologically-sensitive means
of vegetation removal.
◦ Consider using mechanical means of
removal, such as hand-pulling or removal
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 148

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
small tools, before employing chemicals.
Avoid the use of heavy equipment.
◦ Cut all tree and shrub trunks to be
demolished flush with the ground, and
grind to remove. Avoid leaving stumps.
• Prior to tree removal, field-check clearing
locations with an archeologist, natural resource
specialist, and historical landscape architect to
ensure that other natural or cultural resources
will not be adversely affected.
• Incorporate methods that minimize the impacts
and threats to cultural and natural resources and
known and potential archeological resources.
Undertake removal monitored by an historical
landscape architect and/or archeologist.
• Work should be conducted by certified
arborists with successful experience working
at historically significant sites.
• Cut stumps; do not uproot them. Remove
to ground surface by using a stump grinder.
Consult with an archeologist to determine the
potential for archeological resources before
grinding stumps. Exceptions to this rule would
include streetscape trees. Stumps should be
completely removed and the trees replaced in
the original location in order to maintain the
scale and character of the streetscape.
• Minimize the use of heavy vehicles as much as
possible to limit soil compaction in or around
the root zone of other nearby trees; restrict use
to times when soil is firm to reduce erosion
potential.
• Remove felled trees and large shrubs without
dragging, which can gouge the ground
surface.
• On steep slopes, minimize scarring of the
ground surface to the greatest extent possible
during pruning operations and limiting access
by heavy equipment. Do not remove or drag
fallen limbs from the forest floor in heavily
wooded areas. Rather, they should be left to
decompose naturally. Large limbs and logs
should be cut to minimize their potential to roll
down the steep slopes, which may cause safety
hazards, vegetation removal, or soil erosion.
• If any scarring should occur, resulting in removal
of leaf litter or exposure of the soil, the area
should be replanted with native or naturalized
species and covered immediately with hay
or other approved erosion control material to
reduce the potential for soil erosion.
• Ensure that the removal of historic trees is
noted in the tree inventory.
Replacement of Historic Vegetation
• Replace dead or damaged historic plant
materials in-kind.
• If in-kind species are no longer available
or appropriate (due to disease, hardiness,
maintenance requirements, etc.), replace with
species of similar size, shape/habit, texture and
color.
• Ensure that replacement vegetation is added
to the tree inventory for record-keeping
purposes.
Planting of New Vegetation
• Develop and adhere to a planting master plan
that contains a list of preferred material for
any future plantings within the campus. This
includes within either historic or non-historic
areas.
• Include in the planting master plan locations
for tree-planting projects that would enhance
the character of historic areas. Choose locations
within non-historic areas that support designed
qualities of these areas that are detailed in
Chapter 5.
• Ensure that the design palette incorporates
appropriate species for each location. For
example, avoid using a large-scale shrub
adjacent to a walk that will require excessive
pruning to maintain at an appropriate scale.
• Engage a qualified archeologist to monitor
new planting efforts in areas that may contain
subterranean cultural resources.
• Procure plants from local growers as much
as possible, in order to reduce energy use
and other negative environmental impacts of
shipping and ensure that plants are adapted to
local environmental conditions.
• When proposing new plant materials in
non-historic, non-specialized, or non-thematic
locations, use species that are native or
naturalized to the region, because they tend to
require less maintenance, survive longer, and
rarely become invasive.
• Avoid installing vegetation that is known
to be invasive. Invasive plants grow quickly
and aggressively, and tend to overtake and
out-compete native, or less aggressive,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 149

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
vegetation for nutrients. Invasive plants can
quickly escape their intended boundaries
and colonize large portions of land in a
small amount of time. Visit the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources website for more information about
what plants are considered invasive in this
region (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/
wildplant/invasivelist.aspx, Invasive Plants in
Pennsylvania)
• Refer to Chapter 7 for the treatment
recommendations for each character area,
which contain lists of preferred material for
any future plantings within the campus.
Woodland Preservation
The following guidelines promote the preservation
of historic woodland areas, particularly those
that line Monocacy Creek and protect the slopes
and bluffs above it. The guidelines reference the
woodlands’ ecological significance, rather than
individual historic trees or other vegetation:
• Designate areas of existing woodland on
campus, particularly wooded areas found
on steep slopes, ravines, floodplains, within
100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream,
within 50 feet of wetlands, and/or containing
wildlife corridors (forest, tree lines, or
hedgerows that connect two or more woodland
areas) as woodland preservation zones for
priority retention, and protect these areas from
disturbance.
• Add delineation of these woodland
preservation zones to the college Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) database to aid in
the recognition, mapping, and management of
important campus resources.
• Strongly encourage creative land planning and
site design approaches during the project review
process involving new development to ensure
woodland preservation and enhancement.
• If, after review by Moravian staff, it is
determined that plans cannot reasonably be
altered to preserve woodland areas, conduct
a biological inventory of the proposed impact
area to document the vegetation to be affected.
Inventory should include the species, number,
size, approximate age, and distribution of trees,
as well as the composition of the woodland
understory (shrubs and groundcovers).
• Establish, in consultation with professional
foresters, and enforce standards for replacing
lost vegetation, giving considerations for lost
canopy coverage, species type and distribution,
and location, to mitigate the cultural and
ecological impacts. Consider a allowing a
variety of replacement strategies depending
upon site conditions and project requirements,
such as:
◦ On-site reforestation (based upon a
percentage of existing canopy coverage,
species composition, and species
distribution)
◦ Reforestation of equivalent sites outside of
the project area that will not be subject to
future development.
◦ Other methods, such as purchasing lands
or permanent conservation easements
on developable lands with equivalent
woodland resources located off campus.
Total area, canopy cover, woodland type,
understory vegetation, wildlife habitat
value, and other appropriate resource
assessment criteria shall be considered in
determining whether off-site resources are
equivalent to those of the project site.
Landscape Structures
Landscape structures, such as retaining walls,
free-standing walls, and gate piers, are an important
character-defining feature of historic campus
landscape. The following general guidelines should
be considered prior to undertaking any repair or
rehabilitation work:
• Deteriorated structures should be repaired
rather than replaced, when possible. If the
severity of deterioration requires replacement,
the new structure should match the original
in design, color, texture, materials, and other
visual qualities. Existing materials should be
reused to the greatest extent possible.
• If replacement is necessary, document existing
structures before and during demolition/
removal with photographs, scaled drawings,
and notes, giving particular attention to the
following characteristics: materials, color,
texture, dimensions of structure, dimensions of
masonry unit, coping treatment, construction
technique, and mortar.
• If consultants are retained to develop details and
specifications for replacement work, Moravian
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 150

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
staff should convey to the consultant the need
for matching historic design characteristics
while improving structure strength and
long-term stability.
• Avoid adding walls or gate piers in historic
landscape areas that traditionally did not have
such elements.
• Any new walls or gate piers built within the
campus should be designed and constructed to
complement its historic character. For example,
the use of concrete block or manufactured stone,
or oversized weep holes with exposed PVC
pipes are not appropriate design elements.
• Treatment of mortared stone walls and piers
should be undertaken according to guidelines
for architectural treatment in Chapter 9 and
standards outlined in the National Park Service’s
Preservation Brief #1, “Assessing Cleaning and
Water-Repellant Treatments for Historic Masonry
Buildings,” and Preservation Brief #2, “Repointing
Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings”
(Mack 1998, 2000).
• Materials are an important consideration when
addressing repair or replacement of landscape
structures. The following recommendations
apply to choosing materials:
Historic Materials
◦ If materials can not be preserved or
rehabilitated for adaptive reuse, consider
salvaging and reusing them in another
construction project (i.e. masonry removed
from a demolished structure can be reused
in a stone or brick veneer wall in another
building, or as paving for a path).
◦ Where possible, reuse salvaged or
refurbished materials before purchasing
new materials.
◦ Ensure that materials are not taken from
historic structures unless the structure has
been approved for demolition and fully
documented prior to demolition.
◦ Prohibit reuse of materials sourced from
archeological resources.
New Materials
◦ When possible, new materials should
match historic materials being replaced
(i.e. brick is replaced with brick rather than
with manufactured stone or concrete block
that is colored to look like brick).
◦ Select materials with a low life cycle cost
(ones that do not consume a lot of energy
to extract, manufacturer, transport, etc.).
◦ Select new materials for durability. Specify
materials that require less frequent
maintenance and replacement.
◦ Specify the use of local and/or regional
materials (within 500 miles). This reduces
the energy consumed during transport and
support local economies.
◦ Select materials, if manufactured, with
a high post-consumer or post-industrial
recycled content.
◦ When selecting wood materials, choose
certified wood that is produced in
accordance with Forest Stewardship
Council guidelines.
◦ Select materials that are non-toxic or
non-hazardous to user and installers.
◦ Ensure that all construction contractors
have a waste management plan that
considers how to salvage, recycle, or
dispose of construction waste.
Site Furnishings and Objects
Comparison of existing conditions with historic
photographs indicate that most historic site
furnishings and objects that have existed within
the campus have been replaced over time by
new furnishings with few overarching aesthetic
standards. Such items may include benches, bicycle
racks, bollards, trash receptacles, fencing, lights,
signage, and small art works or commemorative
features. The following guidelines apply to future
decisions regarding site furnishings and objects:
Furnishings
• Prepare a comprehensive site furnishings plan
for the campus. This plan should identify
appropriate locations for new furnishings and
make recommendations on their design.
• A single theme for site furnishings should be
identified and used in conjunction with all
future projects and improvements (rather than
a variety of styles for the multiple character
areas of campus) in order to achieve a unique
identity and cohesive design aesthetic for the
college.
• New site furnishings and objects need not be
historic replicas, but should contribute to the
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 151

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
overall historic character of the campus in
scale, design, and materials, rather than detract
from it. A clear differentiation, however, should
be made between historic and contemporary
furnishings.
• Preference should be given to durable and low
maintenance furnishings in order to reduce the
amount of required maintenance. Consider
furnishings constructed of local and/or recycled
materials.
• Ensure that all consultants involved in new
construction projects are aware of the current
standards for lighting, signage, and future site
furnishings. Make standards and specifications
available at or before the schematic design
phase of any project.
• In historic areas, keep the number of
contemporary site furnishing to the minimum
required for the comfort and safety of the
campus community.
Fencing
• Avoid the use of ornamental metal fences except
where there is a precedent for this material.
• Avoid installing chain-link, vinyl, or
manufactured wood fencing in locations that
are visible from historic areas.
• Materials are an important consideration when
addressing repair or replacement of fencing.
While the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
state that deteriorated features should
always be repaired rather than replaced,
severely deteriorated features that cannot be
repaired shall be replaced with new features
that match the old in design, color, texture,
material, and other visual qualities. The
following recommendations apply to choosing
replacements for historic fencing, as well as
considerations for choosing new materials:
Historic Materials
◦ If materials can not be preserved or
rehabilitated for adaptive reuse, consider
salvaging and reusing them in another
construction project.
◦ Where possible, reuse salvaged or
refurbished materials before purchasing
new materials.
◦ Ensure that materials are not taken from
another historic fence unless the fence has
been approved for demolition and fully
documented prior to demolition.
New Materials
◦ When possible, new materials should
match historic materials being replaced.
◦ Select materials with a low life cycle cost
(ones that do not consume a lot of energy
to extract, manufacturer, transport, etc.),
that require less frequent maintenance
and replacement, and that have a high
post-consumer or post-industrial recycled
content.
◦ Specify the use of local and/or regional
materials (within 500 miles) to reduce
energy consumed during transport and
support local economies.
◦ When selecting wood materials, choose
certified wood that is produced in
accordance with Forest Stewardship
Council guidelines.
◦ Select materials that are non-toxic
or non-hazardous to occupants and
installers.
◦ Ensure that all construction contractors
have a waste management plan that
considers how to salvage, recycle, or
dispose of construction waste.
Lighting
Prepare a comprehensive lighting plan for the
campus. This might include such information as
a hierarchical lighting system containing specific
light standards for primary and secondary
roads, primary, secondary, and tertiary paths,
crosswalks, and parking areas. Installation of new
or rehabilitation of existing lighting fixtures on
campus would follow the guidelines established in
this plan in order to meet the following objectives:
• Reduce glare by increasing lighting intensity
and uniformity
• Reduce illumination of excessively bright
areas
• Orient people to circulation routes and building
entrances
• Highlight the location of pedestrian road
crossings
• Illuminate pedestrians to oncoming vehicles
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 152

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• Illuminate vertical planes for orientation,
expression of architecture, and termination of
important vistas.
• Reduce light pollution by ensuring that all new
lighting directs light towards the ground to
eliminate the upward spill of ambient light. See
the International Dark Sky Association website
(www.darksky.org) for further guidance.
• Ensure that any new underground electrical
lines are placed with full consideration given
to possible impacts on potential archeological
resources and the root zone of historic trees.
• Consider the use of lights powered by
photovoltaic cells to reduce energy consumption
on campus.
Signage
A variety of signage types currently characterizes
the Moravian campus and contributes to a lack
of a consistent visual identity for the campus.
A comprehensive plan for campus signage is
recommended in order to solidify this visual
identity. Such a plan would provide graphic
standards, technical specifications, and sign detail
drawings that should be consistently applied to all
new signage at Moravian College:
• Develop a new signage palette for building
identification markers and informational signs
throughout the campus.
• Mark historic resources on campus either
through the placement of state historical
markers or a system of campus-specific
markers. An alternative to markers is a tour
guide/brochure describing historic resources
on the Moravian campus. The brochure could
be made available at the Office of Admissions,
and distributed with admissions packages
and through local tourism and preservation
organizations.
• Consider installing markers indicating the
Latin and common names of historic or
unusual plant materials on campus that are
not currently identified. These would include,
for example, the purple beeches at Comenius
Lawn, the historic sycamores in Monocacy
Quad, and other trees thought to be historic or
unusual.
Commemorative Features and Art Works
Commemorative features include monuments and
memorials of various sizes, scales, and materials,
as well as special tree plantings. Artworks on
campus include historic statuary that should be
professionally treated or non-historic items that
could be included in maintenance plans. These
objects provide important links to historical
and more recent events and persons associated
with the college. Together with their landscape
setting, they are integral components of the entire
campus. To adequately plan for their retention and
maintenance, as well as future additions, consider
the guidelines that follow.
• Create a long-term plan and vision for the
accommodation of future commemorative and
artwork features within the entire campus.
The plan should identify appropriate types
and locations for proposed features, including
statuary, monuments, and memorial tree
plantings.
• Prepare a comprehensive commemorative
feature maintenance program that includes
a manual to guide work for each individual
artwork, monument, marker, or type of
monument or marker. Artworks, monuments,
and other memorials are revered objects that
require regular maintenance to remain in good
condition. Some of these objects should be
treated by a professional artwork conservator.
• Inspect monuments and markers regularly
to ensure that they remain in good condition.
Document inspections with reports and
photographs to aid in the understanding of any
chronic conditions.
• Maintain the landscape compositions
surrounding monuments and artwork as
frameworks for the objects. Remove or correct
overgrown plantings, cracked paving, and
poor site drainage as observed.
• Refer to guidelines established for vegetation
for further information regarding care and
maintenance of important trees and other
memorial plantings.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 153

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Archeological Resources
There are several known and potential archeological
sites within the Moravian College campus. Three
archeological investigations have been undertaken
in the area, one within the Hurd Campus in 2008 in
relation to the construction of the new residential
building and two others nearby in downtown
Bethlehem. Nevertheless, greater documentation
of significant existing and potential archeological
sites is needed to ensure that these resources are
considered before any changes are proposed:
• Consider the archeological potential and
significance of a previously undisturbed site
when selecting a site for new construction.
• Evaluate construction projects in consultation
with a professional in an appropriate discipline
– such as archeology, history, or architectural
history.
• Obtain the services of a trained professional
archeologist to conduct testing of any new
construction sites with the potential to contain
archeological resources.
• Avoid impacts to archeological sites by
designating a limit-of-disturbance area around
the resource. The limit-of-disturbance area
should be determined by an archeologist.
It is recommended that a comprehensive
archeological resources management plan be
prepared for the campus to better inform future
master plans. The plan should include: a complete
inventory of previously recorded archeological
sites within (and immediately adjacent to) the
campus; cultural contexts describing the prehistoric
and historic-period occupations of the campus
and vicinity; a map depicting archeologically
sensitive areas; a summary of all previous
archeological research conducted on the campus;
a map depicting previously surveyed areas; a map
depicting previously disturbed areas and/or areas
where no archeological resources could exist for
other reasons; and, significance criteria, research
priorities, and site evaluation protocols that can
be used to inform future archeological survey,
investigation, mitigation, and planning decisions.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 6 • Landscape Guidelines • 154

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Seven
Character Area Treatment Recommendations
7.0 Introduction
This chapter identifies the primary issues associated
with stewardship of the historic landscape
resources within the Moravian College campus and
provides detailed guidance for individual features
within the various landscape character areas. The
recommendations address physical condition
issues, maintenance solutions, and appropriate
methods for incorporating new design and
construction elements, as well as altering existing
historic landscape features.
These recommendations are based on the overarching
stewardship philosophy summarized in Chapter 4
of this report, the existing conditions assessment
of landscape resources summarized in Chapter 5 –
Cultural Landscapes at Moravian College, and the
Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes summarized
in Chapter 6. Implemented in conjunction with
guidelines and treatment recommendations
for historic buildings in Chapter 8 – Historic
Buildings and Chapter 9 – Building Guidelines,
this information will assist Moravian College in
effectively and comprehensively preserving and
protecting its historic resources.
7.1 Character Area
Treatment Recommendations
Treatment recommendations are the tools that
preservation professionals use to guide management,
maintenance, change, and intervention within
an historic property. They indicate what actual
projects should be considered and are intended to
link the overarching guideline approach to solving
management issues with specific and concrete
tasks.
First, broad campus-wide recommendations are
presented, which are then followed by character
area-specific recommendations. For each character
area, general recommendations that apply to the
entire character area are listed and are followed
by recommendations for the individual resources
located within the character area. In some cases,
recommendations are presented as alternatives
when important variables to be considered are
not currently known. Some recommendations are
offered as consideration rather than firm action
items.
Hurd Campus Character Area
General
Hurd Campus contains the most recognizable
and historic buildings on the Moravian campus
and the landscape associated with their history.
This historic character area should be treated in a
manner that celebrates this distinctive character,
while, at the same time allowing Moravian College
to adapt the Hurd Campus to its growing needs
for new facilities and additional parking. These
recommendations identify opportunities for both
the preservation and growth:
• Retain and maintain all historic landscape
resources within this character area and protect
its significant role in the college’s history.
Qualities and characteristics to be retained
include the alignment of buildings along West
Church Street and South Main Street, the
alignment of the service road behind the Single
Brethren’s House and partial allée of trees, the
open area behind the Single Brethren’s House,
the sidewalk and remaining street trees along
West Church Street, the location of the flagpole
behind Foy Concert Hall, and the alignment
and riparian edge of Monocacy Creek. The open
space behind the buildings along Church Street
should be preserved as much as possible as the
location of the historic Moravian gardens.
• Conduct further archeological studies in the
area behind the Single Brethren’s House to
determine historic locations of paths and
other landscape features. Protect the existing
landform and topography from change unless
absolutely necessary.
Natural Systems and Features
The natural features and systems of the Hurd
Campus provide the overall context and setting
that define its historic character:
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 155

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• Preserve the historic topography and geology
of the character area to the greatest extent
possible. Avoid significant cut/fill, particularly
to the bluff along which the historic buildings
of this area are situated.
• Preserve the native vegetation that lines
Monocacy Creek. This band of trees and plants
filters pollutants and helps prevent erosion.
Further enhance the water quality and plant
diversity of Monocacy Creek by establishing
buffers in areas where they are missing.
Spatial Organization
Opportunities are available for preserving or
re-establishing some spaces related to the history
of the Hurd Campus:
• Retain and maintain the open space between
the south façades of the Single Brethren’s House
and Main Hall to the parking lot driveway at
the south end of South Hall. This space is the
core of the historic Pleasure Grounds.
• Consider re-establishing the axial character of
the central green behind the Single Brethren’s
House by replanting the allée of trees that was
in that location and maintaining a lawn in that
area.
• Consider re-establishing the space once
occupied by the Rose Garden behind Main Hall
by using shrubs to delineate the space.
• Retain the open quality of the spaces between
the south façades of the historic buildings along
Church Street and the north retaining wall of the
new residence hall. It was within these spaces
that gardens and lawns were located during
the historic period. If accessory structures are
needed, consider adding them such in a way
that they do not intrude into or negatively
impact the historic character of these spaces.
• Consider re-establishing a series of gardens in
this area that could interpret the community
gardens of the Moravian settlement. On a
smaller scale, a garden could be created around
the end of the pedestrian bridge that connects
the new residence hall to the area behind the
Widows’ House (figures 7-1 and 7-2).
• Reinforce the linear character of Church Street
by maintaining the plantings of street trees
along this block.
Land Use
Re-establish the recreational use of the Pleasure
Grounds area behind the Single Brethren’s House.
Consider limiting service vehicles to access from
the west side of West Hall instead or limiting size
and frequency of use by service vehicles.
Buildings
The historic buildings found within this area include
Moravian’s College’s oldest academic buildings:
Single Brethren’s House and the Widows’ House.
However, all buildings on the Hurd Campus are
listed in the National Register of Historic Places
as part of the Bethlehem Historic District. While
specific building treatment recommendations
are contained in Chapters 8 and 9 of this report
it is generally recommended that these historic
building be rehabilitated for new and expanded
programming, that their historic exteriors
be preserved and maintained, and that new
Figure 7-1. Kitchen garden maintained at Colonial Williamsburg
(History.org).
Figure 7-2. Formal garden maintained at Colonial Williamsburg
(JMA Collection).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 156

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
construction complements historic architectural
features. As discussed in greater detail throughout
this chapter, recommendations are also offered to
strengthen and enhance relationships between
historic buildings and landscape features.
Circulation Features
Retain and maintain the circulation features
identified as being at least fifty years of age in
alignment and configuration: the service drive
behind the Single Brethren’s House, the walkway
between the Single Brethren’s House and Main Hall,
the portico under South Hall, and the sidewalk on
Church Street:
Service Drive
• The service drive leading to the south side
of the Single Brethren’s House was once the
main path within the system of walkways in
the Pleasure Grounds. Consider restoring its
function as a pedestrian walkway. This will
also help to focus and organize the space.
• Consider limiting service access to this feature,
or limiting the frequency and size of service
vehicles that have access. Relocate the vehicular
turnaround further downhill and closer to
utility areas.
• Consider repaving the drive with a material
more compatible with its historic character,
using gravel or a hard surfaced gravel-like
material such as Addastone (figure 7-3).
• Consider restoring the east arm of the main
walk loop to curve around and rejoin the walk
at the historic location.
Figure 7-3. Sample of Addastone resin-based paving material ,
installed at Wakehurst Place, Sussex (www.addagrip.co.uk).
• Consider replacing screen vegetation around
the HVAC units adjacent to South Hall with
a screen wall so that the main walk can be
re-established in its original location in that
area.
• Reconfigure the design of the lower parking lot
to create more lawn space around the historic
flagpole to more closely approximate its historic
setting.
Walkway between Single Brethren’s House
and Main Hall
• Conduct further research to discover the
historic paving material for this walkway. If
not available, consider replacing the exposed
aggregate surface with brick or other material
more compatible with its historic nature.
South Hall Portico
• Replace the brushed concrete floor of this
portico with brick or other material more
compatible with its historic nature. Consider
extending the brick surface of the walkway to
the east into and through the portico area.
Church Street Sidewalk
• Replace cracked and dislodged pavers or
concrete along this walkway. Replace historic
materials in-kind if possible; if not available,
use materials that do not detract from the
historic character of the streetscape.
Other Areas
• Consider repaving other drives and parking
areas, such as the Widows’ House parking
lot, with gravel or a hard surfaced gravel-like
material such as Addastone (see figure 7-3). If
new parking is installed considering using this
material there, as well.
• Consider developing a pedestrian riparian
walk along Monocacy Creek, using the location
of the old Main Street gateway as the entrance.
Make pedestrian connections from the riparian
walk to the historic industrial sites to the west.
• Create a pedestrian connection from the bridge
of the new residence building to the open area
south of Single Brethren’s House. Consider
placing the walkway on axis with the statue of
Countess von Zinzendorf in order to make a
visual connection between the spaces.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 157

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Views and Vistas
Views and vistas available within the historic
character area of the Hurd Campus are well
documented in historic photographs from the early
twentieth century. A few of these are possible to
recreate based on these photographs:
• Re-establish the historic vista available from
Church Street into the Pleasure Grounds from
the walkway between the Single Brethren’s
House and Main Hall. This includes restoring
the east arm of the main path and the plantings
that focus the view down towards Monocacy
Creek.
• Consider restoring the symmetry of the view
from the South Hall portico into the Rose
Garden area by either reconstructing the rose
arbors in their historic locations or using some
other device for framing (see figure 5-43).
Vegetation
The vegetation on the Hurd Campus has changed
significantly over the course of its history. Few of the
original planting materials or patterns survive and
little is known about the species previously used.
Given this, the preservation approach for this area
would include restoring the vegetative character
of historic areas, if not the particular plant species.
Particular zones of vegetation would include the
vegetated slope, the main garden of the Pleasure
Grounds, the Rose Garden, the community gardens,
and the riparian buffer.
Overall this area has been dominated by mature,
large canopy deciduous trees that provided shade
and dappled light for pathways, as well as various
types of gardens or open lawns used for recreation.
Some plantings were made adjacent to building
foundations and some followed pathways or
framed views. Given these parameters:
• Retain and maintain vegetation identified as
being at least fifty years of age by consulting
an arborist that specializes in historic trees.
Historic vegetation includes a few street trees
along Church Street, large trees in the area
behind the Single Brethren’s House and Main
Hall, turf lawns behind Main Hall and Clewell
Hall, and possibly the rose bushes surrounding
the addition behind the Widows’ House. With
the consulting arborist, develop a routine tree
maintenance schedule to protect historic trees
and a plan for their eventual replacement.
• Partner with the City of Bethlehem to retain
and maintain the trees on the east edge of the
campus, along Sakon Place and on Church
Street.
• Consider redeveloping the Rose Garden,
including reconstructing arbors as per historic
photographs, as an outdoor study area for
students.
• Consider restoring ivy to stone building walls,
as it contributes to the historic character of this
area. Carefully manage the ivy by keeping it
away from windows and wood elements. This
should be done by cutting the ivy back to the
ground periodically every three to five years.
• Consider re-establishing plantings that framed
views or lined pathways through the campus.
• Implement a campaign to re-establish large
deciduous trees within the area, including trees
along Church Street.
• Stabilize cut slopes over 15% with soil
stabilization fabrics and sod to hold the soil.
• Avoid planting species that are adapted to basic
soils, or soils with a high pH (8 or greater),
next to historic mortared foundations as plant
roots may be attracted to lime and can cause
leaching.
The following is a recommended plant list for the
Hurd Campus. Other plants may be appropriate
provided they are native or adapted to the region
and non-invasive. Refer to the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources web site, “Landscaping with Native
Plants in Pennsylvania,” for more information on
native plants in the state (http://www.dcnr.state.
pa.us/forestry/wildplant/native.aspx). Species
on the list marked with a (+) are salt tolerant.
Species marked with a (-) are highly sensitive to
salt and should not be planted along walkways or
road edges. For more information on species salt
tolerances, refer to the Cornell University Urban
Horticulture Institute (http://www.hort.cornell.
edu/uhi/outreach/recurbtree/index.html) and the
University of Connecticut Plant Database (http://
www.hort.uconn.edu/plants/index.html).
Large Trees (appropriate for open lawn areas)
Red maple (Acer rubrum) (-)
Sugar maple (Acer saccharium) (-)
Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
American beech (Fagus grandiflora)
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 158

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
White ash (Fraxinus americana) (+)
Black ash (Fraxinus nigra)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicum) (+)
American holly (Ilex opaca) (+)
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) (-)
Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa)
White pine (Pinus strobus) (-)
Austrian pine (Pinus nigra) (+)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) (+)
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) (+)
Pin oak (Quercus palustrus) (-)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) (+)
American basswood (Tilia americana)
Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
Elm hybrids (Ulmus x spp.) (+)
Large Trees (appropriate for street plantings)
White ash (Fraxinus americana) (+)
Black ash (Fraxinus nigra)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicum) (+)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) (+)
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) (+)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Elm hybrids (Ulmus x spp.) (+)
Large Trees (appropriate for re-creating garden allées)
American holly (Ilex opaca) (+)
Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa)
Silver poplar (Populus alba)
Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
Shrubs and Small Trees (over 6 feet)
Shadblow serviceberry (Amelanchier
canadensis) (+)
Gray birch (Betula populifolia)
Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) (+)
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) (-)
Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana)
Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
Junipers (Juniperus spp.) (+)
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) (+)
Catawba rhododendron (Rhododendron
catawbiense) (-)
Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)
(+)
Small Shrubs (under six feet)
New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus)
Sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia)
Redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera)
Smooth Hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens)
Inkberry (Ilex glabra)
Drooping leucothoe (Leucothoe fontanesiana)
Rose azalea (Rhododendron prinophyllum) (-)
Pinkster azalea (Rhododendron
periclymenoides) (-)
Fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica)
Viburnums (Viburnum spp.)
Ground covers
Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) (+)
Wild ginger (Asarum canadense)
Common wintergreen (Gaultheria
procumbens)
Allegheny pachysandra (Pachysandra
procumbens)
Barren strawberry (Waldsteinia fragarioides)
Ferns (various)
Landscape Structures
Two stone walls are extant in this character area
from the historic period. Non-extant structures
were identified in historic photographs, such as the
brick entrance gateway from Main Street, but their
exact locations are not known. It is possible that
further archeological investigations may reveal
foundations or other evidence.
• Retain and maintain the stacked stone retaining
wall between Main Hall and Frueauff House.
Further investigate the stone retaining wall east
of Frueauff House, and preserve and protect the
wall if it is found to contribute to the integrity
of the setting.
• Investigate, if considering restoring the Rose
Garden, also restoring the stone wall that
supported the garden on the south end.
• Stabilize and protect the stacked stone retaining
wall identified on the south side of Monocacy
Creek. Further investigation is needed
regarding its extent and condition.
Site Furnishings and Objects
The Hurd Campus contains a variety of types
and styles of site furnishings, but none but the
flag pole are historic. Recommendations include
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 159

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
replacements of historic furnishings or additions
for new uses:
• Retain and maintain the historic flagpole.
Restore the setting of the flagpole by removing
the parking spaces immediately adjacent and
relocating the mule sculpture; also consider
realigning the entrance drive to pull the curb
further away from the base of the flagpole.
• Increase the number of benches available within
the historic space of the Pleasure Grounds.
Consider furnishings that reference but do not
mimic historic furnishings that were located
within the Hurd Campus. Because of the casual
and residential nature of the Pleasure Grounds
and based on historic photographs, wooden
benches would be appropriate in this area, but
not those incorporating metal straps or formed
concrete.
• Consolidate individual site furnishings such
as newspaper dispensers and ash receptacles
to reduce visual clutter, especially where such
site furnishings are located within historic
viewsheds. Consider replacing these furnishings
with designs and materials compatible with
the historic character of this area (refer to the
discussion of benches, above).
• Protect and interpret the Countess Benigna
von Zinzendorf statue, perhaps as a feature of
a future interpretive trail.
• Consider carefully the placement of utility and
service features, such as dumpsters and trash
containers, within this historic landscape area.
For example, the trash containers placed at the
south side of Main Hall are visually intrusive.
Strive to screen or diminish the visual impact
of these types of features from public use areas
or relocate them to service areas.
• Use plant materials for screening if possible
because of the historic character of this area.
For utility and mechanical features that cannot
be practically screened with vegetation,
consider screening the mechanical unit with a
wall that is matched to the material and specific
construction techniques of the building.
Archeological Features
The Hurd Campus has been found to contain
archeological resources dating to the eighteenth
century. In 2008, three historic storage cellars
were unearthed during excavations made for the
foundation of the new residence building in the
Hurd Campus. A fourth cellar was also discovered
to the west of these three and was reburied for later
study (Gerhardt et al. 2008). It is likely that this area
contains many other archeological resources (as
discussed in Chapter 5); therefore it is recommended
that an archeological survey be performed in the
area and that plans for any development include
testing to locate other sites.
Steel Field Character Area
The Steel Field character area is significant as the
original home of the Bethlehem Steel Soccer Club.
The Grandstand, constructed in 1916, is an example
of an early twentieth century event-viewing
structure. While the Grandstand building has a
moderate level of integrity, the field itself has been
reconstructed more than once to accommodate new
uses and new sports field technologies. Remaining
historic features include the Grandstand, the
open space of the field, and its setting in this
historic neighborhood. Recommendations are for
rehabilitation as follows:
• Retain and maintain the Grandstand as a
historic structure. Avoid any further alterations
to the building that are not consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties if the building
is listed or deemed eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. Refer to
Chapters 8 and 9 for more detailed treatment
recommendations.
◦ Consider performing a Historic Structures
Report to inform removal of incompatible
alterations to the Grandstand and recover
the structure’s historic character.
◦ Investigate the historic nature of stairs and
sidewalks adjacent to the Grandstand.
• Maintain the existing terraced land form upon
which the Grandstand was constructed. Watch
for erosion and other threats to its integrity.
• Maintain the open quality of existing sports
fields in this character area and views from the
Grandstand to South Mountain, to the south of
Bethlehem.
• Maintain sidewalks and pedestrian circulation
connections into this character area. Consider
strengthening pedestrian entrances with
lighting, plantings, and site furnishings.
• Retain and maintain vegetation identified as
being at least fifty years of age, including the
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 160

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
trees that line Center Street and E. Fairview
Street.
• Consider replacing missing street trees along
Center Street adjacent to Steel Field in order to
restore a sense of enclosure between the field
and residences.
• Consider extending the line of tall evergreen
shrubs screening the west end of the field to the
north edge of the track. Relocate ornamental
shrubs to pedestrian entrances to enhance
wayfinding.
• Develop a signage and wayfinding plan that
would include enhancement of the visual and
perceptual connection of Steel Field with Hurd
and North Campuses. This plan might include
consistent graphic images, sign types, banners,
or other easily identifiable items.
• Consider grouping signage, lighting, and
utilities in order to reduce visual clutter with
this character area.
Comenius Lawn Character Area
Comenius Hall forms the core of the historic
North Campus. Its imposing east façade, with its
foreground of expansive lawn framed by large,
historic trees, is the predominant image for the
campus. The exterior of Comenius Hall retains
a high level of integrity and the original design,
setting, feeling, and association of the building
and its landscape are still perceptible. Features
associated with materials and workmanship that
detract from the historic character of the façade and
landscape can be easily removed or rehabilitated.
General
Focus rehabilitation treatment within this area on
the preservation, stabilization, and maintenance
of historic spaces, buildings, circulation, view and
vistas, and vegetation features.
Spatial Organization
One of the most important historic features of this
character area is the large open space of Comenius
Lawn:
• Maintain the space from the façades of the
buildings to Main Street. Protect the existing
sloping, bowl-like landform from change
unless absolutely necessary.
• Maintain the sense of enclosure provided by
the groupings of trees on the north and south
ends of the lawn.
• Avoid siting additional features within this
character area, including formal elements and
plazas, ornamental plantings and gardens, and
site furnishings and signage.
• Maintain the unprogrammed, informal open
character that has been an important quality of
this space since the early twentieth century.
Buildings
Retain and maintain the buildings and structures
associated with this character area that are at
least fifty years of age with integrity: Comenius
Hall, Borhek Chapel, and Harvey Library. Refer
to Chapters 8 and 9 for more detailed treatment
recommendations for these buildings.
Circulation Features
The historic semi-circular drive that provides
access to Comenius Hall from Main Street is one
of the character area’s most important features.
It is documented in photographs of Comenius
Hall dating to shortly after its construction. The
following actions are recommended:
• Retain the south arm of the semi-circular drive
leading to the front door of Comenius Hall
• Consider restoring the north arm of the drive
to its original location. Partner with the City
of Bethlehem to develop a safe pedestrian
connection to Main Street and prevent vehicular
access.
• Consider removing existing asphalt and paving
the circular drive in a pervious material that
suggests its original gravel surface from the
early twentieth century (see figure 7-3).
• If the semi-circular driveway is reconfigured
for pedestrian travel, remove all parking signs
in order to reduce clutter.
• Retain the central walkway and the direct
pedestrian connection it provides between
Comenius and Colonial halls.
• Consider restoring the original landing at the
top of the stairs leading down to the central
walkway.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 161

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Views and Vistas
Important to the historic character of this area are
the views to and from Comenius Hall. In order to
protect these views, the following recommendations
apply:
• Retain and maintain the central axial view
through the entire character area from the front
door of Comenius Hall to Colonial Hall and the
open, sweeping view of Comenius Hall from
Main Street.
• Avoid placing vertical elements within these
viewsheds, including additional trees, statuary,
gates, or light standards that would distract
from a clear view of the façade of Comenius
Hall.
• Remove and replace vegetation that is
overgrown and which prevents clear views to
the more important architectural elements of
the building. Refer to the vegetation section,
below.
Vegetation
The Comenius Lawn character area possesses a
variety of significant vegetation, some dating to
the late nineteenth century, including a number of
large trees. Other types of documented vegetation
are no longer extant from the historic period, or
have been added since that time. In order to protect
and enhance the historic character of this area, the
following actions are recommended:
• Retain and maintain vegetation identified as
being at least fifty years of age. Perpetuate the
informal clumps and groves of trees along the
margins of the central open space.
• Gather seed or clone specimens in preparation
for eventual replacement of historic trees.
Conduct tree survey to confirm exact locations,
species, and variety of each tree within this
character area.
• Develop routine tree maintenance schedule
employing a consulting arborist that specializes
in historic trees.
• Remove overgrown and heavily pruned yews
that block views to the façade of the buildings
(see figure 5-83). Replace with small evergreen
shrubs or groundcover that will not exceed one
to two feet in height at maturity.
• Consider replacing the yews that flank the
central walkway with a mix of evergreen and
flowering shrubs as per earlier designs.
• Remove the arborvitae that flank the east
entrance to Comenius Hall. If an accent shrub is
desired to mark the entrance, consider species
that will not block views of the tilework on the
entrance porch.
• Consider re-establishing the English ivy that
once contributed to the Picturesque character
of the building.
• Consider removing the large shrubs that
surround the statue of John Amos Comenius
and replacing with a broad bed of small
evergreen shrubs or groundcovers that do not
exceed one foot in height, but that provide a
base for the statue (figure 7-4).
The following is a recommended plant list for
Comenius Lawn. Other plants may be appropriate
provided they are native or adapted to the region
and non-invasive. Refer to the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources web site, “Landscaping with Native
Plants in Pennsylvania,” for more information on
native plants in the state (http://www.dcnr.state.
pa.us/forestry/wildplant/native.aspx). Also refer
to “A Guide for Selecting Shrubs for Pennsylvania
Landscapes” for an extensive shrub list (Nuss n.d.).
Species on the list marked with a (+) are salt tolerant.
Species marked with a (-) are highly sensitive to
salt and should not be planted along walkways or
road edges. For more information on species salt
tolerances, refer to the Cornell University Urban
Horticulture Institute (http://www.hort.cornell.
edu/uhi/outreach/recurbtree/index.html) and the
University of Connecticut Plant Database (http://
www.hort.uconn.edu/plants/index.html).
Large Trees (appropriate for open lawn areas)
Red maple (Acer rubrum) (-)
Sugar maple (Acer saccharium) (-)
American beech (Fagus grandiflora)
White ash (Fraxinus americana) (+)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicum) (+)
American holly (Ilex opaca) (+)
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) (-)
Magnolia (hardy only) (Magnolia sp.)
Austrian pine (Pinus nigra) (+)
White pine (Pinus strobus)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) (+)
White oak (Quercus alba)
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 162

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 7-4. Existing conditions (top) and proposed changes (bottom), including replacement of large shrubs around the statue base
with groundcover, removal of the large yews that block views of the base of Comenius Hall, and relocation of site furnishings to
maintain uncluttered views to the building (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 163

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) (+)
Ginko (male only) (Salisburia adiantifolia)
American basswood (Tilia americana)
Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
Elm hybrids (Ulmus x spp.) (+)
Small Trees or Large Shrubs (over 6’,appropriate for
building corners and groves)
Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) (+)
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) (-)
Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana)
Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
Junipers (Juniperus spp.) (+)
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) (+)
Small Shrubs (under six feet, appropriate for walkways
and entrances)
New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus)
Sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia)
Smooth Hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens)
Inkberry (Ilex glabra)
Creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis)
Drooping leucothoe (Leucothoe fontanesiana)
Fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica)
Dwarf Japanese yew (Taxus cuspidata nana)
Spreading English yew (Taxus baccata
repandens)
Dwarf viburnums (Viburnum spp.)
Landscape Structures
The only landscape structure extant from the
historic period within this character area is the
central walk gateway that leads from Main Street
to Comenius Hall. The stone landing at the top of
the central walk stairs is no longer extant. Other
structures have been installed since the historic
period. The following recommendations apply:
• Central walk gateway
◦ Replace cracked and damaged stone
footings at the base of the entrance fencing
at this location.
◦ Consider replacing gateway lanterns with
fixtures that match historic as documented
in historic photographs (see figure 5-85).
◦ If this area is renovated, consider removing
the footings and restoring the gateway to
its original location.
• Stairway landing: consider reconstructing this
landing based on historic photographs and
any other documentation that may become
available (see figure 5-81).
• Locust Street gateway: monitor this structure
for condition issues such as cracking or brick
deterioration.
• Monument sign: if this area is renovated,
consider implementing a new design as part
of the overall campus signage master plan
recommended in Chapter 6 – Landscape
Guidelines.
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings within this character area have all
been installed after the historic period and most
very recently. Recommendations have to do with
minor adjustments to their current conditions:
• Consider placing floodlights for the John Amos
Comenius statue and for Comenius Hall in
wells in order to reduce visual clutter in this
area (see figure 7-4).
• Consolidate the benches and trash receptacles
along the block of Main Street to groupings at
each end of the block so as to maintain an open
and uncluttered view of Comenius Hall (see
figure 7-4).
• Place drainage from building roof underground
so as to reduce the visual impact.
Old Quad Character Area
The focus of treatment within this character area is
on the preservation, stabilization, and maintenance
of the open space contained by Comenius Hall,
Hamilton Hall, Monocacy Hall, Zinzendorf Hall,
and Memorial Hall.
General
The use of this character area has changed
dramatically during the last fifty year from
primarily service and parking-oriented space to
an open, pedestrian-oriented space. The addition
of a formal design of sidewalks and honey locust
trees has transformed this space into a closer
approximation of a traditional campus quad.
These recommendations are geared towards
strengthening this character rather than returning
the area to its previous historic use.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 164

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Spatial Organization
Enhance the design intent evident in the placement
of sidewalks and larger trees in this area as defining
a traditional campus quad:
• Consider removing or relocating smaller
elements such as ornamental trees and site
furnishings to the edges or corners of this area
in order to enhance its open quality (figure
7-5).
• Maintain a high tree canopy in order to enhance
the openness of the space.
Buildings
The five buildings that surround this space all date
to the historic period. Recommendations are as
follows:
• Retain and maintain the surrounding buildings,
which are at least fifty years of age and retain
integrity. Refer to Chapters 8 and 9 for more
detailed treatment recommendations.
• Consider consolidating utilities related to
these buildings and located in the Old Quad
character area and screening them with shrubs
or other material.
Circulation Features
Circulation patterns within this character area do
not date to the historic period. Nevertheless, it is
important to maintain the design intent expressed
in the pattern of sidewalks that characterize this
space:
• Maintain the existing sidewalk layout and
paving materials as they are in good condition
and appear to be functioning well to provide
stable pathways.
• Consider replacing asphalt driveway and
parking lot at north end of the Old Quad with
brick paving in order to discourage casual use
by delivery and maintenance vehicles. Install
bollards adjacent to the parking area to prevent
vehicles from entering the quad area from this
end.
Views and Vistas
Important to the character of this area are the view
to Comenius Hall from the southwest corner of the
quad and the axial view between Memorial Hall
and the north end of the quad.
• Remove small trees and other ornamental
vegetation from the central lawn and maintain
the alleé of honey locust to preserve the axial
view between Memorial Hall and the north
end of the quad.
• Consolidate utilities along the base of Comenius
Hall and screen with vegetation.
Vegetation
Vegetation within this character area does not
date to the historic period, but it is important to
maintain the design intent expressed in the large
tree plantings that characterize this space:
• Remove or relocate small ornamental trees,
such as weeping cherry and Bradford pear,
from the central lawn of the Old Quad as their
low branch habits interfere with the desired
open quality of the space. Consider placing
these types at the north end or one of the two
south corners to emphasize pedestrian entrance
points.
• Add two new honey locust in the central
portion of the quad, in line with the existing
trees, to complete the formal design.
• Maintain locust by regular pruning that will
encourage the branches to form a loose and airy
ceiling for the Old Quad space. Raise branching
to eight foot height, minimum.
• Place additional screening shrubs at the north
end of the Old Quad to increase the sense of
enclosure and at the base of Comenius Hall to
screen utilites (see figure 7-5).
• Remove small, randomly placed planting beds
located within the central space of the Old
Quad in order to emphasize the desired open
quality of the space (see figure 7-5).
Landscape Structures
The only landscape structure identified in this area
is the raised planter located at the west central
walkway that leads to Reeves Library. The planter
is of recent vintage, but it is important that regular
inspections are made of the structure to maintain
it in good condition. If it becomes necessary to
replace the planter, recommendations include
consideration of an alternate bench style that would
be more compatible with the historic character of
adjacent areas of the campus (see Site Furnishings
and Objects, below).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 165

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 7-5. Existing conditions (top) and proposed changes (bottom), including removal of small plantings within the central lawn
to maintain the axial view between Memorial Hall and the north end of the quad, and new plantings of shrubs around the base of
Comenius Hall to screen utilities (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 166

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings and objects within this character area
do not date to the historic period. Nevertheless, it is
important to have furnishings that are compatible
with the historic character of adjacent character
areas. In that vein, recommendations are to:
• Relocate benches and trash containers from the
center of the quad space to its borders in order
to emphasize the open quality of the space.
• Consider replacing all wooden benches with
black metal benches that match existing trash
containers and are more compatible with the
historic character of the surrounding buildings
(figure 7-6).
• Consider replacing all pipe railings at building
entrances with black metal railings that are
more compatible with the historic character of
the buildings (figure 7-7).
• Maintain pedestrian-scale lighting within the
Old Quad and assure that there is adequate
lighting for safety and security at night.
• Consider replacing bicycle racks with selection
that is more compatible with the historic
character of the adjacent buildings (figure 7-8).
Relocate bicycle racks from planted areas to
paved areas on the edges of the space.
• Consolidate utilities along the base of Comenius
Hall and screen with vegetation.
Figure 7-6. Example of black metal strap bench (Landscape
Forms).
Monocacy Quad Character Area
The focus of treatment within this character area is
on the preservation, stabilization, and maintenance
of the historic character of the linear space contained
by Hamilton Hall, Monocacy Hall, Zinzendorf Hall,
Memorial Hall, and Reeves Library.
Figure 7-7. Example of handrail that would be appropriate for
building entrances within the Old Quad area (JMA Collection).
General
Retain surviving historic elements and character
within this character area that provide a connection
to important aspects of Moravian College’s
heritage, particularly the older trees, the relatively
level landform, linear views of the streetscape,
the alignment of Monocacy Street, and the open
character that has been an important quality of this
space since the early twentieth century.
Figure 7-8. Example of bike rack designs that would be
compatible with the historic character of the campus (JMA
Collection).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 167

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Spatial Organization
While this is not a historic character area, the
Monocacy Quad does maintain some characteristics
from the historic period, including its linear
orientation and its street trees. Recommendations
are as follows:
• Maintain the linear character of this space. This
organization reflects the historical connection
to the original layout of Monocacy Street prior
to redevelopment.
• When replacing trees, align new plantings with
the historic sycamores and retain the original
and regular spacing.
• Site additional features within this character
area, including memorials, site furnishings,
or signage, towards the edge rather than to
the center, retaining as much as possible the
strength of the linear organization.
Buildings
Retain and maintain the buildings surrounding this
space that are at least fifty years of age and retain
integrity, including Hamilton House, Zinzendorf
Hall, and Memorial Hall. Refer to Chapters 8 and
9 for more detailed treatment recommendations.
In addition, recognize the historic significance
of the original core of Reeves Library (1967) as a
Modern-era building. Preserve character-defining
features and apply rehabilitation treatment
standards when renovating its exterior, designing
additions, or otherwise altering the building.
Circulation Features
The circulation within Monocacy Quad recollects
its historic use as a public street. Recommendations
are as follows:
• Consider extending the main walkway
through the north end of this character area,
re-establishing its connection to the west
sidewalk along Monocacy.
• Clarify the intersection of Monocacy and Locust
Street to distinguish pedestrian and vehicular
travelways. Consider a small, rectangular,
raised plaza, paved in brick or other modular
paver, which will be passable by vehicles when
necessary, yet different in texture than the
roadway.
Views and Vistas
Historic views north along Monocacy Street are
blocked by low plantings and a rail fence at the
Elizabeth Avenue end. Recommendations are as
follows:
• Consider removing low plantings and wood
rail fence at the north end of this character
area to re-establish the linear view north along
Monocacy Street.
Vegetation
The large trees within this character area are historic
and relate to the historic function of this space as a
public street. Recommendations are as follows:
• Avoid removing historic sycamores within this
character area.
• Replace historic sycamores as needed, that is,
when removed due to hazardous conditions,
in kind. Consider best way to assure a similar
habit by cloning, seeding, or other method as
recommended by horticulturalist.
• Consider replacing maples and weeping
mulberry in this are with sycamores in order
to strengthen the spatial quality and historic
character of this area.
• Protect the historic white ash at the southwest
of Zinzendorf Hall by following a maintenance
plan provided by a consulting arborist
specializing in historic trees.
Landscape Structures
There are no historic landscape structures within
this character area. However, more recently built
structures, the entrance stairway at Reeves Library
and the amphitheater at the south end, are examples
of the Post-Modern design aesthetic and should be
maintained as potentially significant structures.
Site Furnishings and Objects
Site furnishings and objects within this character area
do not date to the historic period. Nevertheless, it is
important to have furnishings that are compatible
with the historic character of adjacent character
areas. In that vein, recommendations are to:
• Consider removal of the split rail wood fence
at the north end of this character area, as it is
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 168

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
not compatible with the historic character of
adjacent areas.
• Consider replacing all wooden benches with
black metal benches that match existing trash
containers and are more compatible with the
historic character of the surrounding buildings
(see figure 7-6).
• Maintain pedestrian-scale lighting and assure
that it is adequate for safety and security.
• Consider replacing bicycle racks with a
selection that is more compatible with the
historic character of the adjacent buildings,
such as black painted metal railing types (see
figure 7-8).
Colonial Hall Character Area
General
This character area retains a small number of
features that can be dated to the historic period.
Recommendations for rehabilitation are as follows:
Spatial Organization
• Enhance the historic open spatial character of
the area contained by the L-shape of Colonial
Hall by relocating small trees to the north and
east sides of the building. These small trees are
low branching and tend to obscure views to the
details of these historic buildings.
• Maintain the urban scale of the close spacing
of the two American Foursquare houses in this
block of Main Street.
Buildings
• Retain and maintain the buildings in this
character area, as they are over fifty years of
age and retain integrity, including Colonial
Hall and the two large residences now housing
sororities. Refer to Chapters 8 and 9 for more
detailed treatment recommendations.
• If a small new facility is needed on campus,
consider using the site of the third building
that was originally planned for this character
area. The third building would complete the
originally planned enclosure on the south side.
Circulation Features
• Maintain the straight walkway that connects
Colonial Hall with Comenius Hall across Main
Street and its orientation to the central door of
what was the Moravian Archives building.
• If a third building is added to the Colonial
Hall grouping, mirror the new entrance
plaza configuration in order to maintain the
symmetrical design intent for this area.
Views and Vistas
• Maintain the strong axial view and spatial
relationship between Colonial Hall and
Comenius Hall. Avoid placing vertical
structures, objects, or vegetation within this
viewshed.
• Maintain the open, tree-lined quality of the
streetscape view along Main Street.
Vegetation
• Protect the historic oak at the northwest
corner of Elizabeth Avenue and Main Street
by following a maintenance plan provided by
a consulting arborist specializing in historic
trees.
• Remove the small tree planted in front of the
entrance to what was the Moravian Archives.
Its low branching obscures the historic axial
relationship between Colonial and Comenius
halls.
• Avoid obscuring historic building details,
maintain other plant materials to stay below
the lower sills of the first floor windows and
away from central doorways.
Landscape Structures
• Replace the cracked and damaged stone base
of the entrance fencing at this location.
• If this gateway and its twin across Main Street
are renovated, consider removing the stone
base and resetting the piers to match those at
Comenius, as shown in historic photographs.
• If the new diagonally-oriented entrance plaza
is renovated, consider a design that does not
obscure the historic character of the two older
buildings.
Site Furnishings and Objects
• Consider replacing wooden benches with
black metal benches that are more compatible
with the historic character of the surrounding
buildings (see figure 7-6).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 169

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• Consider replacing lanterns on the gate piers
with lanterns that more closely resemble those
shown in historic photographs of the Comenius
gateways (see figure 5-85).
Sports Quad Character Area
General
Retain the character of this area as a reflection of
Modernistic design, including its move away from
Beaux-Arts symmetry and axial arrangements to
a more free-form expression of both setting and
function.
Spatial Organization
• Retain the organization of this area as a wide
open space ringed by long, low buildings and
pierced by openings between the buildings.
• Differentiate small spaces related to individual
buildings from large by using specialized
paving, site furnishings such as benches and
picnic tables, and vegetation such as low shrubs
and canopy trees.
Buildings
• Retain and maintain the buildings and structures
identified as being from the mid-twentieth
century, including Johnston Hall (1952), Rau
Residence Hall (1960), Hassler Residence
Hall (1960), Haupert Union Building (1962),
Bernhardt Residence Hall (1964), Wilhelm
Residence Hall (1965), and Jo Smith Residence
Hall (1972). Refer to Chapters 8 and 9 for more
detailed treatment recommendations.
• Protect the existing landform and topography
that was used to site this group of buildings
from change unless absolutely necessary.
• Consider adding a wing to the south end of
Breidegam Field House that would express the
materials and fenestration patterns common
to the other buildings surrounding the sports
field.
Circulation Features
• Keep paved pedestrian or vehicular circulation
paths to the edge of the open space that
characterizes this area.
• Screen parking from view, if possible and
secure.
Views and Vistas
• Maintain protected areas from where sports
events can be viewed, including both formal
(HUB) and informal (grassy areas under trees).
• Avoid planting small trees within viewsheds
that might block views from the surrounding
buildings into the sports fields.
Vegetation
• Protect and maintain the large canopy trees
that ring the sports field. Replace any that are
removed with similar species (red and white
oak, maples, and sycamores).
• Remove overgrown shrubs in front of Johnston
Hall and replace with varieties that are two-tothree
feet maximum in height and do not
require heavy sheering.
• Consider removing ornamental plantings on
either side of the curb cut on the south side of
Locust Street. Relocate to an important entrance
that requires identification.
Landscape Structures
• If additions or other changes are made to\the
south end of Breidegam Field House consider
redeveloping the entrance with a design more
in keeping with the character of the entrance to
Johnston Hall.
• Consider creating a paved patio in front of the
lobby that connects Rau and Hassler halls so
that picnic tables may rest on a stable surface.
Site Furnishings and Objects
• Consider replacing all wooden benches
and picnic tables with contemporary metal
furnishings that are more compatible with
the modernistic character of the surrounding
buildings. Consider replacing bicycle racks with
selections that match these site furnishings.
• Relocate bicycle racks from planted or turf
areas to paved areas on the edges of the space.
• Maintain pedestrian-scale lighting and assure
that there is adequate lighting for safety and
security at night.
• Consider replacing the split-rail fences on
the west side of the sports field, in front of
Breidegam Field House, and close to the HUB
with black-painted or other metal that is more
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 170

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
compatible with the character of adjacent
buildings.
• Relocate vertically-oriented site furnishings,
such as trash receptacles and signage, to
entrances and exits and away from central
architectural features.
• Relocate or screen utility features such as the
gas meter in front of Rau-Hassler.
• Remove boulders that have been placed along
driveways or walks. They are not compatible
with the character of the campus and inhibit
mowing. If damage from vehicles is a problem,
add a raised curb to these areas.
• Develop a program to plan for and organize
small memorial markers. Identify memorial
plantings, such as trees or groves, with low,
ground-mounted markers that do not clutter
views or inhibit maintenance.
• Consider alternate system for blocking
vehicular access, such as pop-up or removable
bollards.
• Consolidate signage as much as possible.
Consider preventing parking with curbs rather
than signs.
Hillside Character Area
• Consider the character of this area when
planning for the rest of the campus. Carry
signage and furnishing systems into this area
in order to connect it conceptually with the
historic campus.
• When planning new buildings for this
area, utilize the same residential scale and
massing of the original buildings, along with
arrangements into groupings that encourage
social interaction.
Betty Prince Field Character Area
• Focus rehabilitation within this area on retaining
historic patterns of spatial organization and
land use.
• Consider the character of this area when
planning for the rest of the campus. Carry
signage and furnishing systems into this area
in order to connect it conceptually with the
historic campus.
• Consider improving access by identifying and
paving the gravel road that leads from the
Sports Quad down to this area.
• Protect large canopy trees that provide shade
in this area.
Campus Ring Character Area
General
Primary issues in this area have to do with campus
facility expansion and parking. The currently
on-going Facilities Master Plan for Moravian may
address many of these problems. The following
guidelines offer a preservation-oriented viewpoint.
Spatial Organization
When developing new facilities in this area,
maintain the building setbacks and spacing
patterns that characterize this late-nineteenth and
early-twentieth century neighborhood.
Buildings
• As a baseline, and in partnership with the
City of Bethlehem, survey and assess historic
buildings and landscapes in the neighborhood
surrounding Moravian College that merit
preservation.
• Retain all surviving historic elements and
maintain the historic character of this area
due to its role in providing a connection to
important aspects of the college’s heritage.
Avoid altering or removing the historic
buildings that survive within this area unless
there is a compelling reason for their removal.
Refer to Chapters 8 and 9 for more detailed
treatment recommendations.
• If facility expansion is desired in this area,
consider incorporating the spatial organization,
massing, and fenestration patterns found
in residential buildings in the surrounding
neighborhood.
Land Use
• Consolidate land uses within the campus
area, such as residential uses, offices, visitor
orientation areas, science, athletics, and
maintenance.
• Focus rehabilitation within this area on
maintaining important physical relationships
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 171

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and land uses, yet recognizing the need to
improve the aesthetics of the area and enhance
its sustainability.
Circulation Features
• When developing new facilities in this area,
maintain the grid pattern of streets that
characterizes this area.
• Consider constructing a parking facility in
a non-historic area on the edge of campus to
consolidate parking and open up space internal
to the campus for education facility expansion
or housing.
• Promote sustainable stormwater management
within this character area by converting
impervious surfaces to pervious surfaces and
creating holding areas and filtering features
such as rain gardens, filter strips, and dry wells
to promote infiltration, detention, and sediment
control associated with the parking lots.
Site Furnishings and Objects
Identify, in cooperation with the City of Bethlehem,
historic site furnishings and objects within this
area. Plan for preservation as per guidelines offered
in Chapter 6.
Views and Vistas
Retain and maintain linear views of the historic
streetscape when considering campus expansion
or development of new facilities.
Vegetation
• Retain and maintain vegetation identified as
being at least fifty years of age, including some
of the older trees within the area.
• Consider conducting a tree survey in the
neighborhood in partnership with the City of
Bethlehem.
• Participate in City of Bethlehem tree planting
initiatives in order to help maintain the historic
streetscape of the neighborhood.
• Retain and maintain the Monocacy Creek stream
corridor, topography, and surrounding riparian
woodland when considering developing on the
west edge of the campus.
Landscape Structures
Identify, in cooperation with the City of Bethlehem,
historic landscape structures within this area.
Plan for preservation as per guidelines offered in
Chapter 6.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 7 • Treatment Recommendations • 172

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Eight
Historic Buildings at Moravian College
8.0 Introduction
Moravian College is home to a wide range of
historic buildings that form two very different
campus environments. As steward of these
significant historic resources, Moravian recognizes
its responsibility in their care, maintenance, and
appropriate use. Stewardship is undertaken with the
idea that these resources will contribute materially
to the learning environment of the College; that
through these resources students will see, feel,
experience, and appreciate the long history and
evolving intellectual life of the community. These
buildings and their associated landscapes provide
a richness and context to the learning environment
that informs today’s issues and actions and provides
depth to the understanding of contemporary life.
Moravian’s historic buildings are associated with
three broad areas of historic context: the Moravian
settlement and resulting city development;
Moravian education for females and males and
its connections with broader national trends on
higher education; and historic preservation. These
historic contexts are described and elaborated upon
in Chapter 3 of this preservation plan. Chapter
5 of the plan identifies ten landscape character
areas associated with the building and landscape
resources at Moravian.
Chapter 8 provides an overview of the significance,
context, and condition of each historic building at
Moravian. Its purpose is to facilitate stewardship
by providing information that will assist in good
decision-making about the buildings in the
present and in the future. It is hoped that this
information will be consulted when changes to the
campus are necessary. Combining the background
understanding that this chapter provides with the
use of the principles outlined in The Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards, discussed in Chapter 4,
and the design guidelines included in subsequent
chapters of this Preservation Master Plan, should
assist the college with the ongoing stewardship of
its historic buildings.
The buildings are organized and presented in this
chapter by campus area, including: the Priscilla
Payne Hurd Campus, Steel Field, North Main Street
Campus, and Campus Ring. For each building, the
following subjects are outlined:
• Historical Development: a brief summary of
how the building developed and changed
over time in conjunction with Chapter 2
(Historic Overview of Moravian College) and
Chapter 3 (Historic Contexts of Moravian
College);
• Significance: why the building is historically
significant to the Moravian community;
• Integrity: the degree to which authentic
historic building fabric still exists in the
building;
• Condition: a review of existing materials that
comprise the building and issues associated
with those materials;
• Current Use: how the building is currently
used and any thoughts with respect to
possible future changes in use; and
• Treatment: a recommended treatment
approach to the building and specific issues
that should be addressed as a priority.
8.1 Priscilla Payne Hurd
Campus Buildings
The Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus (Hurd Campus)
of Moravian College includes the landscape area
and historic buildings located along Main Street
and West Church Street in downtown Bethlehem.
The Single Brethren’s House is closely associated
with the initial settlement of Bethlehem, and both
it and its surrounding buildings reflect the 1814
relocation and subsequent development of the
Bethlehem Female Seminary/Moravian Seminary
for Young Ladies. These buildings are a physical
manifestation of the Seminary’s nineteenth-century
educational principles and high reputation, as well
as examples of continuous and adaptive use by both
the Seminary and Moravian College. Most notably,
the buildings are examples of careful restorations
in celebration of the city’s early history. Moravian
College’s visual identity and important role in the
history of Bethlehem is largely tied to the image
and character of these buildings in the minds of
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 173

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
both the community and those affiliated with the
College.
Most of the historic buildings in the Hurd Campus
have changed to varying degrees over time, both in
use and in terms of alterations. Changes will most
likely continue to occur as programs, institutional
needs, and technology evolve. In most cases, the
buildings can accommodate evolving rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse.
The historic buildings in the Hurd Campus
character area, presented in geographical order
beginning with the Single Brethren’s House and
proceeding south and then east, include:
• The Single Brethren’s House,
• West Hall,
• Old Chapel/Hearst Hall,
• New Chapel/Peter Hall,
• South Hall,
• Payne Art Gallery,
• Day House,
• Main Hall,
• Frueauff House,
• The Widows’ House, and
• Clewell Hall.
Continental Army for use as its primary hospital
for hundreds of wounded soldiers.
In 1814, as the population of the house dwindled,
the Church conveyed the Single Brethren’s House
and six adjoining acres to the Moravian Seminary
for Young Ladies, a Moravian girls’ boarding
school founded in 1742. Renovations to the interior
of the Single Brethren’s House occurred at this
time, including installation of the Federal-style
end stairwells and probably the reconfiguring of
the front entrances to eliminate the original central
entries and create new ones at the stairwells. Over
the next 40 years, the building housed nearly all
the functions of the school, including dormitories,
refectory, classrooms, and chapel. As the school
grew, the building became too small and additional
buildings were constructed adjacent to the Single
Brethren’s House. The Old Chapel building was
constructed at the southwest corner of the Single
Brethren’s House in 1848, providing a refectory and
a top-floor chapel. Main Hall, built in 1854, was the
second of these new buildings and was connected
The Single Brethren’s House – 1748
Historical Development
The Single Brethren’s House was constructed in
1748, using wood floated downriver from the
Moravian sawmill at Gnadenhuetten. As with the
Gemeinhaus across the street, the Single Brethren’s
House had strong European characteristics,
including its thick stone wall and tiled doublemansard
roof with small dormers. A large platform
atop the roof provided a place for a trombone choir
to broadcast messages to the community and play
music to accompany festive events below. Deaths
were announced through the playing of specific
hymns to indicate the decedent’s choir. This practice
continued until Central Church was constructed in
1804. The building originally contained dormitories,
workshop space, kitchen and dining facilities, and a
chapel for the Single Brethren’s Choir. Many of the
residents worked at skilled crafts in the building,
such as hatmaking. During the winters of 1776-1777
and 1777-1778, the building was taken over by the
Figure 8-1. Single Brethren’s House, general view from the north
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-2. Single Brethren’s House, general view from the south
(JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 174

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
to the Single Brethren’s House with a three-story
hyphen. Gas lighting was installed in the Single
Brethren’s House at this point.
West Hall was built in 1859 adjoining the west end
of the Single Brethren’s House. A connecting frame
and brick addition was constructed to link Single
Brethren’s House, West Hall, and Old Chapel. This
entailed removal of the original exterior walls of the
Single Brethren’s House on its southwest corner.
West Hall’s new central corridors were designed
to align with those in the Single Brethren’s House,
and the removal of the exterior wall permitted
the hallways to flow continuously, with only a
half-stairwell on the first floor forming a division
between buildings.
At some point during the nineteenth century, the
exterior of the Single Brethren’s House was coated
with stucco, which was scored to resemble stone
blocks. The original windows were removed
and taller new ones installed with gabled lintels,
and gingerbread trim was applied to the dormer
gables. The sequence of these changes in relation
to construction of the adjacent wings is unclear, but
the parged stucco was in place before 1859 when
West Hall was built. A remnant of this coating
can still be seen from the attic of West Hall. In its
modified form, the Single Brethren’s House had a
nineteenth-century appearance similar in style to
Main Hall and West Hall.
The Single Brethren’s House, known as Colonial
Hall, remained in use with dormitories, classrooms,
offices, and a small library until 1954. Its use appears
to have remained consistent over time. Sanborn
maps from 1885 indicate that the Single Brethren’s
House, by this time known as Colonial Hall,
contained administrative offices on the first floor,
classrooms on the second floor, and dormitories on
the third and fourth floors. A 1947 fire insurance
survey documented classrooms on the ground
floor (referred to as the basement); administrative
offices, a library, and visitors’ sitting rooms on the
second floor; student dormitory rooms on the third
floor; and study halls and game rooms on the fourth
floor (now the lower attic level). Heat came from the
furnaces in West Hall (Hampson 1947:6-7). After the
merger, the building was once more known as the
Single Brethren’s House to avoid confusion with the
Colonial Hall on the North Main Street campus.
Investigation of the building’s original appearance
and work to restore it began in 1958, when Main
Hall was renovated and the connecting hyphen
Figure 8-3. Single Brethren’s House, ca. 1920s view to the
southwest showing changes made during the nineteenth century
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 8-4. Single Brethren’s House, Second-floor library, ca.
1929 (Moravian Viewbook [1929]).
removed, exposing the east stone wall of the
Brethren’s House. In 1967, further work was
conducted and the multi-level porches on the
rear (south) façade were removed. At this point,
photos show the building with part of its façade
showing its nineteeth-century appearance, and
other portions of the building in restored condition.
Investigation and documentation of the building
by HABS in 1968 revealed the multiple changes
that had occurred and documented the dates of
various elements. Work to fully restore the exterior
was timed to coincide with the Bicentennial in 1976,
and was performed by Spillman Farmer Architects.
Spillman Farmer also did follow-up restoration
work on the windows and all exterior wood
details in 2007. The interior’s primary floors were
renovated to create soundproofed facilities for the
music department.
Signifi cance
The Single Brethren’s House was the largest of
several monumental stone buildings constructed by
the Moravian settlers to house their different choirs,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 175

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and was the first permanent building erected on
the south side of Sisters’ Lane (now Church Street).
It was modeled after a building at Herrnhut, the
Moravian Church’s European headquarters in
Saxony. As such, it is a rare direct importation
of Germanic architecture to the New World,
avoiding the Americanization that characterized
most buildings erected by European settlers. It is
recognized as one of the best examples of German
Colonial architecture in the United States.
Integrity
The Single Brethren’s House exterior was
extensively restored in stages between 1958 and
1976. As such, its exterior features aside from the
stonework are reproductions rather than historic
materials in many cases. The 1859 addition of West
Hall resulted in removal of the original southwest
corner of the exterior walls, but the original walls
and stone are otherwise present. On the interior,
renovations of the primary floors in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries have altered original room
layouts and finishes, but early-nineteenth-century
corridors, staircases, floors, woodwork, and other
details remain intact. The basement and two attic
levels are more intact, retaining a number of early
features such as timber-framed hallway partitions
and remains of the kitchens and storage cellars
in the basement. The 1968 HABS investigation
documented many of the changes to the building,
dated many of the building elements, and outlined
the probable original floor plans.
Condition
Summary
The Single Brethren’s House is an oblong five-story
building of stone construction. The exterior is
entirely stone except for a ca. 1859 clapboard end
wall section on the southwest corner at the level of the
lower attic. The primary façade faces north toward
Main Street and Church Street, and the rear façade
faces south over the campus landscape toward the
river. The building sits on a site that slopes down to
the west, and connects to West Hall and Old Chapel
on the west/southwest. The basement level is below
grade at the east end, and partially exposed in front
and back along the slope, with three full floors
above. The double-level mansard roof contains
two attic floors with dormers and has an oblong
platform and balustrade along its top. Its exterior
is restored to an eighteenth-century appearance,
with the stonework fully exposed and wood trim
painted red and white. The building is ten bays long
at both the front and rear, and five bays deep, with
symmetrical alignment of fenestration. Windows
in the building are six-over-six double-hung wood
windows and have segmental-arched brick lintels.
On both the front and rear elevations, the first floor
has two pairs of entrance doors set side-by-side near
the center. Set into the stonework above the north
doors is an inscribed marble tablet, and above the
south doors is a historic stone sundial. The building
overall is in very good physical condition with few
maintenance issues.
Additions
The Single Brethren’s House was a standalone
building until 1848, when Old Chapel was built off
the southwest corner. In 1854, Main Hall was built
to the east and a connecting frame hyphen was
added to connect it to the Single Brethren’s House.
Multilevel rear porches were added at an unknown
date during the nineteenth century. Finally, West
Hall was added abutting the west end of the Single
Brethren’s House in 1859.
The Main Hall hyphen was removed in 1958,
re-exposing the original east end of the Single
Brethren’s House, and the rear porches were
removed in 1967.
Doors and Fenestration
The paired doors on the front and rear façades are
painted wood herringbone-style doors and are
surmounted by six-light oblong transoms. These
are reconstructed elements dating from the 1960s.
The south doors are not used and are fixed in place.
All are in good condition. On the east side of the
building is a single central door entrance with a
shed-roofed hood concealing a glass transom. The
wood-shingled hood has biological growth from
dampness, and the threshold of the door has some
rot due to water runoff in the alley.
Most of the windows in the building are reproduction
six-over-six double-hung sash windows, set flush
with the exterior wall surface and reinforced with
interior storm sash. Historic windows remain on
the two attic levels. Both attics have dormers on
the north and south exposures. The upper attic
has shed dormers with three-over-six windows,
which are believed to be original. The lower attic
has gabled dormers with six-over-six windows,
probably dating from the nineteenth century.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 176

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
flared eaves, and is present only on the north and
south. The upper roof level is shallow-pitched and
hipped. The roof has a flat EPDM section at the top
containing a platform with balustrade.
Figure 8-5. Single Brethren’s House, east entrance threshold
(JMA 2008).
The roof drains to half-round gutters and
multiple downspouts. The north gutters drain to
downspouts leading to underground drains on
Church Street. Some overflow has occurred at the
northwest corner. The southeast gutter drains to a
rock-lined swale along the paved road at the rear.
On the southwest, water is carried from the Single
Brethren’s House over the Hearst Hall entrance to a
downspout there. Some leaks are occurring here.
Masonry
The Single Brethren’s House is constructed of
mortared random ashlar local limestone. Mortar
joints are wide and flush with the stone surface,
and exhibit pale brown to white repointing mortar.
Window and door lintels are made of rubbed red
brick. The window openings were resized during
restoration. Some biogrowth is apparent at the base
of the east wall facing Main Hall and along the
north façade above the sidewalk.
Wood
Figure 8-6. Single Brethren’s House, east wall showing biogrowth
(JMA 2008).
The exterior wood cornices and other trim are in
good condition, with restoration work having
occurred in 2007. Many of the windowsills were
replaced. Modern reproduction wood steps
provide access from the entrances to the ground
on both the north and south sides. Those below the
north entrance doors are in good condition. The
larger set of wood steps on the south side is set on
a concrete foundation and was dedicated in 1989.
There is some ponding of water on these steps.
Wood clapboard siding on the top west end of the
building needs paint.
Other Features
Figure 8-7. Single Brethren’s House, clapboard wall on west end
of lower attic (JMA 2008).
Roofi ng and Drainage
The Single Brethren’s House has a mansard roof
clad mostly in wood shingles with copper flashing.
The lower roof of the mansard is steep-pitched with
A bronze memorial plaque on the east wall near
the south corner commemorates the Revolutionary
War soldiers who died while the Single Brethren’s
House was used as a hospital during the winters of
1776-77 and 1777-78. This plaque was mounted at
the center of the north façade prior to the building’s
full restoration in 1976. On the north wall, above the
central doors, is a marble tablet in a brick surround,
inscribed with a Moravian verse in German. Above
the south doors is a historic stone sundial set in a
brick surround.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 177

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
entrance and stairwell, and created matching
separate entrances at either end of the front, each
with its own new stairwell. Restoration work in the
1960s and 1970s reversed this change and recreated
the central paired entrances, but remaining work on
the interior consisted largely of modernization. The
east stairwell is still in use, but the west stairwell is
blocked off.
Figure 8-8. Single Brethren’s House, memorial plaque on east
wall for Revolutionary War hospital casualties (JMA 2008).
The primary three floors of the interior are oriented
along a central corridor running lengthwise through
each floor and opening to offices, classrooms,
seminar rooms, and practice rooms. Windows are
deeply recessed in the walls behind interior storm
sash. Modern heating-cooling units are installed in
Figure 8-9. Single Brethren’s House, tablet above north main
entrance (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-11. Single Brethren’s House, first-floor corridor looking
east (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-10. Single Brethren’s House, sundial on south façade
above entrance doors (JMA 2008).
Interior
The interior of the Single Brethren’s House has been
modified repeatedly over time as its use changed.
Investigations made during HABS documentation
illustrate existing conditions as of 1968 as well as
the probable original interior layout. Renovations
made ca. 1814-1815 eliminated the original central
Figure 8-12. Single Brethren’s House, ca. 1814 stairway at east
end of building (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 178

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-13. Single Brethren’s House, interior room conditions
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-16. Single Brethren’s House, lower attic room looking
Northwest, typical conditions (JMA 2008).
corridor. A ca. 1859 open wooden half-staircase on
the first floor connects the Single Brethren’s House
to the first floor of West Hall. The upper floors are
also connected with end-to-end corridors.
Figure 8-14. Single Brethren’s House, typical soundproof
corridor door (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-15. Single Brethren’s House, timber-framed original
corridor wall, lower attic (JMA 2008).
each room, and the finishes are largely modern with
dropped ceilings, resurfaced walls, modern doors
and hardware, and carpeting. Soundproofing is a
priority, resulting in built-out, carpet-lined double
walls and doors between the practice rooms and the
The two attic floors are not in active use due to fire
code restrictions, and retain much historic fabric.
The lower attic has a central corridor opening to
several large rooms, exposed plank floors, painted
plaster walls and many nineteenth-century panel
doors and moldings. Paint on the plaster is peeling
off and failing throughout, and there are areas of
damaged plaster as well. Antique furnishings and
other items are kept in these rooms.
The upper attic is mostly unfinished and has a
central passageway and a steep, decaying flight of
steps to the rooftop balcony. Brick chimney stacks
exposed in the attic show evidence of water damage.
Some spaces are crudely partitioned off the main
corridor, and one small area is finished with planks
on the walls and in the narrow dormers. This finish
is probably original.
The basement level has brick or dirt floors and
a system of raised plank walkways for access
throughout by visitors. It contains a number of
original features, notably two barrel-vaulted
storage cellars in the east half of the basement, and
chimney stack bases with remains of the original
kitchen ovens.
The pre-1859 exterior wall of the Single Brethren’s
House can be seen from the east end of the attic in
Main Hall. Parged stucco mimicking ashlar stone
blocks surrounded the original windows, which
are now infilled with beadboard. It is critical that
this feature be preserved during future work on the
Single Brethren’s House or West Hall.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 179

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-20. West Hall, east wall of attic showing original
window opening and pre-1859 parged west wall of the Single
Brethren’s House (JMA 2008).
Current Use
Figure 8-17. Single Brethren’s House, upper attic, original
stairway to roof platform (JMA 2008).
The Single Brethren’s House is now part of the
Moravian College Center for Art and Music, and
is used for music. The interior spaces on its first,
second, and third floors are in use as offices, practice
rooms, and meeting rooms. The basement and the
two attic levels are not in active use and are used
primarily for storage, although tour groups are
sometimes permitted to visit the basement.
Treatment
Figure 8-18. Single Brethren’s House, upper attic, original
finished room (JMA 2008).
The Single Brethren’s House is the most historically
significant building on the campus, and is important
both to the College and to the City of Bethlehem.
It has already undergone a Restoration treatment
on the exterior, where nineteenth-century changes
were reversed and reproduced eighteenth-century
elements were installed, including most of the
windows and doors. The interior underwent
renovation for current use.
It is recommended that an overall treatment of
Rehabilitation be applied to most of the building as
outlined in The Secretary for the Interior’s Standards
and the design guidelines of this preservation plan.
This includes the exterior and the three active floors
of the interior. Future repairs and maintenance
practices should attempt to retain the historic
features and fabric to the greatest extent possible.
Figure 8-19. Single Brethren’s House, original storage cellar in
basement (JMA 2008).
Maintenance of the building in general is excellent.
The maintenance issues to be addressed include:
• Exterior surface drainage is causing some
dampness problems along the east side of
the building. Reroute or channel water away
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 180

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
from the foundation in the alley between
Main Hall and the Single Brethren’s House,
where ponding water is causing rot in the
entrance threshold and moss growth on
the lower walls.
• An improved drainage system is needed
along the Church Street side of the building
to prevent rising damp. The College and
City should cooperate to resolve this issue,
which also affects Main and West Halls.
• The ca. 1850s wood siding on the west end
of the lower attic is deteriorating and needs
repainting.
It is recommended that the basement and two attic
levels of the Single Brethren’s House be given a
Preservation treatment. These are areas where little
renovation has occurred and significant amounts
of historic fabric can be found, including some
elements dating back to the 1700s. The lower attic
contains the few remaining open-dormitory spaces
in the building.
The lower attic contains a large amount of stored
antique furnishings and other objects, and additional
items are in the basement. It is recommended that
these items be inventoried and catalogued, and
conserved if needed.
West Hall – 1859
Historical Development
West Hall was constructed in 1859 to accommodate
the expanding population of the Bethlehem Female
Seminary. A large house and lawn on this site were
destroyed to make way for the new building. Along
with dormitory space and classrooms, it contained
an infirmary suite for ill students. As with Main Hall,
it originally had plumbed bathrooms on each floor,
central heat, and gas lighting. The furnace in the
basement supplied heat to multiple buildings. The
basement level originally contained a “swimming
bath.”
By 1947, West Hall had a furnace room, maintenance
shop, a paint room, and storage in the basement.
The first floor was used as classrooms. The second
floor had classrooms, an infirmary, and a “diet
kitchen” for the infirmary patients. The third floor
had classrooms and additional infirmary rooms.
The attic was for storage of “discarded furniture”
(Hampson 1947:8), but the proliferation of student
signatures on the walls indicates that this space was
accessible to students and served as an unofficial
place to commemorate their time at the school.
West Hall became a home for the Music Department
after the 1954 merger. The interior was renovated
with soundproofed rooms similar to those in the
Single Brethren’s House. In 1976, the exterior of
West Hall was restored to its current appearance by
Spillman Farmer Architects.
Signifi cance
West Hall is an example of an austere mid-nineteenthcentury
institutional building, with modest Greek
Revival and Italianate details and relatively little in
the way of ornament.
Integrity
West Hall has a high level of integrity on the
exterior, which closely resembles its appearance
in historic photographs aside from removal of the
paint and possible stucco that once covered its
brickwork. Windows and wood elements remain
Figure 8-21. West Hall, north façade, looking south (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-22. West Hall, north and west façades, looking southeast
(JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 181

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
intact. The interior has a lower level of integrity due
to extensive renovations and updates, but retains its
distinctive stairwell and much of its original floor
plan. The attic level of the building is highly intact
from its early period, with original plasterwork and
other details. Generations of students wrote their
names and other graffiti on the walls. The east end
of the attic is the exposed historic west wall of the
Single Brethren’s House, revealing a finely parged
surface and window openings.
Condition
Summary
West Hall is a four-and-one-half-story red-brick
building. The front of the building faces north
toward Main Street and the Hill-to-Hill Bridge
entrance. West Hall is set on a slope with much of
its basement exposed on the west and south sides.
It has a roughly L-shaped footprint with a front
section seven bays wide and two bays deep, and
an offset perpendicular southwest ell, which is four
bays deep and three bays wide. The west wall of
the ell projects several feet beyond the west wall
of the main block. The building has a low-pitched
hipped composition roof and a deep molded
cornice. The attic level is a half-story in height with
corresponding half-height windows, most of which
are three-over-three double-hung sash. Windows
on the main floors and exposed basement are
six-over-six double-hung windows. Fenestration
throughout the building is symmetrical and the
bays are aligned vertically.
The north façade has a central entrance on the first
floor, which is accessed via a flight of steps from
Church Street. The concrete steps ascend westward
across the building front to an uncovered entrance
porch. The porch has a wooden floor and plain
balustrades on its north and west sides, and is set on
a brick and cast-in-place concrete foundation. The
front entrance features recessed paired doors within
a paneled surround. The doorway is surmounted by
Figure 8-23. West Hall, west façade, looking northeast (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-25. West Hall, north entrance (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-24. West Hall, south façade and ell, looking northeast
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-26. West Hall, north entrance detail, peeling paint and
deterioration at threshold (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 182

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
a three-light transom, and sheltered by an Italianate
flat hood supported by modest scrolled brackets on
each side. The window bay above the door contains
paired windows on each floor, in contrast to the
single windows found elsewhere.
A historic secondary entrance is located in the
basement level on the west side, and a bulkhead
entrance is located on the south side of the ell. At
the rear, the building forms a small three-sided
Figure 8-27. West Hall, west entrance (JMA 2008).
courtyard. On the east wall of the ell, an exterior
brick chimney runs from the boiler room to the roof.
The ell also has a bulkhead sub-basement entrance,
and there is a modern utility entrance on the south
wall of the main block.
Additions
A square three-story flat-roofed brick and frame
addition forms a hyphen between West Hall, the
Single Brethren’s House, and Old Chapel/Hearst
Hall. The addition is two bays wide and two bays
deep. The basement and first floor of this section
are constructed of brick, and the second and third
floors are frame, sided with vinyl clapboard.
Shadows on the south wall of the main block,
immediately west of the brick/frame addition,
indicate the former presence of a multi-story porch
covering the basement, first, and second floors
and connected to the west wall of the addition.
Door entrances to the porch, including one on the
second floor of the main block, have been infilled.
It appears that the porch was an addition; Sanborn
maps indicate that it was not there in 1885, but was
present from at least 1912 onward.
Figure 8-28. West Hall, bulkhead entrance on south of ell (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-30. West Hall, south façade wall, evidence of former
porch (JMA 2008).
Doors and Fenestration
Figure 8-29. West Hall, south basement entrance, showing
deterioration of foundation parging (JMA 2008).
West Hall retains its original six-over-six
double-hung wood sash windows and surrounds.
Most windows have projecting sills and simple
flat lintels. The windows on the north façade
have gabled pediment hoods, and others have
plain lintels. Windowsills have been covered with
modern cladding and painted. Paint is failing on
several of these sills, as well as on the wood lintels.
All windows on the attic level are half-height, with
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 183

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Roofi ng and Drainage
West Hall has a low-pitched nearly flat EPDM roof
sloping toward the south with a slight rise around
the edges on the north, west, and south. The roof
drains to a half-round gutter on the south roof edge,
connected to two corrugated-metal downspouts.
One downspout near the southwest corner of the ell
wraps around the base of the boiler room’s exterior
chimney stack and drains to the ground. Water from
this spout is released to the edge of a planting bed.
The second downspout, at the southeast corner,
drains to a gutter on the three-story addition, and
runs from there to underground drains.
Figure 8-31. West Hall, windows, failing paint on clad sills (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-32. West Hall, windows, failing paint on lintels (JMA
2008).
nine lights on those on the north side and six lights
in the others.
The front entrance has original paired paneled
doors set into a recessed Italianate surround with a
scrolled-bracket hood forming a small entry porch.
The doorway has a long three-light transom, and
a five-point star is carved into the hood above the
center. Painting is needed on the doors, surround,
and threshold.
Masonry
West Hall is constructed of red brick set on a
fieldstone foundation. The foundation is parged
with stucco. The walls are faced with hand-molded
red brick. Much of the brick appears to have been
sandblasted, with the exception of the south and
east sides of the southwest ell. The façade shows
multiple types of brick resulting from later repairs
and infills, and shows some pockets of deterioration
and damage from cleaning. The original mortar
was a pale gray-brown type. Extensive repointing
has occurred. Shadows on the basement, first and
second floors of the main block’s south façade
indicate the former presence of a porch, which
existed during the early twentieth century but was
removed during the restoration work. Dampness
and ponding is occurring in the inside corner of
the ell due to probable gutter leaks. This is creating
splashback and deterioration of the foundation
parging.
The west basement entrance has a replaced
six-panel door set into an original surround with a
three-light transom.
The south wall of the ell has a ground-level
bulkhead entrance into the sub-basement. This has
concrete and brick cheek walls and wooden doors.
A utility entrance with modern paired metal flush
doors is located on the south wall of the main block.
The door surfaces are beginning to deteriorate and
need paint.
Figure 8-33. West Hall, repointing showing multiple brick and
mortar types (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 184

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The south side of the ell shows deterioration of the
bricks and mortar at the second- and third-floor
window lintels.
The brickwork of the front step foundation on the
north side, at the northwest corner of the main
block, and at the southwest corner of the ell, all
have rising damp. The northwest corner also shows
evidence of damage from cars hitting the building
in the past, including infilled repairs, repointing,
and an approximately 15” crack through the brick
units.
Wood
West Hall’s cornice appears to have been painted
recently and is in good condition. The railings on
the north front entrance are also in good condition.
The deck of the front entrance has some waterrelated
rot abutting the entrance threshold.
Other Features
There is a modern vent installed on the north wall
of the ell.
Interior
Figure 8-34. West Hall, brick deterioration around lintel area on
ell (JMA 2008).
The interior of West Hall is arranged with a long
corridor connecting to the Single Brethren’s House
on the three main floors. The single stairwell is at
the west end of the building and retains its original
staircases and balustrades. The spaces on the three
primary floors have been renovated as classrooms,
an open third-floor department office area and
practice rooms. Most rooms have modern finishes
and soundproofed doors as in the Single Brethren’s
Figure 8-35. West Hall, rising damp at front steps (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-36. West Hall, damage to northwest corner (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-37. West Hall, typical conditions, practice room (JMA
2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 185

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
House. A third-floor organ room in the south ell
is open to the attic level and preserves historic
interior rafters and other details. The attic is not
in active use due to lack of a second exit. It has a
longitudinal corridor with doors leading into small
plastered rooms on either side.
against it. This too should be a preservation priority.
Documentation of the graffiti and the exposed wall
would be a worthwhile addition to the history of
the school buildings.
Current Use
West Hall is now part of the Moravian College
Center for Art and Music, and is used for music
education. The first floor contains a lounge, locker
room, and several small practice rooms. The second
floor has practice rooms and a piano instruction
room. On the third floor are an organ studio, more
practice rooms, and an open administrative area
where several original room partitions have been
removed.
Figure 8-39. West Hall, attic corner showing student graffiti on
walls (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-38. West Hall, typical conditions, harpsichord
instruction room (JMA 2008).
Treatment
It is recommended that most of West Hall receive
a Rehabilitation treatment. Remaining historic
fabric, such as the windows, staircase balustrades,
and woodwork, should be preserved during future
renovations.
The attic level of West Hall should receive a
Preservation treatment. This space retains an
extremely high level of integrity, and was also
historically an important space for students, who
evidently had a longtime tradition of writing
signatures and messages on the attic walls. This
graffiti is still present and is a significant historic
feature which should be retained. Another critical
attic element is the exposed west wall of the Single
Brethren’s House, showing the exterior condition
of the building as of 1859 when West Hall was built
Specific maintenance issues noted include:
• Wood elements throughout the exterior,
including windows and doors but excepting
the cornice, generally need repainting.
• Many of the historic windows need
reglazing.
• Better protection is needed at the northwest
corner of the building where car strikes
have damaged the wall. A compatible steel
bollard between the corner and the street
would add needed protection without
detrimental visual effects. The College
should work with the City to determine a
good solution for this problem.
• An improved drainage system is needed
along the Church Street side of the building
to prevent rising damp. Again, the College
and City should cooperate to resolve
this issue, which also affects the Single
Brethren’s House to a lesser degree.
• Drainage should be addressed in
deteriorating foundation areas around the
ell and south side.
• Future brick repairs should be sensitive
to the historic materials, and repointing
should be done with mortar and jointing
techniques that are compatible with the
historic mortar.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 186

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Hyphen Addition – ca. 1859
Historical Development
This building is a small flat-roofed annex constructed
as a connector between the Single Brethren’s House,
West Hall, and Old Chapel/Hearst Hall. It occupies
space that was formerly the southwest corner of the
Single Brethren’s House but extends further from
that footprint. It is not technically a building, but
does not clearly belong to one of the other three. It
was probably constructed ca. 1859 in conjunction
with West Hall. It is possible that the brick and
frame sections were added at different times, and
the three lower floors may encapsulate original ca.
1848 passageways between the Single Brethren’s
House and Old Chapel/Hearst Hall.
Figure 8-40. Hyphen, general view to northeast (JMA 2008).
Signifi cance
The hyphen has little significance other than forming
the physical connection between three buildings.
It is associated with the context of the nineteenthcentury
women’s school and the construction
of organic additions, creating interconnected
buildings that were typical at girls’ seminaries and
women’s colleges.
Integrity
The exterior of the hyphen has moderate integrity
with many original windows intact, but the interior
has been fully renovated.
Figure 8-41. Hyphen, lower two floors, to northeast (JMA 2008).
Condition
Summary
The hyphen is four stories tall with brick
construction on its lower two floors and lighter
frame construction on the top two levels. Its floor
levels correspond roughly to the basement and
three primary floors of West Hall and the Single
Brethren’s House, and it occupies space that
was formerly the southwest corner of the Single
Brethren’s House.
Doors and Fenestration
The hyphen has a single entrance on its south side,
which is a mid-twentieth-century panel door with
upper lights. The brickwork around the doorway
indicates that the original door was wider and the
newer door is infill.
Figure 8-42. Hyphen, upper two floors, to northeast (JMA
2008).
Windows on the building are all on the south façade.
They have flat plain lintels and projecting sills with
metal cladding. The double-hung wood windows
include eight-over-eight sash on the bottom two
floors, and six-over-six windows on the top two
floors. The upper windows are original and need
painting, sill repairs, and some reglazing work.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 187

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-43. Hyphen, view of door area on west façade, showing
parging failure (JMA 2008).
Roofi ng and Drainage
The low-pitched shed roof is made of composition
and drains southward to a half-round gutter shared
with West Hall. The gutter flows to a corrugated
metal downspout which leads to underground
drains.
Masonry
The foundation is parged with concrete, and has
cracking and damage along the top, with some
chipped off. The first two floors are constructed of
salmon-colored brick. The façade shows evidence
of multiple small repairs and repointing.
Wood
Few exposed wood elements are visible, because the
frame section is covered with modern siding and
the cornice, windowsills and window surrounds in
this area are also covered with synthetic cladding.
Exposed wood elements on the windows and door
of the brick section need repainting.
Other Features
A modern electric cable runs from a basement
window to the first floor.
Interior
The interior has been renovated with modern
finishes.
Current Use
The first floor appears to be a utility room. The
second floor contains a connecting corridor from
Figure 8-44. Hyphen, 2nd floor interior, view south toward Old
Chapel, practice rooms on right (JMA 2009).
the Single Brethren’s House and West Hall to Old
Chapel, with two practice rooms on the west side
of the corridor. The third floor contains a corridor
leading from Hearst Hall to the Single Brethren’s
House/West Hall, and a studio room entered
through West Hall. The top floor contains an office
and dual restrooms, all with entrances from West
Hall.
Treatment
The hyphen should be given a Rehabilitation
treatment. The historic windows and any remaining
interior details should be repaired and retained. It
is recommended that any future residing on the top
floors utilize wood clapboard instead of synthetic
materials.
Old Chapel Building/Hearst Hall
– 1848
Historical Development
The Gothic Revival-style Old Chapel was
constructed in 1848 as a three-story wing off the
southwest corner of the Single Brethren’s House. It
was the first of several new buildings that eventually
flanked the Single Brethren’s House and extended to
the south. Old Chapel was the first separate chapel
for the Bethlehem Female Seminary and contained
a chapel on its top floor and a refectory downstairs.
West Hall (1859) and New Chapel/Peter Hall (1867)
were later built abutting the north and south ends
of Old Chapel.
New Chapel/Peter Hall contained a larger and
more ornate chapel space and a new dining room.
The Old Chapel refectory became the kitchen for
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 188

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
that Old Chapel had a ground-floor kitchen with a
large commercial gas range, bake oven, dishwasher,
and steam tables. The upper floors were used as
classrooms (Hampson 1947:9).
In 1977, the exterior of Old Chapel was restored. The
interior was renovated in 1980, creating Hearst Hall
in the former chapel space (Schamberger 2008).
Signifi cance
Figure 8-45. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, view to northwest (JMA
2008).
Old Chapel is significant as the first of several
connecting buildings that eventually formed the
Church Street campus with the Single Brethren’s
House as a hub. It was also the first separate
chapel constructed at the Female Seminary, which
previously used space within the Single Brethren’s
House for that purpose. Old Chapel is also the only
example of Gothic Revival architecture on the Hurd
Campus.
Integrity
Figure 8-46. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, view to northeast (JMA
2008).
The exterior of Old Chapel has had its brickwork
restored and appears to be very intact, with the
exception of replaced windows on the east side. The
interior has moderate to low integrity. The upper
level space in Old Chapel has been beautifully
adapted into Hearst Hall, a recital hall, but retention
of historic fabric is moderate and confined to the
windows, chair rail, and cove ceiling. The two
lower levels have been fully renovated with modern
finishes and lack integrity.
Condition
Summary
Figure 8-47. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, first-floor kitchen/servery
ca. 1929 (Moravian College Viewbook [1929]). This space is now
the servery for Clewell Dining Hall.
the new dining room next door. It is still the kitchen
for the Clewell Dining Hall in the first floor of New
Chapel/Peter Hall, and it appears that this use was
continuous over time. Sanborn maps from the early
twentieth century show Old Chapel labeled as a
dormitory. A 1947 fire insurance survey indicates
Old Chapel is a three-story gabled brick building
situated between New Chapel/Peter Hall and the
Single Brethren’s House and perpendicular to both.
It connects to New Chapel on its south end. On its
north end, it is connected to the Single Brethren’s
House directly, and also connected to West Hall via
a four-story hyphen. Old Chapel has a slate roof
and brick façade exposed on its east and west sides.
The top floor has double-hung original windows
with Gothic pointed transoms on both sides. The
foundation of the building is covered with parged
cement.
Additions
New Chapel/Peter Hall was constructed abutting
the south wall in 1867, and is connected via a
full-height stairwell at the south end of the building.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 189

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
A small, square, full-height flat-roofed addition
was later made at the northwest corner of New
Chapel/Peter Hall, abutting the southwest corner of
Old Chapel/Hearst Hall. This appears to have been
used as restrooms at one time, but its current use is
unknown.
Figure 8-48. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, west façade, north door
and deteriorated slab (JMA 2008).
Doors and Fenestration
Old Chapel has three exterior entrances. An
entrance on the first floor of the west side has a
five-panel wood door, old screen door, and threelight
transom. A deteriorated concrete slab forms the
entrance step. The second entrance is further south
on the west wall and has an original six-panel door
and six-light transom. The door threshold is rotted
and the lower edge of the door needs a Dutchman.
The third door is on the east side of the second floor
adjacent to the Single Brethren’s House, and has a
wood exterior stair and entrance hood. The hood
has an asphalt shingle roof, and its wood surfaces
need painting.
Both sides of the third floor have their original
wood windows and transoms. Lower windows
on the building are nine-over-six original double
hung sash on the west side. Windows in restroom
areas have been reglazed with frosted glass. On
Figure 8-49. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, west façade, detail of south
door with rotting threshold (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-51. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, original windows on west
façade (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-50. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, east façade, door and stairs
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-52. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, west façade, paint
deterioration and loss of frame caulking on third floor original
window (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 190

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the east side, the lower floors have double-hung
metal replacement windows, and the first floor
windows are set within infilled brick “baskethandle”
archways. The original windows need
paint and reglazing. The windowsills throughout
the building have been clad in metal sheeting and
painted. Historic windows and doors remaining on
the building should be preserved.
flush gray mortar. This façade shows infill brick and
evidence of several repointing campaigns. There
is some bulging of the brick on this side toward
the southwest corner. A slightly projecting brick
chimney stack on the west side originally served
the first-floor kitchen, and a shadow of a former
porch surrounds the northernmost entrance door
on this side.
Figure 8-53. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, replacement window in
baskethandle on east side (JMA 2008).
Roofi ng and Drainage
The roof is clad in slate, which is believed to
be original and is beginning to fail, resulting in
interior leaks. The slate roof drains to a system of
half-round gutters and round downspouts, which
connects with some of the gutters on the adjacent
buildings and leads to underground drainpipes.
Figure 8-55. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, west façade, view of
chimney and cleaned/repointed brickwork (JMA 2008).
On the east side, the brick was not cleaned harshly
and original pale brown mortar, slightly recessed
from the brickface, is still evident. First-floor
basket-handle arched apertures were later infilled
with brick and newer windows.
The foundation is parged with concrete on the west
side, and is experiencing failure at grade due to
water runoff along the wall. A large concrete slab
in front of the north door on this side is in poor
condition.
Figure 8-54. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, view to south of east roof
slope (JMA 2008).
Masonry
Old Chapel is constructed of dark reddish-brown
hand-molded brick and features a minimal corbelled
cornice on both sides. The brickwork on the west
side was sandblasted in the past and repointed with
Figure 8-56. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, west façade, parging
failure at grade (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 191

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Other Features
A large exterior vent fan projects on the first floor
of the west wall.
Interior
Old Chapel originally contained at least two large
interior spaces: the chapel on the top floor and
the refectory on the first floor. These spaces are
still intact, though renovated as Hearst Hall and
the Clewell Dining Hall kitchen, respectively. The
original use of the second floor is not clear. It now
contains a passageway along its east side and a row
of small rooms on the west side, including offices
and two modern restrooms. Aside from windows,
no historic fabric is visible on the second floor,
which appears to have been renovated in the 1970s
concurrent with the adjoining buildings to the
north. The first-floor kitchen is a fully modernized
space.
Within Hearst Hall, the original windows are
protected with new interior storms, and an original
Figure 8-57. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, Hearst Hall performance
space, view to southwest (JMA 2008).
chair rail, cove ceiling, and antique benches survive.
The staircase at the south end between Hearst and
Peter Halls has its original railings and new carpet.
There is a modern ADA ramp on the south side of
Hearst Hall, modern fire doors at both ends, and
a lowered ceiling for lights, sprinklers, and HVAC
elements.
Current Use
Old Chapel is now part of the Moravian College
Center for Art and Music and has been updated
substantially for use by the music department. The
original chapel space, now named Hearst Hall, is
a performance space. The second floor contains a
passageway along its east side and a row of small
rooms on the west side, including offices and two
modern restrooms. The first floor is the kitchen
connected to Clewell Dining Hall, next door to the
south.
Treatment
Old Chapel has already undergone an exterior
Restoration treatment. The recommended
treatment for Old Chapel is Rehabilitation,
allowing for appropriate changes to accommodate
the existing uses. Remaining historic features and
finishes should be retained on both the interior and
exterior.
Maintenance issues for Old Chapel/Hearst Hall
include:
• Roof slate failure. The roof should be
repaired or replaced in kind, using slate of
compatible appearance.
• Wood elements need to be repaired and
repainted.
• Historic window sash are in need of repairs,
reglazing, and paint.
• Drainage problems along the west side are
leading to deterioration of the foundation
coating, door thresholds, and doorsteps.
Water should be directed away from the
building and these areas repaired.
New Chapel/Peter Hall – 1867
Historical Development
Figure 8-58. Old Chapel/Hearst Hall, second floor corridor along
east side, view to north (JMA 2008).
New Chapel was built in 1867, at roughly the same
time as West Hall, to provide a larger chapel space
for the Female Seminary. New Chapel’s third floor
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 192

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
was used as the school chapel from the time of its
construction onorthwestard. The second floor had
classrooms, and the first floor was the main dining
hall for the campus. The chapel contains numerous
stained glass windows, all of which were given by
alumnae and friends of the Female Seminary. A
full-size Hook & Hastings (Hampson 1947:10) pipe
organ was installed ca. 1916 on the north wall, which
entailed cutting a large arched opening through the
original brick wall and building an exterior frame
addition to house the organ infrastructure. The
organ is no longer extant. It appears to have been
present at the time of the HABS documentation in
1968, but was probably removed ca. 1978, at which
time the frame addition was removed and the north
wall was restored with brick infill.
By 1947, the building housed the dining hall on the
ground floor, a “gallery” above, and the chapel on
the top floor (Hampson 1947:10).
The building’s exterior was restored in 1977 by
Spillman Farmer Architects, and the interior was
renovated in 1978. As part of the work in 1978, the
chapel was converted to Peter Hall, a recital hall
named for arts patron, Arkansas poet laureate, and
Moravian College benefactor Lily Peter (Globe-
Times 1978:13). In 1998, the historic stained glass
windows were restored and reinstalled by David
Crane of Plumstead Studios (Schamberger 2008,
pers. comm.).
Figure 8-61. New Chapel/Peter Hall, first-floor dining hall ca.
1920s (Moravian College Viewbook [1929]). This is now Clewell
Dining Hall.
Figure 8-59. New Chapel/Peter Hall, view to southwest (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-62. New Chapel/Peter Hall, third-floor chapel looking
W with organ on right, ca. 1920s (Moravian College Viewbook
[1929]).
Figure 8-60. New Chapel/Peter Hall, view to southeast (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-63. New Chapel/Peter Hall, 2008 view of former chapel
(now Peter Hall), looking west (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 193

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Signifi cance
New Chapel is significant as the newest and most
elaborate of three chapels in the Hurd Campus
complex, with the other two being Hearst Hall
(1848) and an unknown space within the Single
Brethren’s House. Magnificent stained-glass
memorial windows are among its most distinctive
features.
Integrity
The overall exterior has a high level of historic
integrity, with the exception of replaced windows
on the lower floors on the east side. The interior of
the building essentially retains its historic uses. It
has low integrity on the first floor, a high level of
integrity on the second floor, and a moderate level
on the third floor.
Condition
Summary
New Chapel/Peter Hall is a three-story red brick
building with a double-height third floor level.
It has a side-gabled slate roof and deep molded
classical cornice with partial gable returns. It has
symmetrical fenestration, primarily six-over-six
double-hung windows with plain gabled wooden
hoods. The brickwork is relatively plain on the
lower floors but has recesses and corbelled arches
and hoods on the third floor chapel level.
Additions
South Hall was appended to the south side of
New Chapel/Peter Hall in 1873, connecting on the
second and third floors only. New Chapel also had
a ca. 1916 full-height exterior frame addition on the
north side near the west corner, which housed the
third-floor chapel organ and pipes. This was later
removed, but its shadow is visible on the exterior.
A shed-roofed square-shaped brick addition
containing bathrooms or closets is located at the
north side of the building where it adjoins Old
Chapel/Hearst Hall. This has its own ground-floor
entrance and window, and single windows on
each floor on the north side. It is unclear how this
addition was related to the frame organ addition.
Doors, Fenestration and Exterior Moldings
The primary exterior entrance to New Chapel is on
the east side. The door is a modern flush metal door,
but is surmounted by a ten-light original transom
and sheltered by an elaborate bracketed hood with
a hipped copper roof. A second door, which has a
historic four-panel sash, is set into the north wall
of the addition on the north side of the building. It
is unclear whether this entrance is accessible from
the interior.
New Chapel’s windows have simple metal-clad
gabled hoods and projecting metal-clad
windowsills. Windows on the first and second
Figure 8-64. New Chapel/Peter Hall, view of north wall looking
S, showing corner addition and former location of organ
structure with top arch (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-65. New Chapel/Peter Hall, east entrance and hood
with replaced door and windows (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 194

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
floors of the east side are replacement metal sash.
The windows on the north and west sides are
original six-over-six wood sash and fitted with
exterior storm sash. All windows on the third floor
are historic double-height windows, most with
segmental arch tops. Those on the west, south, and
north are pictorial stained glass in multiple large
panels, with each portraying a different discipline:
Science, Drama, Literature, Religion (the largest
central west window), Music, and Education.
The windows on the east are nine-over-nine clear
glass. The central east window has a round-arched
transom with colored glass. The historic wood
windows are deteriorating and those on the east
side of the third floor have failing glazing, paint,
and lower rails. Several of the second-floor gable
hoods are showing rot at the ends.
The paired round-arched attic windows in the east
gable were removed and infilled with a modern
square attic vent. A corresponding pair, with
two-over-two original sash, remains intact on the
west side.
Figure 8-66. New Chapel/Peter Hall, east windows on top floor
showing deterioration (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-69. New Chapel/Peter Hall, original attic windows on
west side (JMA 2008).
Roofi ng and Drainage
Figure 8-67. New Chapel/Peter Hall, east windows on second
floor with deteriorated lintels (JMA 2008).
The building has a side-gabled slate roof, which is
believed to be the original 1860s slate. Due to age,
the roof has internal leaks. The north roof slope
drains to a roof gutter. The south slope drains to
a downspout leading to a concrete pad on the east
side of South Hall, which is creating problems with
erosion and rising damp at that location.
Figure 8-68. New Chapel/Peter Hall, infilled attic windows on
east side (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-70. New Chapel/Peter Hall, north roof slope adjoining
Hearst Hall, showing patching with newer slate (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 195

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Masonry
New Chapel’s foundation, visible only at the
south and west facades, is random-course local
limestone. The remainder of the building is faced
with hand-molded red brick. The brick has been
extensively repointed with gray cement mortar,
flush with the surface. This work is not historically
appropriate. Much of the brick appears to have
undergone sandblasting and/or chemical cleaning,
except on the north wall. Evidence of the chapel’s
former organ structure can be seen in an arched
infill profile in the brickwork on the third floor.
Rising damp and deteriorating brick were noted
along the east side around the doorway due to
ground-level runoff to the wall. Dampness and
some deterioration around the foundation was
noted at the doorway of the north addition.
Figure 8-71. New Chapel/Peter Hall, west façade, evidence of
sandblasting, brick repairs and repointing (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-74. New Chapel/Peter Hall, east façade, severe brick
deterioration in pilaster immediately south of door.
Figure 8-72. New Chapel/Peter Hall, east façade, rising damp
along foundation north of door (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-75. New Chapel/Peter Hall, north side, base of corner
addition.
Wood
New Chapel’s molded wood cornice exhibits failing
paint.
Other Features
Figure 8-73. New Chapel/Peter Hall, east façade, rising damp
and brick deterioration at door.
Window air conditioners are in place at certain
locations on the east side. Historic star-shaped iron
tie rods are visible.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 196

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Interior
New Chapel’s first floor houses the Clewell Dining
Hall, a modernized space that has little historic
fabric remaining. The second floor contains a lateral
corridor connecting to Old Chapel on the north and
South Hall on the south. Several rooms on either
side of the corridor are used as offices. This floor
retains a high level of historic fabric, including
2”-3” hardwood flooring, wood wainscoting
and moldings, and a number of original doors
and three-light transoms. Some doors have been
replaced with modern ones. On the third floor,
the former chapel space was renovated in 1978 as
Peter Hall. The stained glass memorial windows
installed between 1918 and 1931 are extant, but the
organ at the northwest corner is no longer extant.
The present hardwood flooring, balustrades, stage,
ramp, and raised seating area are modern. The
cove ceiling has been modernized with a grid for
acoustics and lighting, and historic wall and ceiling
paint treatments are not visible. Antique movable
benches, believed to be original furnishings, are
still in use. Modern fire doors are placed at both the
north and south interior entrances.
Peter Hall lacks ADA-compliant restrooms.
Current Use
New Chapel/Peter Hall is now part of the Moravian
College Center for Art and Music. Its first floor is
the Clewell Dining Hall, the servery for the Hurd
Campus, which is a continuation of its original
use. The second floor has offices for the art
department. The third floor contains Peter Hall,
the former chapel, which is now a renovated music
performance space.
Treatment
It is recommended that New Chapel/Peter Hall
receive a Rehabilitation treatment, preserving
historic fabric as much as possible while allowing for
needed upgrades and changes. It is recommended
that current uses of the spaces in the building
continue, as they are in keeping with their original
purposes.
Maintenance issues noted in New Chapel/Peter
Hall include:
• The roof slate is failing, causing interior
leaks. The roof should be repaired or
replaced in kind, using slates of compatible
appearance.
• Most of the historic windows need
maintenance, including painting, repairs,
and reglazing.
• Drainage along the east side should be
remedied to direct water away from the
foundation, and damaged brick and mortar
joints in this area should be repaired using
appropriate materials and techniques.
South Hall – 1873
Historical Development
South Hall was built in 1875 to provide additional
dormitories for the Female Seminary. For much
of its history, South Hall also housed the science
laboratories (biology, chemistry, and physics) for
the Seminary and College for Women. In 1947, it
contained a storage area for chemistry supplies in
the basement, the chemistry laboratory on the first
floor, classrooms on the second floor, dormitories
on the third and fourth floors, and a “play room” in
the attic (Hampson 1947:11).
Figure 8-76. New Chapel/Peter Hall, view of second-floor
hallway looking south.
Following the 1954 merger and relocation of science
programs to the North Main Street Campus, South
Hall was converted for use by the Art Department.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 197

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Signifi cance
South Hall is the southernmost and last of the
connected buildings comprising the core of the
Hurd Campus, capping off the frequent additions
of new campus buildings that began in 1848.
Although not particularly distinctive, it has high
integrity on its exterior.
Integrity
Figure 8-77. South Hall, view to southwest (JMA 2008).
South Hall retains a high degree of integrity on
its upper floors and on the exterior. Rehabilitation
work was completed on the exterior in 1978, and
the west-facing windows were restored in 2008. The
first floor of the interior was renovated extensively
as departmental offices, but the upper floors are
very intact with much original detail remaining. It
does not appear that the upper floors were affected
when South Hall’s use changed from a science
building to an art building.
Condition
Summary
Figure 8-78. South Hall, view to northwest (JMA 2008).
South Hall is a four-and-one-half-story, front-gabled
brick building. It is four bays long, and the window
bays are symmetrical and aligned vertically. A
three-story, flat-roofed, one-bay brick north wing
connects it to New Chapel on the north. A gated,
one-story arched tunnel through the first level of
the north wing provides access between Main Street
and the interior yard of the primary Hurd Campus
complex. A three-story section of Foy Hall abuts
South Hall on its south wall. On the east side near
the south end is an areaway with stairs leading into
the basement.
South Hall has a moderate-pitched roof with deep
overhangs, partial returns, and a heavy, molded
cornice. The attic story has two windows on its
north end and a central arched window flanked by
single windows on its south end. Most windows in
the building have flat lintels with modest projecting
Italianate hoods. The hoods are supported by small
scrolled brackets, and the hoods on the top three
floors have small triangular fretwork scrolls at the
top center.
Additions
Figure 8-79. South Hall, view to southeast (JMA 2008).
South Hall has no historic additions. It once had
a one-story frame hyphen connecting it to the
Gymnasium (now Payne Gallery), but this was
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 198

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-80. South Hall, view of tunnel to east (JMA 2008).
removed more recently, probably during restoration
work in the 1970s. Foy Hall was appended to the
southwest corner in 1982, and is connected to South
Hall on the first and second floors.
Figure 8-81. South Hall, north entrance in tunnel, view to south
(JMA 2008).
Doors and Fenestration
South Hall has two historic exterior doors. The
north door is located within the tunnel and has
an original four-panel, bolection-molded door
and three-light transom. Hardware on the door is
modern. A second door is located on the east side
near the north end of the building, opening into the
yard. This is a one-light, two-panel original wood
door. Its transom has been infilled with a metal
vent. The metal-clad scrolled hood above the door
is dented and needs repairs. A third entrance is
within the southeast basement areaway, which has
paired modern metal doors.
Figure 8-82. South Hall, east entrance, view to southwest (JMA
2008).
The west (street) façade of the building has
six-over-six wood windows. Metal flashing covers
most of the sills and the lintel hoods. Paint on
these wooden elements is peeling. A few of the
windowsills are missing metal flashing and while
their surfaces are in deteriorated condition, they
appear sound.
The east (yard) façade of the building, and the lower
floor of the south façade, have modern six-over-six
metal replacement windows.
Figure 8-83. South Hall, east entrance, damage to door hood
(JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 199

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Masonry
The foundation of the building is covered with
modern parged cement. At the southeast corner,
cracking indicates a piece that may delaminate and
separate from the wall. The sloping tunnel interior
is paved with grooved concrete, and the basement
areaway is concrete-lined.
Figure 8-84. South Hall, west façade, paired original windows
with detailed hoods (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-85. South Hall, west façade, peeling paint on window
frame and exposed sill (JMA 2008).
Roofi ng and Drainage
Above the first floor is a corbelled watercourse. The
three upper floors have shallow, flat brick pilasters,
and windows are located in the vertical recesses
between pilasters. The brickwork originally
had pale-brown, slightly recessed mortar joints.
Multiple repointing campaigns are evident. The
hand-molded bricks have been sandblasted,
leaving their surfaces somewhat abraded. On the
west side, a two-story area of the third bay from the
left appears to be infill brick, and mirrors a similar
area of brick infill on the east wall of Payne Gallery,
indicating the outline of the frame passageway that
once connected the two buildings. On the east side,
a number of replacement bricks are used.
Small areas of brickwork flanking the bottom of
each window are blackened and may not have been
cleaned due to former metal flashing or coverings.
South Hall has a slate roof which drains to
half-round gutters on the east and west roof
slopes. Downspouts from the gutters, located
at the northeast and northwest corners, lead to
underground drains. An oblong drain spans the
east portal of the tunnel.
Some ponding of water was observed near the
east door threshold and in the concrete basement
areaway on the east side. This may lead to biogrowth
and deterioration of the exterior walls if allowed to
continue.
Figure 8-87. South Hall, east side window, stains above
windowsills (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-86. South Hall, east side areaway with ponding water
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-88. South Hall, contrast between original brickwork
and later repointing (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 200

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The east side has several window air conditioner
units, as well as two exterior units located outside
the first floor entrance.
Within the tunnel, at the west portal, is a pair of
wrought iron gates dedicated in 1916. A round
metal bollard is at the center of the east portal,
preventing vehicular access through the tunnel.
Interior
Figure 8-89. South Hall, dampness area at threshold of east
entrance (JMA 2008).
Wood
Other than windows and doors, the only wood
elements on the building include the wood cornices
and partial gable returns. These are generally
in good condition. Small areas of cracking paint
should be monitored and repaired.
Other Features
The interior of South Hall has been renovated. The
first floor has been modernized with new carpet,
wallboard, and dropped ceilings. On the second
and third floors, original painted hardwood strip
flooring, wood beadboard wainscoting, wood door
trim, transoms, some original wood doors and their
hardware, ceilings, scored plaster walls, and stairs
are extant. Bathrooms have been modernized, and
some replacement doors have been installed. Walls
and floors on these levels are showing some paint
failure, and walls and ceilings exhibit some plaster
The building has a large historic wall-mounted
lantern light above the north door inside the
tunnel. A pendant lantern hangs at the east portal
of the tunnel. The foundation on the north side has
several Gothic Revival-patterned vent grilles.
Figure 8-92. South Hall, first floor interior, view to north (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-90. South Hall, historic lantern at east portal (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-91. South Hall, foundation grille on west side (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-93. South Hall, back staircase to east entrance door,
view to east (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 201

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-94. South Hall, second floor corridor, typical conditions
of upper floors (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-96. South Hall, main stairwell on third floor (JMA
2008).
Treatment
It is recommended that a Rehabilitation treatment
be applied to South Hall. This has already been
occurring as the building has been renovated and
upgraded to better serve its evolving academic
program. This treatment is appropriate and should
continue. The exterior of South Hall should be
preserved. On the interior, remaining historic
fabric should be preserved in future renovations.
The fourth floor, which is no longer in active use
due to fire code standards, should be preserved
and protected, as it retains a significant amount of
historic fabric.
Figure 8-95. South Hall, second floor corridor, typical conditions
of upper floors (JMA 2008).
failure. The fourth floor, which is not in use due to
lack of a second exit stairway, has a high level of
preserved historic fabric, but some elements are
deteriorated.
Current Use
South Hall is part of the Moravian College Center
for Art and Music. It houses offices and studios for
the Art Department on the first, second, and third
floors. The fourth floor and attic are not in active
use due to lack of a second egress.
Maintenance issues noted include:
• Original windows should be repaired and
retained, rather than replaced.
• Interior and exterior paint failure should
be repaired.
• Masonry cracking should be monitored.
Future brick repairs should use mortar and
joint techniques are consistent with areas
of original joints. Delaminating parging
should be repaired in kind.
• Better drainage is needed around and in
the areaway on the east side.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 202

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Payne Art Gallery – 1890
Historical Development
Payne Art Gallery was constructed in 1890 as the
gymnasium of the Moravian Seminary for Women.
Athletics and organized physical exercise were
becoming more important to academic institutions
nationorthwestide in this period, making exercise
facilities a priority in campus planning. The new
building, known as the Gymnasium throughout
much of the next century, had an open beamed
interior and was host to athletics and sporting
events for the Seminary and College for Women.
A covered passageway connected the Gymnasium
to South Hall, continuing the tradition of attached
buildings at the campus. After the merger of 1954,
better athletic facilities were available at the Main
Street campus, and a new use was needed for the
Gymnasium. In 1963, the college began using it as an
art classroom and studio. As with the neighboring
buildings, its exterior was rehabilitated in 1978.
In 1982, the Gymnasium was renovated and
converted into the College’s art gallery. The
passageway to South Hall was removed and Foy
Hall was built as a concert hall and connector to
South Hall, retaining the Gymnasium’s physical
connection with the series of buildings nearby.
The renovation was funded by Priscilla Payne
Hurd and the Gymnasium was renamed Payne
Gallery in honor of Mrs. Hurd’s parents, Frank E.
and Seba B. Payne. Architects for the project were
William Watson (exterior work) and Spillman
Farmer Shoemaker Pell (interior). The original
front entrance was closed off and entrance to Payne
Gallery is now through the lobby of Foy Hall. In
2001, the gallery was renovated to bring its curation
environment up to Smithsonian standards.
Signifi cance
Payne Gallery is significant as an excellent example
of a Classical Revival gymnasium of the turn of the
century period. This style was nationally popular
for gymnasiums of this era. Payne Gallery is also
associated with a nationorthwestide trend toward
physical education and organized sports which
took hold in this era.
Integrity
Figure 8-97. Payne Gallery, view to southeast (JMA 2008).
Payne Gallery retains a high degree of integrity on
the exterior, although the disuse of the original main
entrance, thus altering its historic main entry point,
is a notable exception. On the interior, the building
has been modified extensively through installation
of partitions, gallery lighting, and reconfiguring of
the original second-floor spectator gallery. Natural
light has been eliminated through covering or
painting over the original windows. Other historic
elements are either missing or no longer visible,
except for the wooden ceiling trusswork.
Figure 8-98. Payne Gallery, view to northeast (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-99. Payne Gallery, historic view to east (Moravian
College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 203

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Condition
Summary
Payne Gallery is a Classical Revival brick
gymnasium building with a front-gabled slate
roof, wood windows and wood exterior moldings
and details. It sits on a slope with the basement
exposed at the southwest corner, and adjoins Foy
Hall on the southeast. The basement is within the
stone foundation. The brick walls of the main level
feature a projecting water table, evenly spaced
flat brick pilasters, and brick corner quoins. The
double-hung windows are set within the recesses
between pilasters. All windows and doors have flat
lintels with contrasting center sandstone keystones.
The building has deep molded cornices featuring
dentil molding and gable returns.
main entrance, window openings with three
contrasting dark keystones, and a round-arched
front door surround. A terrace at the south end of
the basement has a smaller secondary entrance.
Additions
Payne Gallery has no historic additions. It once had
a gabled one-story frame hyphen connecting it to
South Hall, but this was removed to make way for
Foy Hall in 1982. A shadow of this hyphen is visible
on the east wall.
The original entrance façade faces north and is
more ornate than the other elevations. It features
Classical ornamentation, including a semicircular
pediment and carved stone frieze over the original
Figure 8-102. Payne Gallery, east side, shadow of frame hyphen
(JMA 2008).
Doors and Fenestration
Figure 8-100. Payne Gallery, 2008 view to east (JMA 2008).
The entrance doors, which are no longer used,
are four-light, three-panel doors and are set flush
with the exterior paving. These doors appear to be
modern versions of historic doors. They appear to
not fit correctly, resulting in some gaps. The door
on the south terrace is similar in style to the front
doors.
Figure 8-101. Payne Gallery, north façade, view to south (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-103. Payne Gallery, typical window with peeling paint
and interior film (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 204

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Windows in the building are original wood dividedlight
sash. Most are horizontal eight-light sash, and
those on the first floor level appear to have side
pivots. The interiors of the windows were covered
with black film, which is peeling off in many places.
Paint on the wood elements is peeling.
Roofi ng and Drainage
The historic slate roof drains to half-round gutters
on the east and west sides, and downspouts at
the southeast and southwest corners drain to an
underground system. Some rot is evident in the
southeast and southwest cornices adjacent to
the downspouts, indicating possible leaks at the
juncture of the gutters and downspouts. Pieces
of slate tile from the roof were observed near the
foundation, indicating deterioration and breakage
of some of the tiles.
Figure 8-105. Payne Gallery, south façade, step crack between
upper and lower windows (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-106. Payne Gallery, northwest corner, brick deterioration
at base of wall (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-104. Payne Gallery, southeast corner, paint failure and
rot in cornice (JMA 2008).
Masonry
The foundation of the Payne Gallery is random
ashlar limestone blocks with two pointing styles
visible: pale brown earlier mortar, and a later hard
gray mortar with raised ribbon joints.
The walls are faced with machine-molded brick.
Window surrounds are ornamented with sandstone
keystones and newer cast-stone sills. A large gabled
area of infill brick is located at the north end of the
east wall, mirroring a similar area on South Hall’s
west wall. This indicates the former location of a
one-story frame passageway between South Hall
and Payne Gallery. The south façade has a few
large cracks above window bays, and there is some
mortar loss on the quoin edges. The brickwork has
some hazy areas, and there is efflorescence and
some mortar loss evident at the base of the walls at
the northwest corner.
Figure 8-107. Payne Gallery, north wall, damp areaway with
biogrowth (JMA 2008)
A concrete-lined areaway at the west side of the
north façade is damp and has biogrowth due to
poor drainage.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 205

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
second-floor gallery/track has been expanded and
converted to an upper balcony level. New interior
partitions block out the original outside walls,
provide hanging space and allow for rooms around
the perimeter below the balcony. The new flooring
and wall surfaces obscure any remaining interior
historic fabric.
Figure 8-108. Payne Gallery, south wall, mortar loss in quoins
(JMA 2008).
Wood
Painted wooden elements on the exterior walls,
notably the cornices and front pediment, are
peeling and biological growth is visible within the
pediment molding. Some rot is occurring in the
southeast and southwest cornice corners, adjacent
to the downspouts.
Figure 8-110. Payne Gallery interior, view to southwest, ca. 1913
(Moravian College Archives).
Figure 8-109. Payne Gallery, north wall, detail of entrance
pediment with paint deterioration and biogrowth (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-111. Payne Gallery interior, view to northwest (JMA
2008).
Other Features
A terrace at the south end of the basement has
windows infilled with modern louvered vents and
a modern light above the entrance.
Interior
The Payne Gallery’s interior is open to the original
ceiling and retains its historic beamed wood truss
system and ceiling, but little other historic material
is visible. The windows have been covered over,
and new wood flooring is in place. The former
Figure 8-112. Payne Gallery, original ceiling trusses (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 206

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Current Use
Payne Gallery is now an art gallery displaying
both permanent collection artworks and short-term
exhibits. It is scheduled for renovation in 2009, with
plans for exterior rehabilitation of the brickwork,
windows, and wood details, and interior
weatherization of windows and upgrades to the
HVAC systems.
Treatment
It is recommended that Payne Gallery receive a
Rehabilitation treatment, which is appropriate
for a building that has changed use over time.
The exterior of the building should be preserved,
including historic wood elements and windows. The
interior of the building will continue to be modified
in accordance with changing programmatic needs
and curation standards. Remaining historic fabric
of the interior should be preserved where it still
exists. The current use is very compatible with the
building’s historic purpose and should continue.
Maintenance issues include:
• Wood exterior elements should be painted
and repaired as needed.
• Address leaks and rotting at the southeast
and southwest corner downspouts.
• Black adhesive film applied to the interiors
of the windows is peeling and should
be removed. Protection of the interiors
from UV rays is important and should
be provided from the interior side only,
retaining the original exposed windows.
Signifi cance
The Day House has always served as a utilitarian
auxiliary building, supporting the functions of
the main buildings on the Church Street campus.
Architecturally, it is not distinctive and lacks
integrity.
Integrity
The Day House has relatively low integrity, due to
significant modifications to the interior, conversion
of the lower level to storage with garage bays, and
replacement of many elements on the exterior.
Figure 8-113. Day House, front, view to south (JMA 2008).
Day House – 1840
Historical Development
The Day House was constructed in 1840 as the
laundry for the Seminary and was used as such for
many years. It had washing facilities on the ground
floor and drying facilities on the upper floor. It later
became a place for day students to congregate apart
from the boarders, giving it the name Day House. A
1947 fire insurance survey documented this use by
day students and noted that it had a two-car garage
and furnace on ground floor level, and a sitting
room, kitchenette, and bathroom on the upper
floor. It was used in the 1970’s as an apartment
(upper floor) and storage (ground floor). In 2003,
it was renovated and a new classroom on its first
floor was added to the Art Department facilities.
Figure 8-114. Day House, rear, view to east (JMA 2008).
Condition
Summary
The Day House is a one-and-one-half-story brick
cottage with a front-gabled roof. It is set into a
slope with its basement exposed on the south
(rear) elevation. The shallow-pitched roof is clad
with original slate and has wide eave overhangs.
A square interior chimney projects above the front
roof gable. Most of the windows in the house
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 207

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
have been replaced with modern vinyl sash, with
the exception of a pair of small four-light original
casement windows in the attic gable. All windows
have flush wood lintels and projecting wood sills.
The inset front door is surmounted by a gabled
lintel. At the basement level, the house has two
mid-twentieth-century wood-paneled overhead
garage doors. All wooden trim elements on the
house are peeling and in need of paint.
Additions
There are no additions to the Day House.
Doors and Fenestration
Few original fenestration and door elements remain
on the Day House. Most of the windows in the Day
House have been replaced with modern vinyl sash.
The only original windows are the small gable
casements in the attic, which need paint. The front
door is a one-light three-panel door dating from ca.
early 1900s and is shielded by a modern aluminum
storm door, but could use repainting. The garage
doors at the rear are modern paneled wood
overhead doors with steel I-beam lintels. Both doors
are peeling and need paint. A single door entrance
on the east wall of the basement has an old panel
door. Peeling paint is in evidence here.
Roofi ng and Drainage
The slate roof drains to gutters on both the east
and west sides, which connect to downspouts at
ground level. The gutters are bowed outward and
drip water to the ground, and water collects at the
front steps. Splashback, rising damp, and mortar
loss are evident on the west side of the building.
Masonry
The house appears to have a fieldstone
retaining-wall foundation on its north (uphill side)
but is otherwise constructed of brick. The brick
walls of the Day House incorporate several different
types of brick and reveal multiple repointing
campaigns and some infill areas. Along the west
slope of the building, water runoff has splashed
Figure 8-115. Day House, south façade, peeling garage doors
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-117. Day House, west façade, masonry deterioration
along slope (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-116. Day House, south façade, view of original attic
windows with peeling paint and vinyl replaced windows (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-118. Day House, north façade, rising damp and brick
deterioration at front steps (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 208

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
back onto the walls, resulting in rising damp and
mortar loss. Water splashing and ponding on the
concrete slab outside the first-floor entrance has
caused rising damp and pronounced deterioration
of the brickwork at ground level on either side of
the doorway. Small plants are growing out of the
chimney masonry and should be removed.
Figure 8-119. Day House, north façade, rising damp and brick
deterioration at front steps (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-120. Day House, chimney showing plant growth (JMA
2008).
Other Features
Day House has exterior lighting elements above
and next to the front door.
Interior
The interior was not accessible, but the first floor
reportedly has been renovated.
Current Use
The Day House is now used by Moravian’s art
department, with classroom space on the first floor.
This space is designed for art education, crafts and
studio classes. The building also houses an office
for Art Education faculty members. The ground
floor with its garage bays is used for storage
Treatment
The Day House should receive a Rehabilitation
treatment as outlined in The Secretary for the
Interior’s Standards and the design guidelines of
this preservation plan. Remaining historic fabric
on both the interior and exterior should be retained
and repaired.
Maintenance issues at the Day House include:
• Wood elements on the exterior are in
deteriorating condition and require repairs
and repainting.
• Gutters on the roof should be repaired or
replaced in kind to address leaks.
• Poor drainage around the house, both from
rainfall onto the house and runoff from the
hillside, is causing significant masonry
deterioration. Water leaks from the gutters
and roof should be eliminated. All water
and hillside runoff should be directed away
from the front steps and walls of the house,
using the least invasive means available due
to archeological sensitivity in this hillside.
Methods could include regrading around
the foundation to shunt water away, or
installing small swales around the house to
channel water downhill. The large concrete
slab in front of the door should be redone
to slope away from the house.
Main Hall – 1854
Historical Development
Main Hall was constructed in 1854 to accommodate
the expanding Bethlehem Female Seminary. The
site it stands on contained a residence used by
the headmaster, which was torn down to make
way for Main Hall. It was a remarkable building
at the time of its completion, as it was one of the
first in Bethlehem to have gas lighting, central
furnace heating, bathrooms with hot and cold
running water on each floor and a flat roof. The
building provided new residential quarters for the
headmaster, classrooms, and dormitory rooms for
students. Space to receive and entertain guests was
an important component of Main Hall from the
beginning. On the first floor, two parlors, known
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 209

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
were restored, and some newer non-historic
windows were removed. The outdoor fire escapes
were removed and the multistory wooden back
porches were rehabilitated and strengthened for
continued use (Moravian College 1958).
Figure 8-121. Main Hall, north façade, view to southwest (JMA
2008).
as the Blue Parlors, were used as reception rooms
throughout the building’s history. The walls of
these rooms were decorated with scenic landscape
paintings by Gustavus Grunewald, a teacher of
fine arts at the school. Handpainted wallcoverings
adorned the headmaster’s apartment, also on the
first floor (Moravian College 1958). According to
the sign on the street front, Main Hall was the home
of headmaster Francis Wolle, whose son J.F. Wolle
was born in the family apartment and later went on
to found the Bach Choir.
Main Hall remained in use as a dormitory, staff
housing, and reception rooms throughout much of
its history. A 1947 fire insurance survey indicated
that the basement contained a home economics
kitchen, private kitchen and dining room, and
classrooms. The first floor contained administrative
offices, a private living room, and four bedrooms.
The second floor had classrooms, a library, and
dormitory rooms. The third and fourth floors were
exclusively dormitory rooms (Hampson 1947:5).
By the 1950s, the first floor was used as the school
president’s office. In 1958, following the merger
that produced today’s Moravian College, Main
Hall was the first of the historic Church Street
buildings to be restored to an earlier period. This
provided the reconfigured school with badly
needed housing space but also satisfied the need to
maintain a historic exterior appearance. Following
investigation of the building’s historic components,
exterior restoration work commenced. Multiple
layers of paint were removed from the exterior
brickwork and wood elements. Trim was removed
from the north window lintels, the rear cornice was
corrected, and all outside trim was painted white.
Original window spaces which had been infilled
The interior was modernized to create dormitory
space on the upper floors and a lounge and snack
bar on the basement level. The president’s office was
relocated and the Blue Parlors have continued as a
reception site for school functions. Restoration work
on the first floor refurbished the walls, ceilings, and
trim to original appearance. Fireproofing measures
resulted in the installation of six vent chimneys and
two new fireproof stairwells inside the building,
including one at the rear ell.
A College family day program from 1958 described
the rehabilitation and restoration work in detail
and mentioned that the building still lacked three
original exterior features: a rooftop belvedere with
balustrades, exterior shutters for all windows
except the Church Street façade (where original
interior shutters were extant), and a “reconstructed
Figure 8-122. Main Hall, south façade and ell, view to northeast
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-123. Main Hall, south façade and ell, historic view to
north (Moravian College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 210

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
main entrance” (Moravian College 1958). The main
entrance and belvedere reconstruction occurred
some years later, but shutters have not been
reinstalled.
Signifi cance
Main Hall is significant for its historic function
as the Moravian Seminary for Women’s reception
rooms and dormitory, a function which continues
in the present time. It was one of the first buildings
in Bethlehem to feature a flat-roofed Italianate
style, and also among the first to boast modern
technology (central heat, gas lighting and interior
plumbing). Main Hall is also significant as the first
of Moravian’s Church Street buildings to undergo
exterior restoration and was thus an important
component of the beginnings of Historic Bethlehem
and historic preservation initiatives in downtown
Bethlehem. The rehabilitation work coincided with
the building’s centennial, and it was described as
being “at once a modern fireproof dormitory and an
eloquent example of a mature building beginning
its second century of service” (Moravian College
1958).
The historic frame wing and back porches at the
west end were removed as part of the restoration
effort.
The interior of the building retains a good amount
of integrity on the first floor where the parlors are.
Other areas of the building, notably those areas
used as dormitory rooms, have been renovated
with modern finishes, partitions, closets, doors,
carpeting, and dropped ceilings. The installation of
the modern fire stairs also altered the floor plan.
Figure 8-125. Main Hall during restoration, ca. 1958 (Moravian
College Archives).
Figure 8-124. Main Hall, ca. 1929 photo of home economics
kitchen (Moravian College Viewbook [1929]).
Integrity
Main Hall underwent significant exterior restoration
and interior renovation work during the late 1950s
to update it as a modernized dormitory. The exterior
retains a great deal of integrity, including original
windows and trim, though some elements date
from the 1958 work. As mentioned, some historic
elements such as the exterior shutters are missing
and were not recreated during the restoration work.
Figure 8-126. Main Hall, historic hallway, plaster moldings, and
curved walls on first floor (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 211

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The main block is seven bays wide and three bays
deep. The rear of the main block has a three-story
flat-roofed porch sheltering the basement, first, and
second floors, and a roof balcony off the third floor.
The rebuilt porch is frame with plain wood columns
and balustrades, and is set on one-story brick piers
at the basement level. The roof balcony has flimsy,
bent iron surrounds and does not appear usable.
Figure 8-127. Main Hall, typical renovated hallway (JMA 2008).
The rear ell of the building is five bays long and
three bays wide. It has a flat-roofed full-height,
square projection on its south end, measuring
one bay by one bay. This contains the modern fire
stairs. Historic Sanborn maps and photos indicate
this stairwell section has been present since at least
1885.
Additions
Main Hall was formerly connected to the Single
Brethren’s House with a full-height frame hyphen
covering the entire west side. This projected toward
the rear, and the back porches extended across the
entire rear of the main block to adjoin the east side
of the hyphen. The hyphen and the west end of the
porches were removed in 1958 during Main Hall’s
restoration.
Doors and Fenestration
Figure 8-128. Main Hall, typical conditions in dorm rooms (JMA
2008).
Condition
Summary
Main Hall is a four-story red brick building with an
L-shaped footprint and a low-pitched, nearly flat,
hipped roof. Four wide brick chimneys rise from
the roof, as well as a small center flat-roofed cupola
with a gabled top vent. The building is set on a
west-facing slope with its basement fully exposed at
the west and south. The main block of the building
has a symmetrical seven-bay primary façade on
the north side facing Church Street, exhibiting
Italianate details around the entrance. The central
entrance features a recessed paneled door with a
projecting mock balcony above. The balcony is set
on large scrolled brackets and has an ornate cast
iron balustrade and paneled corner piers. The inset
door has sidelights and a full transom. The restored
front steps are wood and set on a brick foundation,
and also feature cast iron balustrades.
Main Hall’s primary entrance is its recessed central
north door. The door was originally a double-leaf
door, but the original narrow three-panel doors
were conjoined to form a wide single door, which
now has modern hardware and a key card system.
Narrow sidelights and a deep transom light the
interior hallway. The surround has been restored.
Marble steps fill the interior of the door recess;
though worn, they are in good condition.
A secondary entrance in the alley on the west side
of the building has a segmental arch profile and,
like the front door, consists of historic narrow
double-leaf doors retrofitted as a single wide door.
This entrance has a limestone threshold and some
paint is needed. A third entrance on the west side of
the building, located within the porch, has a historic
four-panel door. Near the southwest corner, at the
bottom of the rear stairwell, is a modern glazed
security door with concrete steps.
Most of the windows in the building are single
six-over-six double-hung windows. The windows
immediately above the front entrance form a triple
window, and paired windows are located on the
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 212

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
upper floors. The windows have plain flush wood
lintels and metal-clad sills. Historic windows
and window frames are present, though many
have restored/reconstructed sash. Some of the old
windows are deteriorating and need reglazing.
Several windows at the back of the building have
been replaced with modern metal sash windows.
The paint on many of the window lintels and
surrounds is failing, particularly on the east side of
the building.
Figure 8-130. Main Hall, example of brick infill work (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-129. Main Hall, east façade, window with paint failure
(JMA 2008).
Roofi ng and Drainage
Main Hall has an almost-flat, hipped roof not visible
from the ground. It is surfaced with EPDM. The
main block drains to a box gutter on the south edge
of the roof, with downspouts at the southeast and
southwest corners both leading to underground
drains. The south porch roof drains to half-round
gutters, and two downspouts drain to grade. This
is problematic due to water directly against the
foundation. The rear ell roof drains to a box gutter
on the east roof edge, then to a downspout at the
southeast corner.
Figure 8-131. Main Hall, east areaway. Drainage in this area
should be monitored and shunted away from east wall (JMA
2008).
Masonry
Main Hall is constructed of hand-molded brick
pointed with white mortar. The north façade
has higher-quality brick and elaborate corbelled
molding extending across the entire façade on
the first floor. This consists of horizontal striation,
capped with a deep corbelled water table at the
level of the second floor. A few window spaces on
the sides of the building have been infilled with
brick, and there is evidence of other repairs in small
areas. Although there is minor surface damage due
to cleaning and the rear ell needs some repointing
work, the brick is in good condition overall.
Figure 8-132. Main Hall, north façade, rising damp near front
steps (JMA 2008).
The foundation is constructed of local limestone.
The north side has window wells for the basement
windows. An areaway along the east side is poorly
drained and wet. Minor rising damp is occurring
on the north side of the building where water runs
downhill along the façade and sits at the juncture
with the front steps.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 213

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Wood
The wood cornice fascia is in need of paint, as are
wooden elements associated with the windows on
the sides and back of the building. The porches and
wood front steps are in good condition.
Other Features
Main Hall has a historic cast-iron pendant lantern
at the north main entrance. A wall-mounted lantern
at the west entrance is in deteriorating condition.
Interior
The first floor of Main Hall retains its formal
reception rooms and considerable historic fabric.
The other floors have been renovated, with much
of their current appearance dating from the 1958
renovations. Dropped ceilings, modern closets,
modern doors and door surrounds, and some
changes to floor plan are evident. Two fireproof
stairwells were installed as part of the renovation,
with one near the center of the main block and one
at the south end of the ell.
Current Use
Main Hall’s primary function is as dormitory space
for students. It also contains offices and reception
rooms.
Treatment
Main Hall underwent Restoration treatment of
the exterior and part of the interior first floor.
It is recommended that Main Hall be given a
Rehabilitation treatment, which will protect
the remaining historic fabric while allowing for
needed updates to keep the building functional as
a residence hall.
Maintenance issues observed at Main Hall include:
• An improved drainage system is needed
along the Church Street side of the building
to prevent rising damp. The College and
City should cooperate to resolve this issue,
which also affects the Single Brethren’s
House and West Hall.
• Address drainage on east side of building.
• Repaint windows and surrounds on sides
and rear of building. Minor painting
needed on door surrounds and cornice
fascia boards.
John Frederick Frueauff House
– 1819
Historical Development
The Bethlehem Female Seminary constructed the
Frueauff House in 1819 to as a residence for the
Reverend John F. Frueauff, the head of the school
and the ninth principal of the Seminary. This was
the first entirely new building constructed on the
campus. Rev. Frueauff continued to live in the house
until his death, and the house remained a private
residence for his family afterward. By the 1870s-
1880s, it had been expanded to two and one-half
stories in height.
The Moravian Seminary and College for Women
obtained ownership of the house in 1914, and it
went by the names of East Hall and then Wolle Hall.
In 1947, it was known as Wolle Hall and contained
a furnace and “play rooms” in the basement, an
office and classrooms on the first floor, student
bedrooms on the second floor, and an unfinished
attic (Hampson 1947:13). By the 1950s, it housed
the Seminary’s music department. After the merger
that formed Moravian College, the house was used
as a private residence until 1961. At this time, it
was restored to its original height and once again
became the college president’s house. Since 2006, it
has been the dean’s residence.
Signifi cance
The Frueauff House is a restored early nineteenth
century building, but due to extensive restoration
work to give it an original appearance, many of
its distinctive exterior elements are reproductions
made in the 1960s. It has a low level of authentic
historic fabric. The house is significant for its
Figure 8-133. Frueauff House, ca. 1880 (Moravian Church
Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 214

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
association with Rev. Frueauff and as the first
purpose-built new building on the Seminary
campus along Church Street.
Integrity
Frueauff House has been altered considerably from
its original appearance. During the mid-to-late
nineteenth century (prior to ca. 1870), an additional
gabled story was added, giving it a taller profile
more in line with adjacent buildings. The brick
was painted and two-over-two windows were
installed. Italianate details, including a bracketed
door hood, were added as well. In 1971, this work
was reversed, removing the top story additions and
mid-nineteenth-century changes and bringing the
house back to what was thought to be its original
exterior appearance. While this gives a better sense
of its original scale and appearance, the restoration
eliminated much historic fabric and the appearance
the house had for at least 100 years of its existence.
Condition
Summary
Frueauff House is a one-and-one-half-story
Federal-style brick dwelling with a side-gabled
wood-shingled roof and interior brick end
chimneys. It faces north toward Church Street and
is located abutting the sidewalk. The house sits on
a slope and its basement is exposed on the west
and south. The symmetrical, five-bay front façade
of the house features a recessed central front door
set within an arched surround and topped by a
rounded fanlight. The doorway is covered by paired
louvered outer doors. Two windows are located
on either side of the entrance, and two Palladianstyle
gabled dormers pierce the front roof slope.
The house has double-hung nine-over-six wood
sash windows with operable paneled shutters on
the first floor. The house is three bays deep on the
sides and five bays long across the back. Two plain
gabled dormers are situated on the top floor in the
back. A two-story shed-roofed porch extends over
the center door and the westernmost two bays of
the basement and first floor of the rear façade. The
porch has brick piers on its lower level and plain
wood posts with a modern wood balustrade on its
upper level. At the rear of the property is a modern
brick side-gabled garage.
Figure 8-134. Frueauff House, current front view to southwest
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-136. Frueauff House, rear view to north (JMA 2008).
Additions
Figure 8-135. Frueauff House, front view to southeast (JMA
2008).
The Frueauff House had a mid-nineteenth-century
addition which gave it an additional story in height,
for two-and-one-half stories total. The façade was
changed to an Italianate appearance. These changes
were removed during restoration work in the early
1960s.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 215

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Doors and Fenestration
The front door of the house is a six-panel replacement
door concealed behind a pair of exterior louvered
wooden storm doors. These elements were installed
in the 1961 restoration and are in good condition.
A local limestone threshold is preserved below
the door opening. Central doors on the basement
and first floor levels in the back of the house are
sheltered by modern wood screen doors.
Frueauff House has replacement wooden
double-hung sash windows and modern aluminum
storm windows throughout. These were installed
at the time of restoration in 1961. The first-floor
windows have a nine-over-six configuration, and
the upstairs windows are six-over-six. The front
dormer windows have arched Palladian tops with
fanlights in the upper sash. The windows and their
paint appear to be in good repair.
The upper walls of the house are red brick. The
front façade wall is laid in Flemish bond, and
the other walls are common bond. Rebuilt brick
is evident above and below the front windows
where the Italianate lintels were removed and the
windows resized during restoration. Similar work
surrounds the front door opening and is evident
on the gable ends where upstairs windows were
moved. The brick surface has been roughened by
earlier cleaning and stripping, and some paint is
evident in the mortar joints. The house is pointed
with pale brown mortar, and there is some evidence
of previous tuck-pointing, possibly with differentcolored
joint lines.
Wood
The Frueauff House has a number of distinctive
carved exterior molding elements on its front facade,
including a dentil-molded cornice, Palladian-style
molding on the dormers, and a matchstick-carved
interior on the front doorway recess. The paneled
wood shutters on the first floor appear to be historic.
Other wooden elements include the cornices, front
steps, and rear porches. The wood is overall in good
condition. Paint is failing on the front steps, directly
below where the gutter is leaking.
Figure 8-137. Frueauff House, north façade, evidence of door
and window configuration (JMA 2008).
Roofi ng and Drainage
The wood-shingled roof drains to half-round gutters
below the north and south roof slopes. The north
gutter is warped and filled with leaf debris, and is
overflowing above the front door. The downspout
on the northeast corner does not make provision
for directing the water flow away from the house.
Masonry
Frueauff House has a stucco foundation/basement
level, with ashlar parged cement coating on the
north and west sides and plain stucco elsewhere.
Rising damp and parging failure is evident at the
northwest corner near a drain.
Figure 8-138. Frueauff House, peeling paint on front steps (JMA
2008).
Other Features
None noted.
Interior
Frueauff House continues in use as housing for
College administrators, and has been updated to
modern standards. Due to occupancy, the interior
could not be examined.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 216

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Current Use
Frueauff House was used until 2006 as the residence
of Moravian College’s president. Today, it is the
residence for the Dean of the college.
Treatment
Frueauff House has already undergone a
Restoration treatment, when it was returned to
what was believed to be its original appearance in
1961. For the future, its recommended treatment is
Rehabilitation. It is recommended that the house
continue in its historic use as a residence for college
presidents or other administrators, and that any
remaining historic fabric and distinctive features
be retained during future updates.
Maintenance issues noted at Frueauff House
include:
• Clean and repair gutter on north side of
house.
• Direct water away from foundation,
particularly at northwest corner, and repair
parging at that location.
• The front wooden steps need repainting.
The Widows’ House was soon filled, and was
extended 20 feet eastward in 1795, adding two
more residential units to the four suites on each
floor. In 1889, a large rear annex was constructed
in Queen Anne style, and connects to the original
house with a hyphen. Funding for the annex was
provided by John Jordan, Jr., of Philadelphia, who
set up an endowment for the house in 1873 and
made provisions for who would be eligible to live
there (Hamilton 1988:25). Historic photos indicate
that the front entrance porch was changed from a
simple gabled structure to the current flat-roofed
Italianate porch during the late 1800s, possibly in
conjunction with the annex addition.
The house was remodeled inside during the
1980s, and now contains 13 apartments and seven
guest rooms. The Widows’ House remained in
the possession of the Moravian Church until
the mid-1990s, when it was purchased from the
Moravian Church Northern Province by Moravian
College. Widows have occupied the house
continuously since its construction and continue to
live there today. The building also houses Moravian
Theological Seminary students.
Widows’ House – 1768
Historical Development
The Widows’ House was constructed by Bethlehem’s
Moravian congregation in 1768 to provide a
residence for the widows of the community.
Although the choir system was phasing out, a sizable
home for widows to live out the remainder of their
lives was urgently needed. Bethlehem’s widows
had been living in Nazareth until this point due to
lack of space for them in Bethlehem, and planning
for the building began in 1760. The new building
site was originally part of the “congregational
garden.” Eleven widows were the first occupants.
The interior had a central stair hall, longitudinal
corridors, and four suites (two or three rooms) per
floor with individual fireplaces. The house attracted
the interest of visitors to Bethlehem, and was visited
by such prominent guests as Martha Washington
(June 1779), George Washington (July 1782), and
Alexander Hamilton (May 1791). Beginning in 1784,
the widows helped prepare meals for the nearby
girls’ boarding school, which provided them with
needed income (Hamilton 1988:24-25). It is not clear
how long this arrangement lasted.
Figure 8-139. Widows’ House, view to southwest; note east end
addition (JMA 2008).
Signifi cance
The Widows’ House is the second-oldest building
on Moravian’s campus and is another example of
Germanic stone architecture, although in a simpler
fashion. It was constructed 20 years after the Single
Brethren’s House and other early Moravian buildings
on Church Street and in a time when other choirs
in the community were abandoning the communal
living system. Unlike the other choirs, however, its
demographic has continued to need it since. Its use
as a home for widows has been continuous from
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 217

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
1768 to the present, making highly significant as a
direct connection to Bethlehem’s original status as
an exclusively Moravian settlement.
Integrity
Figure 8-140. Widows’ House, view to southeast (JMA 2008).
The exteriors of both the eighteenth-century
section and the 1889 annex addition retain a very
high degree of historical integrity, with relatively
little change seen overall since the late nineteenth
century. The appearance of the building is similar
to that in historic photographs.
Figure 8-141. Widows’ House, pre-1889 photo showing old
gabled porch (Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 8-144. Photomontage ca. 1900 showing interior
and exterior details of Widows’ House (Moravian Church
Archives).
Figure 8-142. Widows’ House, post-1889 photo showing current
porch and annex (Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 8-143. Floor plan of Widows’ House, post-1795 (Moravian
Church Archives).
Figure 8-145. Photomontage ca. 1900 showing interior details of
Widows’ House (Moravian Church Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 218

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The interior of the Widows’ House has reportedly
been changed considerably to accommodate modern
living standards. Due to continued residential
occupancy, the interior was not examined in this
study.
Condition
Summary
The Widows’ House is a two-and-one-half-story
oblong stone building with a side-gabled slate
roof. It faces north toward Church Street and its
basement level is exposed at the back. It was built
in three stages, all of which are clearly visible. The
1768 main block is nine bays wide and three bays
deep. A second section was added to the east end
of the first in 1795. This has the same side profile,
with less refined stonework, and is two bays wide
and thee bays deep. The steep-pitched roof over
both sections has slightly flared eaves and conceals
a double-level attic with dormers on both floors. At
the rear of the house near the east end is a one-story
gabled addition at ground level, with two doors.
A hyphen and rear annex were added on the south
in 1889. Both are two-and-one-half-stories tall plus
an exposed basement level. The hyphen is a narrow
southward extension with three-story full-width
porches on both east and west. It connects at the
south to the much larger annex. The shared gabled
slate roof runs perpendicular to the main block, and
the walls are constructed of random local stone with
red brick detailing. The annex is nine bays long and
five bays wide, and its primary façade faces west.
Queen Anne details include a corbelled red-brick
cornice, an elaborate gabled center dormer with an
arched tripartite window, slate-sided shed dormers
with paired windows, and curved brackets on the
porches. The center entrance bay has a split-level
stairwell with the entrance at grade. The south end
of the annex has a full-width three-story porch
identical in style to those on the hyphen.
and a projecting two-story water closet addition
as a predecessor of the present hyphen. A historic
photomontage indicates that this was the “entrance
to the old kitchen.”
A stone hyphen and large annex were added at the
rear (south) of the main building in 1889. Both the
annex and the hyphen are stone with some Queen
Anne detailing.
Figure 8-146. Widows’ House, 1889 annex, view to southeast
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-147. Widows’ House, 1889 annex, west façade view to
southwest (JMA 2008).
Additions
The main house was extended 20’ eastward in 1795
with a full-height addition. Different stonework
and mortar joints, along with a vertical demarcation
line in the front façade, indicate the juncture.
A small gabled addition with two single doors was
added at grade on the south side of the building
in more recent times. The 1885 Sanborn map
shows a one-story addition at this same location,
Figure 8-148. Widows’ House, 1889 annex west-facing hyphen,
view to east (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 219

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-149. Widows’ House, 1889 annex, east façade view to
northeast (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-151. Widows’ House, north façade, main herringbone
door and typical windows (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-150. Widows’ House, south façade, gabled “entrance to
old kitchen” (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-152. Widows’ House, west façade, Queen Anne window
(JMA 2008).
Doors and Fenestration
A historic wood herringbone door set within an
entry porch forms the primary entrance to the
Widow’s House from Church Street. The double-leaf
door has a six-light transom and a wood threshold,
both in good condition.
Windows throughout the main house are mostly
two-over-two double-hung wood windows, which
are old but not original to the building. Two original
six-over-six windows survive at the basement level
near the southeast corner of the house, and others
are located in the attic on the gable ends. Gabled
dormers in the lower attic have six-over-six windows,
and shed dormers in the upper attic have six-overthree
windows. One turn-of-the-century tripartite
window is on the west side of the first floor near
the front and has diamond-paned wood sash. All
of the windows have modern exterior storm sash.
The first floor front windows have historic paneled
shutters with crescent-moon cutouts, and windows
on the second floor have louvered shutters. Several
Figure 8-153. Widows’ House, north façade, patched brick
basement window (JMA 2008).
small window openings on the west side, which are
probably not original, have been infilled.
Windows in the hyphen and annex are two-over-two
original double-hung windows, except for a few
historic casement windows in the basement toward
the rear. The windows in the hyphen have shutters.
Plain four-panel doors provide access to the porches
on each side, on all three floors. The annex has a
modern wood central double-leaf door at grade
with concrete steps.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 220

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Roofi ng and Drainage
The Widows’ House has a side-gabled slate roof
with a slight flare at the eaves. Three large brick
double chimneys pierce the top of the roof at
irregular intervals, and the double attic features
gabled dormers on its lower level and small shed
dormers on its upper level. Metal snow dogs stud
the lower roof edges. Some rough areas of slate are
located near the gable ends.
The main roof drains to half-round gutters on
the north and south slopes. A downspout at the
northwest corner conveys water from the north slope
to the sidewalk at grade on the northwest corner.
A downspout at the northeast corner descends to
grade at the southeast corner. The drain area at the
southeast corner is very wet and mossy.
The south roof is divided into two areas due to the
intersection with the rear hyphen. The southwest
portion of the main roof drains to a downspout
which connects to the downspouts at the northwest
corner of the hyphen. This juncture appears to
have been disconnected. The southeast portion of
the main roof drains to two separate downspouts,
which connect into a single downspout on the
south façade. The gutter is leaning out and some
slates are missing in this area.
The front flat-roofed porch drains to the east, where
a downspout leads to underground drains.
The Widows’ House hyphen has a gabled slate
roof adjoining the main house roof. The annex has
a hipped slate roof with a top gable. The annex
roof drains to box gutters on the east and west roof
edges. A downspout at the northeast corner drains
to underground drains. The downspout at the
southeast corner drains to a surface boot which is
broken, leading to overflow of water. Downspouts
at the northwest and southwest corners drain to
underground drains. The roof’s west slope has a
gabled central dormer flanked by a shed dormer on
each side, the south slope has one shed dormer, and
the east slope has three shed dormers. The hyphen
and annex have three porches, each of which has
its own gutter/downspout system. An overhanging
deciduous tree above the south porch poses a risk
for debris accumulation inside the gutter.
irregular courses. The main block is pointed with
flat, raised ribbon joints and light-colored mortar.
Rusty staining on the stone appears to be a natural
reaction between minerals in the stone and rainfall
running down it. Segmental arched lintels in the
windows are made of hand-molded brick. Those on
the basement windows show evidence of patching.
The west gable end is constructed of brick at its top
level, suggesting that the roofline changed at some
point, possibly from a jerkinhead (hipped) roof to
a gable.
Figure 8-154. Widows’ House, west façade gable, brick area
showing probable change in roofline (JMA 2008).
The east wall of the 1795 extension is coated with
parged white stucco scored to resemble stone blocks.
The stonework in the extension has smaller, less
consistent stone blocks which are slightly darker,
and the corner has pronounced large quoins. The
pointing on the east extension is slightly different
from the original section.
The Widows’ House annex is constructed of much
darker limestone and has weathered to black and
rust colors due to the stone reacting to water. Its
mortar joints show two different campaigns: some
is gray mortar with slightly recessed joints, while
other areas have black-tinted mortar with flat
ribbon joints. Horizontal bands of molded red
Masonry
The Widows’ House is constructed of lightcolored
ashlar local limestone blocks, laid in
Figure 8-155. Widows’ House, 1889 annex, west façade, contrast
between mortar joint types (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 221

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
brick divide the stonework across the façade on
each side at the level of the second- and third-floor
windowsills, and the windows have brick arches.
The brick mortar is tinted pink and the brickwork
may have been painted pink or red.
Wood
A flat-roofed porch shelters the front entrance to the
Widows’ House main building. It has a wood deck
and ceiling, plain narrow wood piers with simple
Queen Anne brackets at the top, and built-in wood
benches on each side. This porch dates from the late
1800s and replaced a simpler front-gabled porch; it
was probably added ca. 1889 when the rear annex
was built and exhibits details similar to the porches
on the annex.
The Widows’ House annex is connected to the main
house with a hyphen, which features open threestory
frame porches on each side. A third threestory
porch is located across the entire south end of
the building. Each porch has plain square piers with
scroll brackets at the top and rebuilt balustrades.
The east hyphen porch has wooden steps from the
first floor to the yard. The bottom three steps exhibit
some rot, and the porch overall needs painting. The
west hyphen porch also needs paint.
Other Features
A historic wall-mounted lantern is set above the
main door of the annex.
Interior
Floor plans and historic photos indicate a central hall
leading to a staircase near the back. A perpendicular
corridor crosses the central hall and extends to each
end of the house. This provides access to suites of
rooms on each side. The original floor plan had four
suites per floor, each with two or three rooms and a
fireplace. The 1795 extension added two one-room
units on each floor, again with fireplaces. Access to
the hyphen and annex is through a passageway at
the back of the center stair hall. The interior was
not accessible, but reportedly was renovated and
modernized during the 1980s. Its overall integrity
is not known.
Current Use
The Widows’ House main building and annex
collectively house 13 apartments and seven guest
rooms. Moravian widows and Moravian Theological
Seminary students reside in these units.
Treatment
The interior of the Widows’ House should receive a
Rehabilitation treatment. Alterations have already
been made. Continued use of the building for
residential purposes will be dependent on periodic
updates to maintain accessibility, safety, and quality
of life for the residents. Remaining historic fabric
should be preserved and new elements should be
as sympathetic as possible.
Figure 8-156. Widows’ House, 1889 annex east-facing hyphen,
rot occurring in wooden steps (JMA 2008).
The south porch exhibits some cracks in its posts,
which are probably not structural but may warrant
further examination.
The wood elements elsewhere on the building,
including shutters, are generally in good condition.
The cornice needs paint.
Figure 8-157. Widows’ House, west gable, note missing slate
(JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 222

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The Widows’ House has an unusually high degree
of historical integrity on its exterior, which should
receive a Preservation treatment.
Maintenance issues at the Widows’ House include
the following:
• The cornices and porches of the annex need
paint.
• The slate roof should be repaired in areas
of broken or missing tiles.
• The steps from the east porch are beginning
to rot and should be repaired.
• The downspout base at the southeast
corner should be replaced and water
should be directed away from the house
and areaways.
• The downspouts at the southwest corner of
the main house should be reconnected to
the downspout at the northwest corner of
the annex.
Clewell Hall – 1867
Historical Development
Clewell Hall was constructed in 1867 in the French
Second Empire style. It was a private residence
for over 70 years. In 1941, it was purchased by
the Moravian Seminary and College for Women
to house college-level students and faculty. It was
named Clewell Hall in honor of the college’s first
president. By 1947, it contained a faculty apartment
on the first floor, plus living rooms for the dormitory.
The second and third floors were student bedrooms
(Hampson 1947:14).
Since the merger of 1954, Clewell Hall has been used
as a men’s dormitory with the important purpose
of housing male students on a campus that had
been all-female previously. In 1967, the house was
updated substantially on the inside and the exterior
was rehabilitated.
Signifi cance
Clewell Hall is a fine example of a French Second
Empire residence, retaining many original
characteristic elements of the style and possessing
high exterior integrity. The National Register
of Historic Places nomination for the Central
Bethlehem Historic District refers to Clewell Hall
as one of a small number of high-style examples
of Second Empire within the Bethlehem Historic
District.
Integrity
The exterior of Clewell Hall retains a high level of
historic integrity. The interior has some historic
fabric remaining, including an Italianate mantel, but
has largely been modernized and institutionalized
for use as a dormitory.
Condition
Summary
Clewell Hall is a three-story French Second Empire
house with a slate-clad mansard roof. It is set on
a slope facing north toward Church Street, and
the basement level is at grade in the back (south).
The house sits abutting the front sidewalk and is
slightly raised. It has a complex, roughly L-shaped
footprint with a short, full-height rear ell on the
west end of the south side, and a longer secondary
kitchen ell at the south end of the first ell, which
includes just the basement and first floor. The main
block of the house has multiple hexagonal bay
Figure 8-158. Clewell Hall, view of north façade from Church
Street (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-159. Clewell Hall, view of rear (south) façade (JMA
2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 223

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
windows, including a first-floor wood bay window
unit on the first floor front, a turret-like full-height
brick bay window projection at the east end of the
south wall, and a wood bay window unit on the
first and second floors of the south wall. At the rear
is a three-story porch. The lower two levels of the
porch correspond to the basement and first floor,
and span the entire south wall of the house and
east wall of the two ells. The top level of the porch,
corresponding to the second floor, is much shorter,
extending east from the ell to the full-height end
bay window. A flight steps descends through the
porch from the kitchen ell section’s first floor to the
basement level.
Additions
Clewell Hall has no additions.
Doors and Fenestration
The main entrance to the house is on the north
(street) side, and features slightly recessed original
wood paneled paired doors with elliptical lights
and an arched top. A bracketed hood and paneled
arched surround shelter the doors, and newer brick
steps and a modern railing provide access from the
sidewalk. The doors have a sandstone threshold.
The wood door surfaces need full refinishing with
the use of polyurethane due to heavy use. The
door hood needs new flashing to avoid rot in the
cornice.
A secondary north entrance has a two-panel
original single door with a segmental-arched
transom, bracketed hood, and newer brick steps
and railings.
At the rear, entrances are present in several places
and provide access into the basement level, or access
from the house to the three-story porch. Each floor
has an entrance, and there are two at the basement
level. The doors are simple wood panel doors.
Windows throughout the house are two-over-two
original double-hung wood sash. Those on the attic
level are dormers with segmental-arched tops and
deep hoods. The windows on the north primary
façade of the house also have ornate projecting
segmental-arched hoods. Minor repainting is
recommended for these elements, which are in good
condition. On the first floor front is a projecting
wood bay window, which needs painting.
Roofi ng and Drainage
Clewell Hall has a mansard roof clad in original
fishscale-pattern slate. The roof drains to box gutters,
which lead to a downspout on the northeast corner.
The downspout drains to another box gutter on the
second floor porch and from there down a spout
to a concrete swale at grade, which is partially
blocked by recycling bins. The porch roofs at the
rear lack gutters and water runs off them directly
to the ground. Some ponding of water is occurring
at grade at the front (north) where there is a brick
sidewalk, and on the west where there is concrete
paving.
Masonry
Clewell Hall’s exterior walls are handmolded brick
with pale brown historic mortar, and its foundation
is parged cement. Rising damp is occurring in the
brick in front of the house, particularly around the
front steps where joints are failing.
Figure 8-160. Clewell Hall, northeast corner of roof cornice. Rot
is occurring around downspout (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-161. Clewell Hall, rising damp around front main
entrance (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 224

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Wood
The house has a considerable amount of original
wood exterior ornament, all of which is painted
in a two-tone color scheme. Most notable is an
elaborate original wooden cornice with sawtooth
carving along the base and paired scroll brackets
featuring lacy Eastlake-style incised carving. The
cornice needs paint and is in solid condition except
for some rotting at the northwest corner and at the
northeast corner adjacent to the downspout.
Paneled shutters adorn the windows on the front
of the house. These are in good condition, needing
minor repainting work.
The house has a three-level wooden rear porch,
corresponding with the basement and first and
second floors. The porch is supported by brick
piers at the basement level, and retains its historic
columns, ceilings, and flooring. The top level
has some rot in the floorboards due to drainage
problems. Repainting is recommended for the
wood porch structure and interior steps.
Figure 8-163. Clewell Hall, interior front hall (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-162. Clewell Hall, rotting porch floorboards, second
floor (JMA 2008).
Other Features
Clewell Hall has original cast iron vents in its
basement level on the north side. One has split and
another is loose. Next to the secondary door on
the north side is a wall-mounted cylindrical metal
lantern.
Interior
The interior is institutionalized for use as a dormitory
with new carpeting, lighting, radiators, hardware,
dropped ceilings, restrooms, fire-safety features,
and exposed sprinkler pipes. Some historic fabric
Figure 8-164. Clewell Hall, surviving fireplace, typical room
finishes (JMA 2008).
remains, notably the original staircases, a parlor
fireplace surround, baseboards and window/door
moldings.
Current Use
Clewell Hall remains in use as a men’s dormitory
for the Hurd Campus.
Treatment
It is recommended that Clewell Hall receive a
Rehabilitation treatment. What remains of its
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 225

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historic interior fabric should be preserved, and
modifications to the well-preserved exterior should
focus on repair and maintenance. The high-style
details and high integrity level on the exterior
should be retained to the greatest possible extent.
Maintenance issues at Clewell Hall include:
• Rotting areas of the rear porches and
cornices should be repaired.
• Drainage at the front sidewalk should be
improved to shunt water away from the
house.
• Gutters and downspouts to drain the porch
roof should be installed.
8.2 Steel Field
Grandstand – 1916
Historical Development
The Grandstand was part of the original sports
field constructed by Bethlehem Steel as a soccer
field for employee use. The field was home to the
Bethlehem Steel Soccer Club, an industrial amateur
league formed in 1913. A combination gymnasium
and grandstand was constructed at the field in
1916. After 1930, the club went professional and
eventually founded the American Soccer League.
Bethlehem Steel eventually sold the field to Lehigh
University. By the 1950s, Lehigh was expanding its
campus and no longer needed Steel Field. Lehigh
sold it to Moravian College in 1962, although this
move had been anticipated sooner. In 1961, prior
to the final purchase, Moravian obtained land
immediately to the south of the field, across Laurel
Street. Once the acquisition of Steel Field was
complete, this section of Laurel Street was closed
and Moravian had 15 acres of level land for playing
fields.
Beginning in 1963, Steel Field was used for soccer,
baseball, and intramural basketball. In the late
1960s, the college improved the site with a new field
house, new outdoor bleachers near the grandstand,
a new baseball field, and upgrades to the existing
fields. The improved Steel Field was dedicated in
1967. The Hoffman Tennis Courts were constructed
in memory of Howard Hoffman, who promoted
the sport during his time as a professor and then
left a sizable estate to the College. Funds from the
bequest were used to build the courts, which were
dedicated in 1969. In 2005, the Grandstand was
renovated and a number of changes were made
to its appearance. These renovations included
the replacement of the structural steel, ceiling
repairs, interior painting, and waterproofing
work on the exterior (Schamberger 2008, personal
communication).
Signifi cance
The Grandstand is an example of a relatively early
twentieth century event-viewing structure. Solidly
constructed with a steel-truss roof fabricated by its
owner, it had a roof and glass side walls to shelter
spectators and interior space below the bleacher
seats to accommodate a small gymnasium, locker
rooms, restrooms and other amenities. Though
relatively austere in appearance, it was a far
sturdier and more permanent grandstand than
most of the period, which were typically of frame
construction. It also combined the purpose of an
exterior grandstand with an interior gymnasium,
Figure 8-165. Steel Field, view to west from the street (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-166. Steel Field, view to northwest from the field (JMA
2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 226

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
providing for both indoor and outdoor athletics.
Its industrial-looking street façade with elegant
cornice ornamentation helped it to blend in with
the neighborhood.
Integrity
The Steel Field Grandstand has a moderate to low
level of integrity. Its original brick surface and
concrete details on the street side are intact, as are an
original door on the east side. Major changes include
the bricking up of all original windows on the field
side under the bleachers, on the street façade, and at
the top rear of the viewing section. Also, the original
clear paneled side walls of the viewing section were
removed and the sides were rebuilt and partially
infilled with brick. More recent changes include the
installation of new caps atop the historic pilasters
on the front wall of the Grandstand overlooking
the fields and some remodeling of the steps on each
side, the installation of modern cladding around
the front and sides of the Grandstand roof, and
replacement of the original structural steelwork
inside the viewing area. The interior could not be
fully examined but appears to retain considerable
historic fabric at the entrance area on the east end.
Figure 8-167. Steel Field, east entrance to the grandstand interior
(JMA 2009).
Condition
Summary
Steel Field’s grandstand is an approximately threestory
concrete and brick structure, which is open
on its south side facing the track and playing
fields. It is clad in red brick and has gray concrete
accent details. Its low-pitched side-gabled roof is
concealed behind parapets on all four sides. Modern
cladding covers the three sides immediately above
the bleachers. The grandstand has a full first floor
under the stands, with entrances from the east and
south. The open stands face the track and field
and have steel support columns and exposed roof
trusses. Concrete steps lead to the grandstand from
street level at both ends, and built-in concrete steps
with brick wing walls provide access from the field
level into the stands.
Additions
There are no additions to the grandstand.
Doors and Fenestration
Several doors provide access to the interior. The
main building entrance for spectators is on the east
Figure 8-168. Steel Field, infilled windows on first floor (JMA
2009).
side of the building on the first floor. This has an
original door and two-light transom, both in good
condition. The door has four lights, which are
reglazed with security glass, and two panels. Its
original hardware is extant.
Another entrance is a single door facing the field on
the south side. This off-center entrance has a metal
replacement door. The entrance was originally
wider, probably with double doors, but is infilled.
The grandstand originally had bands of industrial
steel windows at the first, second, and third levels
on the north (street) façade, and on the first-floor
level facing south. These have all been bricked up,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 227

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and some of the infill on the south side contains
modern metal louver vents. Four of the secondlevel
window areas on the north side are fully
infilled with wooden louver vents of uncertain
age. The wood louvers are deteriorated and need
repainting.
Roofi ng and Drainage
The roof of the grandstand is hidden behind
vinyl-capped parapets and not visible from the
ground. Aerial views indicate it has a low-pitched
side-gabled profile and is covered with built-up
(EPDM) roofing, showing a number of patches. The
roof drains to internal gutters leading to multiple
galvanized-metal downspouts along the north,
east, and west sides of the building. A gutter on the
east side at the northeast corner drains directly to
the sidewalk, where significant water damage to
the foundation parging has occurred. Downspouts
on the north side drain to concrete swales and then
to the street. Another downspout descends into a
basement areaway, where it enters an underground
drain. There is evidence of at least one former
downspout on the north wall that was removed
after causing leak damage to the brick.
Masonry
The grandstand is built of concrete block faced
with brick veneer, with concrete caps on the steps
and façade ornamentation. The tops of the walls
form flat-topped parapets with vinyl caps around
the entire building. Flat full-height brick pilasters
are located on the north and south façades and the
north pilasters cover the corners and wrap around
one bay to the east and west. These are ornamented
with vertical cast concrete details resembling flatted
paired brackets with central chevrons. A concrete
band runs around the cornice of this area, and the
cornice itself features several rows of corbelling.
Projecting horizontal bands of vertical stretchers
span the façade between pilasters at the second and
third floor levels.
The brickwork shows some signs of past damage
and repairs of cracks, notably long vertical
repointed areas on the northwest corner pilaster.
Another pilaster on the north side shows vertical
cracking. The repointed areas have whiter mortar
and wider joints than the original. Infilled areas
and the reconfigured side step walls have differentcolored
brick from the original and appear to have
been done in at least two separate campaigns.
Inside the bleachers, on the interior of the north wall
Figure 8-169. Steel Field, downspout and swale on north side
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-170. Steel Field, gutter draining to sidewalk at northeast
corner, causing significant damage (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-171. Steel Field, concrete detailing on northeast corner
(JMA 2009).
above the infilled windows, efflorescence is visible,
indicating past problems with water leaks and
seepage through the wall. It is unclear whether this
problem has been resolved. Some rising damp was
noted on the east side adjacent to the entrance.
The foundation on the east, north, and west sides
is parged with cement. Several areas of the parging
are stained, cracked, and failing, with severe
damage and delamination near the northeast corner
due to water from the downspout ponding against
the foundation. Past repairs with darker-colored
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 228

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-174. Steel Field, efflorescence on interior walls near
roof (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-172. Steel Field, infilled and reconfigured side wall on
east (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-175. Steel Field, deterioration of parging and
foundation, east steps (JMA 2009).
materials are evident. Rising damp is evident in
exposed foundation brick on the north side. Much
of this can be attributed to leaks from gutters and
water ponding at grade. Better drainage at grade is
needed to shunt water away from the foundation.
Water ponding against the wall is also a problem
on the east steps and upper sidewalk, where again,
better drainage solutions should be considered.
Steel
The grandstand has a steel roof supported by a steel
truss system and interior steel columns. These are
relatively new and appear to be in good condition.
Other Features
Figure 8-173. Steel Field, repointing on pilaster, northwest
corner (JMA 2009).
The east façade has commemorative plaques
adjacent to the main entrance. One next to the door
commemorates the Bethlehem Steel Football Club
(soccer). A relatively modern plaque inside the
entrance gate is a dedication of the Tim Breidegam
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 229

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• Roof and gutter leakage should be regularly
examined and repaired if needed.
• Wood louvers on north side should be
repainted.
8.3 North Main Street
Campus
Figure 8-176. Steel Field, view of steel infrastructure (JMA
2009).
Track (1984, rededicated 1995) and Rocco J. Calvo
Field. The plaques are in good condition.
Interior
The interior contains locker rooms, restrooms, and
a ticket office. It originally also contained a small
gymnasium, but it is unclear whether this is intact.
It retains some historic fabric within the main
entrance area, notably the ticket window, corridor,
and several original paneled doors.
Current Use
Steel Field remains in use for college athletic
programs and games.
Treatment
The Grandstand should receive a Rehabilitation
treatment, as the College will need to use and adapt
the structure in the future. ADA access to restrooms
should be considered, possibly including permanent
ramps in keeping with the original structure.
Remaining historic fabric should be repaired and
retained. If increased use of the interior is needed,
the College may want to consider reopening the
infilled windows to allow natural light inside.
Maintenance issues noted at the grandstand
include:
• The drainage on the north side and at the
northeast corner of the building should be
reconfigured to direct water away from the
building and prevent runoff and ponding
along the steps and foundation.
• Repair foundation and parging once
drainage issues are resolved.
• Future repairs to the brickwork and
foundation parging should use comparable
materials and colors to the original.
The North Main Street Campus of Moravian
College contains a core of academic, athletic, and
administrative buildings, with student housing
located to the west and southwest of the core.
Contributing buildings include:
• Comenius Hall/Borhek Chapel/Harvey
Memorial Library,
• Hamilton Hall,
• Zinzendorf Hall,
• Monocacy Hall,
• Memorial Hall,
• Johnston Hall, and
• Colonial Hall.
Comenius Hall – 1891
Historical Development
Comenius Hall was one of the first two new
buildings erected at the North Main Street campus
of the Moravian College and Theological Seminary,
with the other being the refectory now known
as Zinzendorf Hall. Hamilton Hall, dating from
ca. 1820, stood nearby and became the Resident
Professor’s House. Completed in 1891, Comenius
initially housed most of the functions of the newly
relocated College and Theological Seminary.
Figure 8-177. Comenius Hall, general front view to northwest
(JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 230

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The building contained classrooms, a basement
gymnasium, and dormitory rooms on the three
upper floors.
Comenius was designed in an elaborate Romanesque
style by A.W. Leh, a Lehigh Valley architect who
specialized in church and academic buildings,
including several buildings at Lehigh University.
Figure 8-178. Comenius Hall, front view to west (JMA 2008).
The rusticated Potsdam sandstone façade is adorned
with Wyoming bluestone, Indiana limestone, terra
cotta ornament and Moravian tiles, and its roof is
made of local slate.
Within two years after the completion of the main
building, the Helen Stadiger Borhek Memorial
Chapel was added to the north end of Comenius.
The elegant Gothic Revival chapel was donated
by Mr. and Mrs. Ashton C. Borhek in memory of
their daughter. It was dedicated in 1893. An 1896
pipe organ was replaced in 1950 with a new pipe
organ, given by the Burwell Smith family (Weinlick
1977:4,85).
The Harvey Memorial Library, a gift to the school
from John Cennick and Charles Edward Harvey
in memory of their parents, was constructed in
1907-1908. Its 1907 cornerstone-laying coincided
with the school’s Centennial celebration. In 1910,
a Students’ Hall was established on the library’s
third floor. The room occupied the entire floor and
Figure 8-179. Comenius Hall, rear view to northeast (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-181. Comenius Hall, Borhek Memorial Chapel, front
view to northwest (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-180. Comenius Hall, rear view to northeast (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-182. Comenius Hall, Borhek Memorial Chapel, view to
southeast (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 231

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-183. Comenius Hall, Harvey Memorial Library, view to
west (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-184. Comenius Hall, Harvey Memorial Library, view to
northeast (JMA 2008).
was furnished for use as a social and assembly hall
(Weinlick 1977:4,17-18). The new library balanced
the chapel at the opposite end of Comenius,
completing a symmetrical trio of impressive
campus buildings.
On Halloween 1913, a fire broke out in the freight
elevator shaft of Comenius and swiftly gutted the
three upper floors of dormitory rooms. The chapel
and library were spared, but the main building
was severely damaged. Within a year, Comenius
was reconstructed with some changes to make it
stronger and more fireproof. The original wood
staircase was replaced with a steel version. The
roof was supported by new steel trusses set on
four-story inner brick walls and steel columns, and
the halls were lined with fireproof cement flooring
(Weinlick 1977:23-24).
As time passed, certain functions within Comenius
were moved to newer buildings, and space inside it
was repurposed to meet changing needs. The science
facilities were moved to the new Memorial Hall in
1923. With the completion of Colonial Hall in 1930,
the second-floor dormitory rooms in Comenius
were converted to classroom and office space. A
round of renovations in the mid-1940s rebuilt this
second-floor space to increase capacity, converted
a first-floor student lounge to a classroom, and
relocated the lounge to the basement, where a new
cloakroom and bookstore were added. Following
the merger with the Moravian Seminary and
College for Women, the third floor of Comenius
was converted to four large classrooms in 1957. In
the early 1960s, the college administrative offices
in Comenius were moved to Colonial Hall and the
vacated office space became classrooms. Meanwhile,
the fourth-floor dormitory rooms were repurposed
as faculty offices, and Comenius ceased to function
as student housing. Harvey Library was outgrown
by 1960 and part of its collection was moved to a
new Library Annex in the former gymnasium, now
known as Monocacy Hall (Weinlick 1977:41,71-
72,109.
In the late 1960s, major changes occurred in the
Comenius complex. The Chapel was restored to
its original appearance in 1967. In 1968, the 1914
steel center stairway in Comenius was removed
and replaced by fireproof stairwells at either end of
the building. With the removal of the entire library
collection to the new Reeves Library in 1967, the
double-height library space of Harvey Library was
converted to classroom and office space. The first
floor held a semicircular lecture hall and offices,
and a newly built second floor housed additional
offices.
Signifi cance
Comenius Hall is the most prominent building on
Moravian’s North Main Street campus. Comenius
Hall and its neighbor, Zinzendorf Hall, are the
oldest of the buildings purposely constructed for
the Main Street campus of Moravian College and
Theological Seminary. Early in its history, Borhek
Memorial Chapel was added at the north end and
Harvey Memorial Library at the south end. The
three connected buildings, now known collectively
as Comenius Hall, form the center focal point of
the historic campus. Its imposing east façade, set
at the top of an expansive lawn, is the predominant
image for the Main Street campus. Its architecture
is a unique, distinctive, and creative interpretation
of both Romanesque Revival and Gothic Revival,
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 232

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
incorporating Moravian terra-cotta tiles and
a variety of stone into an ornate, polychrome
composition of arches and gables. The building
exhibits moderate to high integrity inside and out.
With its fine workmanship, evocative presence,
and importance in the history of Moravian College,
Comenius Hall is inarguably the most significant of
the North Main Street campus’ historic buildings.
Integrity
The exterior of Comenius retains a moderate to high
level of integrity. The ornate exterior terra cotta, tile,
and stonework are well preserved, but there have
been some window replacements and infills, plus
new front steps, side stair towers, and rear stairwell
entrances. The interior of the main building has a
moderate level of integrity, and retains a significant
amount of historic fabric. The circulation pattern
inside the building was changed considerably
in the late 1960s when the center stairway was
removed and new end stairwells were added, but
many historic finishes and materials are evident
throughout.
façade incorporating elements of both Romanesque
and Gothic Revival architecture, including Romanarched
windows and Gothic buttresses, gables,
quatrefoils, and finials. The dark stonework is
divided with contrasting horizontal belt courses and
window sills of light limestone, and red and buff
terra-cotta tile spandrels and greenish brownstone
trim are also used. The building has an elaborate
central front dormer on the fourth floor on both the
front and back. The east front has a central main
entrance with a large one-story portico with a stone
balustrade around the top. Modern concrete steps
connect the portico to the front walk.
Comenius Hall is flanked by two later wings. These
additions are connected to the main building by
hyphens and include the single story with vaulted
ceiling Borhek Memorial Chapel (1893) on the north
and the two-and-one-half-story Harvey Memorial
Library (1907) on the south. Borhek Memorial
Chapel is a front-gabled Gothic Revival chapel
with one large stained-glass window assemblage
on each of its three elevations, a north cross-gable,
The interior of Borhek Memorial Chapel is largely
intact, including its original woodwork, furnishings,
and stained glass windows, plus the organ system
from 1950. Harvey Library’s interior has been fully
rebuilt and exhibits little integrity.
Condition
Summary
Comenius Hall is an oblong, three-and-one-halfstory
stone building with a hipped roof and two
cross-gables, with one at each end facing both front
and back. The building’s primary façade faces east
toward Main Street. This large edifice has an ornate
Figure 8-186. Comenius Hall, Harvey Memorial Library, worn
and delaminating stone steps at front entrance (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-185. Comenius Hall, detail of east front gable (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-187. Comenius Hall, front portico, stone delamination
(JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 233

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-188. Comenius Hall, east wall, stone delamination
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-191. Comenius Hall, detail of terra cotta tilework (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-189. Comenius Hall, Borhek Chapel east wall, staining
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-192. Comenius Hall, replaced stone and poor repointing
(JMA 2009).
was added directly onto the south end of Comenius
in 1907. Three-story stair towers were created in the
junctions between these spaces during the 1960s
renovations.
Doors and Fenestration
Figure 8-190. Comenius Hall, Borhek Chapel, paint failure on
window (JMA 2009).
and Gothic buttresses. The front-gabled Harvey
Memorial Library follows much of the same style
as Comenius, but has a Richardsonian Romanesque
influence with large arched windows on its first floor
and a heavy rusticated portico over its entrance.
Additions
Borhek Chapel was appended to the north end
of Comenius in 1893, and a connecting one-story
hallway was built between the two. Harvey Library
Comenius Hall has elaborate oak entrance doors
and surrounds at the three entrances on the east
side. The center door, set within a large front
portico, has a spectacular round-arched glazed and
paneled surround with Gothic tracery on the door
lights. The Borhek Chapel entrance has a sweeping
copper hood and paired paneled oak doors with
single upper lights. A concrete wheelchair ramp
with modern iron balustrades and a modern
concrete doorstep provide access to this entrance.
Harvey Library’s east entrance, set within a stone
portico, is similar to that on the Chapel, but has
brownstone steps.
Entrances at the rear of the building are modern,
consisting of two pairs of blue-painted steel fire
doors installed during the 1960s. These connect to
the hyphens between the original Comenius Hall
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 234

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and its later wings, and correspond to the fireproof
stair towers installed in each of these locations in
1968. A modern bulkhead door to the basement is
located on the west wall near the north end of the
original Comenius Hall.
Figure 8-193. Comenius Hall, main front entrance (JMA 2008).
The overall historic fenestration of the building is
relatively intact. Some windows at the basement
level have been infilled over the years. Comenius
Hall has a system of round-arched windows that
become progressively smaller and more tightly
clustered at each level going upward. Most are
one-over-one double-hung wood windows, but
more elaborate types are found on the first floor.
Harvey Library’s fenestration is similar, but
modern casements were installed in the first floor
windows. Borhek Chapel has a single tall stainedglass
window on each side, including rose windows
on the east and north sides, and a lancet-patterned
windows on the west side. These have some
protective outer glazing, but paint deterioration on
the exterior frames is evident. Severe rot is present
in the lancet window woodwork on the west side.
It is apparent that a phased program for replacing
historic windows in Comenius Hall has already
Figure 8-194. Comenius Hall, modern west entrance (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-195. Comenius Hall, bulkhead doors on west side (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-197. Comenius Hall, historic second-floor windows on
east side (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-196. Comenius Hall, Harvey Memorial Library entrance
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-198. Comenius Hall, replaced second-floor windows
on west side (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 235

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
been initiated. First-floor windows on the east side
of the building, and some upper-story windows on
Comenius, have already been replaced. Although
the replacements are not jarring, they are noticeable
and detract from the building’s integrity. Before any
more historic windows in the building are replaced,
the college is strongly encouraged to adopt the
recommendations and guidelines summarized in
the Overall Conditions-Key Preservation Issues section
of this chapter.
If, during the design phase of the proposed
renovation project or normal course of operations,
it is determined that a historic window or door is no
longer needed as a matter of interior function and
use, the appearance of the window or door should
Figure 8-199. Comenius Hall, replaced first-floor windows on
east side (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-202. Comenius Hall, Borhek Chapel, rotting and wood
damage on exterior of west window (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-200. Comenius Hall, paint failure on historic windows
on west side (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-203. Comenius Hall, typical historic basement window
unit (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-201. Comenius Hall, Borhek Chapel, east rose window
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-204. Comenius Hall, infilled basement window unit
with vent (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 236

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
be maintained on the exterior. No additional door
or window openings should be infilled.
Roofi ng and Drainage
Comenius Hall has a hipped main roof clad in local
slate, with two primary cross-gables in the front and
back, and a large central gabled dormer on all four
elevations. The roof has elaborate trim, flashing,
and finials at major points. Pyramidal finials on
square piers flank the cross gables and the central
gabled dormers, and others are set at the ends of the
main hip of the roof. The roof drains to a system of
historic box gutters and newer downspouts, which
then drain to grade.
Borhek Chapel has a front-gabled slate roof with
narrow vertical buttress piers flanking each gable.
Each pier has a pyramidal finial similar to those on
Comenius Hall, and ball finials top each gable peak.
A cross-gable projects from the center of the north
roof slope. The roof drains to historic box gutters,
and then to modern downspouts on either side of
the north cross-gable.
Harvey Memorial Library also has a front-gabled
slate roof with a side cross-gable facing south. The
front and rear gables have side finials. The roof
system drains to historic box gutters and then to
downspouts flanking the cross-gable on the south
side. The downspouts lead to lengths of PVC pipe
across planting beds and drain to grade.
The roof has been undergoing phased replacement
of its original slate and flashing during recent
years. The new slates used appear to be compatible
in color, size and appearance to historic precedent.
Some of the flashing that has been recently installed
is oversized with a bright finish. The new flashing
should be coated to either resemble traditional,
patinated metal or in a color that blends with the
adjacent stonework. Also, a caulking color other
than white should have been used preferably a
color that matches historic mortar used in adjacent
masonry joints.
The pilaster and roof finials on the building are
significant architectural details. Some appear to
be missing while others appear to have corrosion
problems. It is difficult to ascertain from historic
photos of the building whether these features
were originally white in color. Research should be
conducted on historic colors and materials (likely
copper) that may have been used for the flashing
and finials on the building. Serious consideration
should be given to use the historic colors and
materials in future roofing projects.
Comenius has roof drainage issues similar to other
historic buildings on campus. The system used
historically may not have been adequate to address
the situation. Most, if not all, historic downspouts
have been replaced with new ones of a different
color, material and configuration. Ground drains
are either non-existent or abandoned because of
blockage. Currently, large-diameter PVC piping is
used in some locations to direct water away from
the foundation.
The following guidelines should be used for roof
drainage issues: Any existing copper gutters and
downspouts should be retained as long as they
function effectively even with dents and other
minor damage. Existing non-historic gutters and
downspouts white in color should be replaced
with or painted a color that resembles traditional,
patinated metal such as dark brown or “bronze”.
When replacing non-historic gutters and
downspouts, serious consideration should be given
to purchasing copper as a replacement material.
Long-term durability should offset the higher price.
The large-diameter PVC drainage pipes should be
viewed as a short-term solution only--a plan must be
developed to comprehensively address and resolve
storm water issues on a campus-wide basis.
Masonry
The building’s exterior walls and trim are almost
entirely made of stone with the exception of some
bands and panels of terra cotta tile trim on the
original portion of the building and in the gables
of Borhek Memorial Chapel. Various types of stone
are present, including the primary local stone, and
contrasting greenish brownstone and limestone
Figure 8-205. Comenius Hall, poor repointing on front portico
(JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 237

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
trim. The stonework on the Harvey Memorial
Library is darker and more regular in shape and
coursing than on Comenius Hall and Borhek
Memorial Chapel. Some of the stone used as trim
on the building, especially the Harvey Library
addition, is starting to deteriorate. Certain types
of sedimentary stone are delaminating, flaking
or entire chunks have fallen out. Some limestone
windowsills and masonry units in stringcourses
are cracking and have open joints.
Sections of wall on Comenius appear to have
been re-pointed at various times and occasions
with an inconsistent work quality and likely use
of incompatible mortars. Much of the re-pointing
on the body of the building consists of a raised,
squared mortar joint similar to re-pointing work
observed on other historic buildings on campus.
This needs to be researched to determine if it is
an appropriate mortar joint treatment specific to
the three separate construction events (1891, 1913,
1967) associated with Comenius Hall. Research
should also be conducted on the mortar formula,
color and tooling used to set the terra cotta tiles.
Mortar has fallen out of the joints on some sections
of stonework observed under cover of porch roofs.
Some areas of chronic dampness were noted,
including the basement level on the west façade
where biogrowth is occurring around the window
headers. Efflorescence, indicating salts leaching
from mortar exposed to runoff, is present above
the Comenius Hall and Harvey Memorial Library
porches.
This building also has more iron leaching from
stonework than most other historic stone buildings
on campus. Significant rusty staining has occurred
in most areas of the façade. Since the problem
may be larger than an issue of aesthetics, further
analysis must be conducted to determine the cause
and source. Factors to consider are the natural
iron inclusions in the stone used in the body of the
building, iron structural reinforcement that may
have been added to the building during renovations
over the years, and even the possibility that iron tie
rods might have been driven into the stonework to
anchor a trellis that may have been used when the
façade of the building was completely covered in
ivy.
include the historic oak doors and entranceways,
windows and window frames. The oak entrance
areas on the east side are in good condition, but
many historic window frames are deteriorated and
generally need painting and repair.
Other Features
Comenius Hall has some exterior metal features of
note. Original built-in gutters on the building have
projecting painted metal ends with rosettes. A large
lantern is suspended within the main entrance
portico and appears to be in good condition. There
is a historic copper-clad hood above the entrance to
Borhek Memorial Chapel.
Interior
The interior of Comenius Hall has been
substantially altered and has seen many changes in
use. Destruction of the upper floors of Comenius
during a 1913 fire resulted in major rebuilding of
the interior. Both this renovation and a later round
of renovations in the 1960s made the building
more fireproof. The later renovation changed the
historic circulation pattern within the building due
to removing the center stairs and installing modern
fireproof stairwells in new towers at each end.
Rooms within the building have been reconfigured
multiple times to accommodate different uses and
increase capacity. Dropped ceilings, fluorescent
lighting, and some wall-to-wall carpeting have
been installed. Still, considerable historic fabric,
including woodwork, flooring, windows and doors,
wainscoting, chalkboards, and closets, remains
intact.
The interior of Comenius has a central first-floor
entrance hall connecting to a longitudinal corridor,
which leads north to the chapel and south to the
Wood
Significant wood architectural details that require
attention and a preservation treatment approach
Figure 8-206. Comenius Hall, first floor main hall (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 238

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
former library. Offices and large corner classrooms
occupy this floor. The halls are lined with beadboard
wainscoting, which appears to have been painted
at one time and later stripped and varnished, and
brass light fixtures add to the ambiance of the
hall area. The long corridors on the upper floors
are lined with two-tone painted wainscoting and
feature a number of historic doors and doorframes.
Each floor holds a combination of offices and
classrooms of various size. Some classrooms have
exposed hardwood floors. Lines in the flooring and
corresponding wall ghosts in some upper-level
classrooms are evidence of their conversion from
a group of small dormitory rooms. Many of the
upstairs rooms are in their original configuration
and used as office spaces.
appears to have survived; its interior is otherwise
fully modernized.
Borhek Chapel remains largely intact, including
its original woodwork, pews and stained glass
windows. A hyphen with rusticated, white-painted
stone walls connects it to Comenius. The original
chapel organ was replaced in 1950, and the new
organ’s infrastructure is housed inside the walls
on either side of the apse, necessitating the infill of
The Harvey Library was fully rebuilt on the inside
at the time of the 1960s renovations when it was
no longer needed as a library. Only its original
oak-framed corridor entrance on the first floor
Figure 8-209. Comenius Hall, third-floor southeast classroom,
created from three original dorm rooms (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-207. Comenius Hall, historic first-floor wainscoting,
paint stripped and wood refinished (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-208. Comenius Hall, original first-floor north classroom
showing typical interior conditions (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-210. Comenius Hall, typical doors and woodwork
(JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 239

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
original tall arched niches and the installation of
modern vertical vents. Some cracking and water
damage is evident in the ceiling vaults at the
corners of the room and in the apse, and some paint
failure was observed on the north wall toward the
west end.
Current Use
Comenius Hall is currently used to house classrooms
and faculty offices. The Comenius Center, the
graduate and continuing studies department of
Moravian College, is also located in Comenius Hall
within the former library area.
Treatment
Comenius Hall, including its newer side wings,
is the most significant building at the North
Main Street campus. As such, preservation of its
Figure 8-211. Comenius Hall, second-floor hallway showing
typical conditions on upper floors (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-213. Comenius Hall, Borhek Memorial Chapel interior,
view to west. Note infill of side niches and installation of louvers
for 1950 organ (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-212. Comenius Hall, Borhek Memorial Chapel
interior, historic view to northwest ca. 1900 (Moravian Church
Archives).
Figure 8-214. Comenius Hall, Harvey Memorial Library.
Original oak first-floor entrance doors to library at south end of
Comenius Hall’s main corridor (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 240

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historic elements is of critical importance. It is
recommended that the interior and exterior receive
a Rehabilitation treatment. Much of the extant
historic fabric has survived multiple renovations
and reuses. Repair, maintenance, and preservation
of this remaining building fabric throughout future
changes should be a priority. The current use of
the building is essentially a continuation of an
original use for part of the building (i.e. classrooms
and offices), which then spread to upper floors. As
such, this is felt to be a good use of the building
and it is recommended that this or similar uses be
employed in the future.
As of early 2009, plans for a major renovation of
Comenius Hall are underway. This is an opportunity
to implement the guidelines and recommendations
outlined in this preservation plan. Anticipating a
comprehensive design approach to the upcoming
renovations for Comenius, an opportunity will be
Figure 8-215. Comenius Hall, large crack in stonework on west
side indicating structural settling (JMA 2009).
created to not only upgrade building systems, but
also to better integrate them into the existing historic
fabric of the building. It is apparent that building
system installations and upgrades in Comenius
Hall were often implemented in a piecemeal
fashion over many years with little consideration
of significant architectural features and historic
fabric. The systems that will likely require upgrade
and a sensitive design approach include electrical,
plumbing, HVAC and fire suppression.
Structurally, there appears to be a section on the
northwest corner of the original Comenius Hall
building adjacent to the chapel that has settled
sometime in the past. A sag is evident in the wall,
and the resulting cracks between masonry units
have since been re-pointed. No new cracks were
observed. Historic windows and their frames in this
area have become distorted and even inoperable,
and there is clear evidence of past repairs to keep
the window sash functional despite the settling and
resultant crookedness. The condition may have
stabilized, but the building should be examined
by a structural engineer as part of the upcoming
renovation plan.
Other maintenance issues include:
• Address soft stone flaking and spalling
throughout building exterior.
• Investigate gutter and downspout
conditions, make needed repairs, and seek
ways to provide adequate and effective
drainage of runoff.
• Examine and repair rotted west chapel
window wood elements.
• Scrape, sand, and repaint historic windows
and wood window frames where paint is
peeling and failing.
• Perform selective repointing and masonry
repairs using compatible materials and
methods.
Hamilton Hall – 1820
Historical Development
Figure 8-216. Comenius Hall, original window on west side
showing effects of building settling and alterations made to
adjust window frames and sash to the slant (JMA 2009).
Hamilton Hall was constructed in 1820 as a
farmhouse, and stood in a largely agricultural area
for the next 70 years. In 1889, it was purchased by
the Moravian Church and its lot was combined
with the land designated to become the new home
of Moravian College and Theological Seminary.
The old farmhouse was modernized and soon
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 241

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historical, owing to its age and status as the first
building on an otherwise empty tract that became
today’s campus.
Integrity
Figure 8-217. Hamilton Hall, ca. 1900 historic view to southeast
(Moravian Church Archives).
The exterior of Hamilton Hall has a moderate
level of integrity. While the brickwork survives,
there are only a few remainders of the original
Greek Revival character of the house, notably the
front door surround with sidelights. The original
entrance was modified with a Colonial Revival
hood, an attic dormer and rear addition were
made, and the interior was modernized to create a
home for the Resident Professor in the early 1890s.
Further interior renovations were made during the
twentieth century. Inside the house, an original
staircase and a few other elements survive, but the
overall space is modernized.
Condition
Summary
Figure 8-218. Hamilton Hall, view to southeast (JMA 2008).
housed the Resident Professor of the school. J.
Taylor Hamilton was the first occupant. He became
Resident Professor in 1886, prior to the school’s
move to North Main Street, and continued in that
position until 1903. In 1918, he became president of
the school.
In 1943, the house was renamed Hamilton Hall
and was used as housing for several Theological
Seminary students. In 1954, the first floor was
converted to classrooms. Today, Hamilton Hall is
the home of Moravian’s philosophy and sociology
departments.
Hamilton Hall is a two-and-one-half-story,
side-gabled brick house with a full-height rear
perpendicular ell, and a flat-roofed addition at the
back of the ell. Its overall style is a modest vernacular
late Federal-early Greek Revival with 1890s Queen
Anne additions. It has a slate roof and internal brick
chimneys on each gable end. Windows on the west
and north sides of the building have been replaced
with six-over-six modern vinyl sash, with the
exception of the attic windows. Original windows
and doors are extant on the south and east sides.
The main block has a side-passage plan with its
main entrance to the south side of the primary west
façade. It has a squarish footprint and is three bays
Signifi cance
Hamilton Hall is the oldest building on the North
Main Street Campus, predating the other College
buildings by 70 years. Though built as a simple
Greek Revival farmhouse, the loss of its rural
setting, the 1890s renovations to make it into a
professor’s home, and more recent renovations
during the 20th century, have eliminated much of
its physical integrity. Its significance is primarily
Figure 8-219. Hamilton Hall, view to northeast (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 242

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
around the east corner. There is a hipped slate-clad
pent roof overhang at the second floor level. The
floor of the first-floor porch has been replaced
with a poured concrete deck and tubular steel
balustrade. A small secondary brick chimney is at
the northeast corner of the ell, below its main gable
chimney. The small chimney is spalling and may
need to be rebuilt.
Figure 8-220. Hamilton Hall, view to north (JMA 2008).
At the rear of the ell is a small 1890s addition,
two bays long and one bay wide, which is offset
towards the north and similar in footprint to the
ell. This section has a metal fire escape on its south
side, and a street-level door on the north side of the
first floor has been infilled with brick.
Additions
Hamilton Hall has a two-story gabled rear ell,
probably original. A shed-roofed two-story brick
addition was appended to the east end of the ell
ca. 1891-1892 when the college acquired the house
and renovated it for the Resident Professor. Among
other things, this provided a street entrance from
the north.
Doors and Fenestration
Figure 8-221. Hamilton Hall, view to west (JMA 2009).
wide in front and two bays deep on the sides. The
primary entrance is sheltered by a bracketed frontgabled
hood dating from the 1890s.
The east ell is slightly narrower than the main block
and two bays long, with a two-story porch along
its entire south elevation. The porch has a hipped
roof extending from the ell roof and wraps slightly
Most of the doors on Hamilton Hall are modern
replacements. One original four-panel door
survives on the upper porch, but the front door is a
modern six-panel door, and the first-floor porch is
accessed by steel security doors. The doors are kept
locked with a card reader system.
The windows in the house are primarily six-over-six
double-hung sash, with two-over-two windows
flanking the chimney stack in each attic gable. Aside
Figure 8-222. Hamilton Hall, north end of west roof slope;
cornice needs paint (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-223. Hamilton Hall, main entrance, view to northeast
(JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 243

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-224. Hamilton Hall, west dormer; woodwork needs
paint (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-226. Hamilton Hall, detail of paint failure (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-225. Hamilton Hall, replaced west windows, wood
frames need paint (JMA 2009).
from the attic windows, all windows on the north
and west sides of the building have been replaced
with unsympathetic vinyl sash. Historic windows
are extant on the south and east sides and have
modern storm windows. The surviving historic
windows and window frames are deteriorating
and need repainting and some reglazing.
Roofi ng and Drainage
The main roof and ell roof of the house are both
historic slate with snow guards around the
bottom. Some of the slates have been replaced with
mismatched materials, and a few loose shingles
were noted on the north slope, but the roof is
otherwise in good condition. The ell has a slate pent
roof above the first floor, and slates in this area are
deteriorating. The shed roof of the rear addition is
nearly flat and slopes toward the south; its cladding
and condition are not visible from the ground.
Figure 8-227. Hamilton Hall, south porch into ell, showing
unsympathetic modern concrete deck, tubular balustrade, and
security doors (JMA 2009).
The west side of the main roof drains to a half-round
gutter with a galvanized downspout at the
northwest corner. This drains to grade in a planting
bed on a slight downslope toward the street. The
northeast main roof and north ell roof drain to a
half-round metal gutter along the north wall of the
ell, and then to a modern downspout at the east
end of the ell. This drains to a rusty galvanized
pipe across the west wall of the addition toward the
street. The southeast main roof and south ell roof
drain to a half-round gutter along the south porch
cornice, and from there to a downspout at the west
end of the porch. This drains to grade in a mulch
bed near the back steps.
The addition roof drains to a south half-round
gutter with a rusting downspout at the east corner.
The downspout feeds into a pipe running north
across the east wall at grade and emptying over a
retaining wall to the street.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 244

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Masonry
The foundation of Hamilton Hall is parged with
cement, which is delaminating in several places
along the south and east walls. As with most
brick buildings at Moravian, Hamilton Hall has
several small areas of deteriorating brick and has
experienced several repointing campaigns. Some
runoff staining is visible on the north chimney and
walls.
The brickwork on the south side of the ell was
painted dark brown. This paint coating is cracking
and flaking off, taking some of the brick surface
with it.
Wood
Hamilton Hall has relatively plain woodwork,
with the exception of its front dormer with mock
half-timbering and the bracketed entrance hood.
Paint is cracking and failing on most of these
elements. Most of the exterior woodwork needs
scraping and painting, including the cornices,
dormer, and window frames. The porch on the ell
has plain wood posts which appear intact, but part
of the porch ceiling is rotting.
Other Features
Figure 8-229. Hamilton Hall, original staircase along south wall
(JMA 2009).
There is a non-historic metal fire escape at the
rear of the ell in a secluded location. On the north
foundation are several historic grates, some with
stone wells.
Interior
The interior of Hamilton Hall has been altered to
serve a variety of uses. The building was renovated
and a large addition was made ca. 1891-1892 to
convert the house to the first Resident Professor’s
House. The first floor was remodeled to function
as classrooms in 1954. A historic staircase and some
Figure 8-228. Hamilton Hall, iron grate and stone well (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-230. Hamilton Hall, typical conditions in office area
(JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 245

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
other details remain, but the overall interior has
modern finishes.
Current Use
Hamilton Hall currently houses Moravian’s
philosophy and sociology departments.
Treatment
It is recommended that Hamilton Hall receive a
Rehabilitation treatment. Remaining historic fabric
should be repaired and retained during future
renovations. Historic windows and the remaining
door should be repaired and retained, and further
replacement with vinyl elements avoided. The
current use appears to be compatible with the
building’s characteristics, and this or a similar use
is recommended for the future.
Maintenance issues noted at Hamilton Hall
include:
• Rusting gutters and downspouts should
be replaced in-kind or with sympathetic
materials, and drainage channeled away
from the foundation.
• Ell pent roof slate should be repaired or
replaced in-kind, as its location poses a
safety hazard if slate falls above the back
entrance.
• Small ell chimney should be examined and
rebuilt if necessary.
• Brown paint
• Most exterior woodwork needs scraping,
sanding, and repainting.
• West window frames need sealing adjacent
to the brickwork.
• Rotting wood on the porch ceiling should
be repaired.
was converted to another dining hall. Following
the merger that formed today’s Moravian College,
the Refectory continued in use as a dining hall on
the basement and first floor, but the second floor
was converted to faculty offices for the Theological
Seminary and the third floor to dormitory rooms.
In 1962, when the Haupert Union Building opened
and dining facilities were relocated there, the
Refectory was renamed Seminary Hall and became
the primary campus building for the Theological
Seminary. The first floor was renovated into
classrooms and a bookstore, and the basement
was remodeled as a lounge with kitchenette.
This arrangement remained until the Theological
Seminary moved to the new Bahnson Center in
1976. With the relocation of the Seminary, Seminary
Hall’s name was no longer accurate and it was
renamed Zinzendorf Hall. In 1977 it became the
home of the English department.
Signifi cance
Zinzendorf is an example of a Dutch Colonial
style campus building, and is one of a relative
few American college facilities constructed in this
style during a period when neoclassicism was
prevalent. It incorporates Queen Anne details as
well, giving it a unique amalgam of architectural
details. It is significant as one of the first two new
buildings erected on the new Moravian College
and Theological Seminary in the early 1890s, and
as a central gathering place for students and faculty
during meals and events.
Integrity
Zinzendorf Hall has a high level of integrity both
inside and out. The interior retains most of its
Zinzendorf Hall – 1891
Historical Development
Zinzendorf Hall was constructed in 1891, at the
same time as Comenius Hall. Originally known
as the Refectory, the building contained a large
dining hall and kitchen on its first floor. The second
floor contained the school infirmary, and the third
floor had quarters for the janitor and servants who
worked at the school. The college laundry occupied
the basement level. In 1943, the basement laundry
Figure 8-231. Zinzendorf Hall, general view to north (JMA
2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 246

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-232. Zinzendorf Hall, view to northeast (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-234. Zinzendorf Hall, view to east, roof dormers (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-233. Zinzendorf Hall, view to east (JMA 2008).
historic finishes, and changes in layout are minor
and recognizable. The exterior likewise retains
most of its original fabric, with the exception of the
cladding over the porch on the northeast corner.
Condition
Summary
Zinzendorf Hall is a two-and-one-half-story oblong
brick building with an ashlar stone foundation and
a slate-clad mansard roof. It is three bays wide and
six bays long, with its main entrances at either end.
The brick is dark red and several raised terra-cotta
stringcourses extend across the façades on all four
sides. Several slightly projecting brick chimneys
extend up the east and west façades. The steep
lower roof has numerous elaborate shed dormers
with brick fronts, slate sides, and scroll brackets
framing multilight double-hung windows. At the
center of each long side is a large hipped dormer.
The eaves on the building and most other external
Figure 8-235. Zinzendorf Hall, view to southeast (JMA 2009).
wood elements are covered with aluminum
cladding. The east side of the building has a threestory
metal fire escape.
The south main façade has a gabled one-story
vestibule with a greenstone water-table course, small
side windows, and original glazed and paneled
double doors. The north end of the building has an
offset single door entrance with a modern door and
old transom. The symmetrical fenestration includes
windows set in pairs along the sides, and single
windows on the ends. All of the windows appear
to be original double-hung wood sash with modern
storm sash, and the primary units have a four-over
one configuration.
On the east side of the first floor is a hip-roofed
frame utility wing with an arched inset porch. Both
the wing and the porch are clad in modern vinyl
siding, and the porch contains a secondary entrance
into the north end of the building. At the south end
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 247

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-236. Zinzendorf Hall, view to southwest, roof detail
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-239. Zinzendorf Hall, frame wing, view to northwest
(JMA 2009).
Doors and Fenestration
Zinzendorf Hall’s south main entrance retains its
paired original paneled doors with nine small upper
lights and brass hardware. The north entrance,
northeast porch entrance, and east basement
entrance all have modern doors.
Figure 8-237. Zinzendorf Hall, view to southwest (JMA 2008).
Most of the historic double-hung windows in the
building are extant, and vary in configuration, but
typically have multiple lights above a single light.
Most are in need of paint and maintenance on the
exterior, despite the presence of storm sash. Some
of the first floor windows need reglazing.
The north window in the third floor of the large
east dormer has been retrofitted as a door to the
fire escape. The arched top of the window space
is preserved as a transom above the modern door.
A few original openings in the building have been
infilled with brick, and several basement windows
and one first-floor window have been infilled with
aluminum panels.
Figure 8-238. Zinzendorf Hall, view to west (JMA 2009).
of the wing, at grade, is a narrow gabled one-story
entrance to a basement under the wing.
Additions
Zinzendorf Hall does not have any additions. The
frame wing and porch are believed to be original.
Figure 8-240. Zinzendorf Hall, detail of south door (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 248

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Roofi ng and Drainage
The main roof and dormers of Zinzendorf are clad
in historic slate. A small number of slates on the
east, north, and west sides are loose, damaged, or
slipping. The roof ridge trim is rusting in places.
The two large hipped side dormers have front
gutters with downspouts draining to the lower
roof. The rest of the roof area drains to half-round
gutters around its entire perimeter. Most of the
gutters are warped, particularly at the north end
of the building. Downspouts at the northwest,
southwest, and southeast corners lead to planting
beds at grade or to PVC pipes extending at grade
toward the lawn. Past damage and repointing is
evident in the foundation and brickwork at the
southwest corner.
Masonry
Zinzendorf Hall has an ashlar stone foundation of
local stone with narrow, gray recessed mortar joints.
This has been repointed in areas with wider flush
joints and whiter mortar, and a portion of the west
foundation appears to have been infilled or relaid.
Along the west wall is an unusual random stone
window well with rough alternating crenellations
along its top and a concrete floor below the
basement windows.
The frame wing’s roof drains to perimeter half-round
gutters; the one on the south side was clogged with
tree debris. The south vestibules drains to east and
west gutters and to downspouts at its inner corners
that lead to grade.
Figure 8-241. Zinzendorf Hall, clogged gutter and tree debris on
frame ell roof (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-243. Zinzendorf Hall, window well on west (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-242. Zinzendorf Hall, falling slate and warped gutter
on southeast dormer (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-244. Zinzendorf Hall, contrast between original and
repointed mortar joints (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 249

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
The brickwork on the building is dark red with
red-tinted mortar laid in narrow recessed joints.
Horizontal raised bands of narrow, striated terracotta
form stringcourses at various heights on the
walls. The brick on both the walls and chimneystacks
has undergone several repointing efforts, including
some with tinted mortar. One chimney on the west
side appears to have been rebuilt at the top. Small
areas of mortar deterioration are apparent. Paint
and/or mortar spatter is visible in several places.
A greenstone water table course runs around
the first floor level of the south vestibule. This is
spalling in several places.
Wood
Most of the original wood elements on the exterior
are covered with aluminum or vinyl cladding,
including windowsills, eaves, and the walls of the
east frame wing and porch.
Figure 8-246. Zinzendorf Hall, fire escape on east side (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-245. Zinzendorf Hall, window cladding detail (JMA
2009).
Other Features
A historic small lantern fixture is mounted above
the south vestibule doors and appears to be in
fair condition, with some deterioration. A newer
lantern in good condition is mounted beside the
north door.
A non-historic metal fire escape spans much of the
east façade, and is accessible from a third-floor door
and second-floor windows.
Interior
The first floor of Zinzendorf originally held the
college refectory, which appears to have occupied
the southern two-thirds of this level. The ornate
south entrance vestibule, with coffered ceiling,
Figure 8-247. Zinzendorf Hall, north first-floor classroom (JMA
2009).
paired inner and outer doors, and built-in shelves,
is extant. The refectory room had elaborate
wainscoting, baseboard-level heating register
grilles, and bull’s-eye woodwork. This room was
later subdivided to form the current large south
classroom and the office pod and hallway to the
north. A second classroom at the north end of the
building has plainer wainscoting; possibly this area
was the servery or a secondary dining area. An
original staircase at the north end of the building
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 250

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
leads to the upper floors. Both the second and third
floors have longitudinal central corridors with
numerous small rooms opening from the corridor.
Historic doors and millwork are present, and
modern restrooms are located on the east side of
each floor. Rooms on the third floor have slanted
walls and dormer windows.
Wall-to-wall carpeting and overhead fluorescent
lighting is installed throughout the building. Old
radiators and registers are extant. Woodwork
throughout the building is painted white. In a
number of areas, including hallway windowsills,
paint is cracking and failing, revealing a varnished
brown subsurface which may reflect the original
finish.
Figure 8-248. Zinzendorf Hall, south first-floor classroom and
former refectory space. Wall with chalkboard is later partition
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-251. Original staircase looking west from second-floor
landing (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-252. Windowsill in east hallway on first floor showing
paint failure (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-249. Original wainscoting in south first-floor classroom
and former refectory (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-250. Cast-iron register in south first-floor classroom
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-253. Windowsill in north hallway on second floor
showing paint failure (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 251

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-254. Coffered ceiling in south entrance vestibule
showing water damage from past leaks (JMA 2008).
Current Use
Zinzendorf houses two large classrooms and a pod
of offices on its first floor. The second and third floors
are offices belonging to the English department.
Treatment
It is recommended that Zinzendorf Hall receive
a Rehabilitation treatment during future work.
This building retains most of its original details
and finishes despite earlier renovations, and it is
recommended that these elements be preserved to
the greatest possible extent. The building’s current
use is sympathetic and this or similar uses are
recommended for the future. Retention of the large
former dining hall space, now a classroom, should
be considered.
Maintenance issues noted at Zinzendorf Hall
include the following:
• Remove vinyl siding and soffits, repair
any damage to woodwork underneath and
maintain historic woodwork.
• Do not re-point any additional brickwork
with original mortar until a formula specific
to the building is developed. Evaluate areas
with incompatible mortar to determine if
existing mortar should be removed and
re-pointed.
• Repair and maintain slate, and replace
damaged or missing slates with compatible
tiles that closely match the original.
• Clean up and remove paint slop on roof
slates and brickwork.
• Clear and repair or replace gutters; perform
regular cleaning and maintenance.
• White metal downspouts would be less
obvious if they were painted or coated a
darker color to blend with the exterior.
• If possible, reverse unsympathetic changes
such as aluminum window coverings.
• Interior paint finishes are failing on a
number of painted wood elements, such
as windowsills and moldings, which were
probably originally varnished surfaces.
Repair or removal of these paint treatments
is recommended.
Monocacy Hall – 1913
Historical Development
Monocacy Hall was built in 1913 as the first
designated gymnasium at Moravian College and
Theological Seminary. Prior to this, the college
gymnasium was a space in the basement of
Comenius Hall. Students of the College took the
initiative to raise funds for a new gymnasium.
The architect was Miles Andrews of Philadelphia,
and the contractor was Forrest F. Speck. The new
building was set on a former tennis court site and
was known as the Gymnasium from the time of
its completion. It had basement locker rooms,
recessed radiators in the walls, an upper-level oval
visitor’s gallery/running track and beamed wooden
truss ceiling (Weinlick 1977:21-22). It remained
the primary athletic building for the college until
Johnston Hall was built in 1952, followed shortly by
the merger that created the coeducational Moravian
College.
Figure 8-255. Monocacy Hall, view to southeast (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 252

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Beginning in 1953, the Gymnasium was used
for a variety of other purposes, which changed
periodically as needs arose. It was used as a
theater from 1953 to 1960. In 1960, it became the
Library Annex, housing overflow materials from
the outgrown Harvey Library. Following the
completion of Reeves Library, the Library Annex
was converted from a library to the Psychology
Department in 1967. At this point it was renamed
Monocacy Hall, in honor of the adjacent Monocacy
Street. Monocacy Hall remained the home of the
Psychology Department until 2004, when it was
renovated once again to house offices for the dean,
registrar, and multicultural affairs (Schamberger
2008).
Signifi cance
Monocacy Hall is the first purpose-built gymnasium
on the North Main Street campus and served as
such for 40 years. Architecturally, it is an example
of a Dutch Colonial Revival campus athletic facility
of its era, which is somewhat unusual in a period
where classical/Georgian Colonial Revival was
prevalent for such buildings. However, Monocacy
Hall is not overly distinctive, and the south atrium
addition and unsympathetic alterations to the
windows have resulted in significant loss of exterior
integrity. Renovation of the interior for alternate
uses has eliminated the primary large gymnasium
space, and little historic fabric remains visible.
Integrity
A considerable amount of the historic architectural
integrity at Monocacy Hall has been compromised
by newer alterations. The building retains moderate
integrity on the exterior, with changes including
replacements and alterations of the original
windows and the addition of a modern atrium
on its south end. Its interior has been renovated
multiple times and a second floor was added in the
original full-height gymnasium space. The original
ceiling, dormers, and roof trusses are visible from
the open upper-level office space, but the interior
otherwise lacks historic fabric.
Condition
Summary
Figure 8-256. Monocacy Hall, view to east (JMA 2008).
Monocacy Hall is a two-story oblong red brick
building with a raised basement. It has an asphaltshingled
Dutch Colonial gambrel roof with small
shed dormers, but otherwise features symmetrical
Colonial Revival details. Its north and south ends
contain the major entrances and are considered
to be the primary façades. Its long sides are five
bays long with double-height, round-arched
Figure 8-257. Monocacy Hall, view to north showing 2004 south
atrium (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-258. Monocacy Hall, view to west-northwest (JMA
2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 253

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
window bays. These bays have been replaced with
modern casement windows and center infill panels
corresponding to a newer second floor inside. The
north end of the building has a one-story portico
with Doric columns sheltering a modernized
entrance. The south end of the building has been
fully covered by a two-story, flat-roofed 2004 atrium
addition, which was designed to be compatible with
the rest of the building and has a portico entrance
similar to the one at the north end.
been infilled with colored and textured concrete
stucco. The original wood casement windows
are still intact in existing basement window wells
although most wells were filled in and the windows
removed. A new entrance was created on the east
elevation by cutting and opening with a masonry
saw. An incompatible steel door was installed and
the brickwork in the door opening remains in an
unfinished condition.
Additions
A large new addition was made in 2004 on the
south end of Monocacy Hall to install an elevator
and create an accessible entrance to the building.
This entailed adding a two-story entrance atrium
with a ground-floor lobby that is open to the top.
The small lobby contains an elevator on one side
and an open staircase on the other side. The original
south brick wall of the gymnasium is exposed and
two of its arched window openings now provide
an overlook from the upper stairwell down into the
lobby.
Windows, Doors and Fenestration
In the adaptive use conversion completed in 2004,
a second floor was added to the interior of the
building. Although the original window openings
were retained, new casement windows, frames
and sills were installed. A panel was added in
the middle of window openings to separate first
floor from second floor windows. Due to the flat
single-pane glazing with simulated muntins, most
of the original depth of reveal on the windows has
been lost. On the north end of the building the
lower half of two original window openings has
Figure 8-260. Monocacy Hall, east side, typical window (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-259. Monocacy Hall atrium entrance, view to northeast
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-261. Monocacy Hall, east side, typical dormer (JMA
2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 254

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Roofi ng and Drainage
Monocacy Hall has a gambrel roof that was, until
recently, clad in local slate. Roofing material was
replaced with a composite asphalt shingle during
the 2004 remodeling.
The building has roof drainage issues similar to those
seen on other historic buildings on campus. The
galvanized gutters are substantially deteriorated
and should be replaced. Ground drains are either
non-existent or abandoned because of blockage.
Currently large-diameter PVC is used as drain
pipes to direct water away from the building’s
foundation. The following guidelines should be
used for roof drainage issues: Existing galvanized
gutters and downspouts should be replaced. The
large-diameter PVC drainage pipes should be
viewed as a short term solution only--a plan must be
developed to comprehensively address and resolve
storm water issues on a campus-wide basis.
Masonry
The building’s exterior walls are brick. Unlike
the other historic masonry buildings on campus,
almost no re-pointing work has been completed.
However, lower courses of brickwork have
deteriorating mortar joints and need re-pointing.
The composition of the original mortar should be
tested and a formula developed for a compatible
match. Care should be taken in hiring a qualified
mason to perform the re-pointing work.
Wood
Much of the exterior trim on Monocacy Hall is
wood. There are places on the building’s exterior
woodwork that require some carpentry work,
specifically on the soffits and north entrance
portico. Also, the north portico is separating from
the masonry wall and the flashing is failing. It
appears that an active bird nest is located where the
gutter penetrates the portico on the wall. As always
required with exposed wood surfaces, periodic
maintenance includes proper removal of loose
paint, sealing, priming and painting.
Figure 8-262. Monocacy Hall, downspout and PVC pipe at
southwest corner, some damage to masonry (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-264. Monocacy Hall, north entrance portico (JMA
2009).
Other Features
No distinctive additional features were identified.
Interior
Figure 8-263. Monocacy Hall, areaway at northwest showing
PVC drainpipes at rear (JMA 2009).
The interior of Monocacy Hall bears little
resemblance to its original appearance. The original
interior was open to the ceiling with exposed
trusswork, full-height windows, and an upperlevel
track/spectator’s gallery around the perimeter.
It was later used as a theater, a library annex, and
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 255

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
office space. Conversion of the building for newer
uses entailed the construction of a full second floor,
reuse of the basement level, and partitioning of the
original space. The interior is now fully renovated
and modernized as an office building.
The basement and first floor are arranged with
lengthwise corridors opening into various offices.
The loft-like second-floor registrar’s office has a
mostly open layout with low cubicle partitions and
is open to the original ceiling. The historic ceiling,
dormers, and trusses are exposed, along with newer
industrial ducts.
A modern atrium lobby at the south end of the
building was constructed to make Monocacy
Hall fully accessible, and includes modern stairs
and a new elevator serving the three levels in the
building. The atrium preserves and exposes the
original brick south wall of the building, including
original fenestration.
Current Use
Monocacy Hall contains offices for Moravian’s
dean, registrar, and multicultural affairs program.
Treatment
Monocacy Hall has already been adaptively reused
and renovated. It is recommended that it receive
Figure 8-265. Monocacy Hall, atrium, showing exposed original
south wall (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-267. Monocacy Hall, second floor open office, exposed
original ceiling and trusswork (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-266. Monocacy Hall, second floor open office, view to
west (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-268. Monocacy Hall, first floor, showing typical
renovated conditions (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 256

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
a Rehabilitation treatment when future work is
considered, and that preservation of its remaining
historic exterior materials and exposed interior
ceiling area be made a priority.
Maintenance issues at Monocacy Hall include:
• Replace rusted out, galvanized half-round
gutters and downspouts.
• Re-nail and tighten up cornice trim on shed
dormers.
• Seal or reset soffit boards.
• Shore up portico to masonry wall and
repair flashing.
• Re-point brickwork especially on lower
courses (develop mortar formula specific
to building).
Figure 8-270. Memorial Hall, view to southeast (JMA 2008).
Memorial Hall – 1923
Historical Development
Memorial Science Hall was built in 1923 as the
college’s first dedicated science building, and was
named to honor Moravians who served in the
armed forces. It housed modern laboratories and
classrooms for biology, chemistry, and physics
classes, and continued to be used as the science
building until 1971, when Collier Hall of Science
was built across Locust Street. Today it houses
classrooms, a computer lab, and the campus media
center.
Signifi cance
Memorial Hall is an example of an early twentieth
century Georgian Colonial Revival academic
building. It was the first campus building purposely
built for a single discipline.
Figure 8-271. Memorial Hall, view to northeast (JMA 2009).
Integrity
The exterior of Memorial Hall is largely intact and
possesses a high level of integrity. The interior,
which was likely austere to begin with, retains little
historic fabric aside from windows and window
molding. Modern renovations have modified the
floor plan and finishes of the interior, leaving little
historic integrity.
Condition
Summary
Figure 8-269. Memorial Hall, view to south (JMA 2009).
Memorial Hall is a three-story rectangular-plan
brick building with symmetrical fenestration, a
side-gabled gambrel roof with gabled end parapets
and mock double end chimneys, oversized gabled
dormers and excellent Georgian Colonial Revival
architectural detail. Its exterior is one of the
least modified and better preserved on campus.
Structurally, the building appears sound, with
only a few hairline cracks observed in the brick
masonry.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 257

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
course of operations, it is determined that a historic
window or door is no longer needed as a matter
of interior function and use, the appearance of
the window or door should be maintained on the
exterior. No additional door or window openings
should be infilled.
It appears that Memorial Hall retains most, if not all,
of its original windows. During inspection several
windows were observed that require reglazing and
repainting. The college is strongly encouraged to
maintain these historic windows and adopt the
recommendations and guidelines summarized in
the Key Preservation Issues section of this report.
Figure 8-272. Memorial Hall, view to northwest (JMA 2009).
Additions
Memorial Hall does not have any additions.
Windows, Doors and Fenestration
The overall historic fenestration of the building
is intact. One window on the west elevation has
been infilled over the years. If, during the normal
One of the important features of the Georgian
Colonial Revival architectural style is a main
entrance door flanked by sidelights and topped
by a fanlight window. Unfortunately, the original
entrance doors have been replaced with modern,
steel fire doors painted a bright blue. Consideration
should be given for the eventual replacement of
these doors with new doors that meet the same
code requirements, but are more decorative in
detail. A solid door with four or six beveled panels
is traditional for the Colonial Revival style. Also,
door hardware should be selected that suggests the
appearance of traditional, patinated metals rather
than a bright, anodized finish.
Roofi ng and Drainage
Figure 8-273. Memorial Hall, north entrance and portico (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-274. Memorial Hall, typical window (JMA 2009).
Memorial Hall has a gambrel roof of which the
upper slopes are at a pitch and angle that cannot
be observed from the ground. The lower slopes are
clad in local slate. Some of the slates appear to be
loose or missing on the south elevation. Flashing
is intact and appears to be of an appropriate color
and material. Any future roof work needed for
the building should follow the recommendations
and guidelines summarized in the Key Preservation
Issues section of this report.
Memorial Hall has roof drainage issues similar to
other historic buildings on campus. The historic
copper leader heads and square downspouts are
still in place on the four corners of the building.
The original gutters integrated into the soffit are
no longer used and have been blocked off. External
half-round gutters are now attached to the eaves.
Only one ground drain is used. For the downspout
with a blocked drain a large-diameter PVC pipe
is used to direct water away from the building’s
foundation. The following guidelines should be
used for roof drainage issues: A historic roofing
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 258

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-275. Memorial Hall, original copper downspout at
northeast corner (JMA 2009).
Figure 8-277. Memorial Hall, detail of dormer flashing and
roofing (JMA 2009).
PVC drainage pipe should be viewed as a short
term solution only--a plan must be developed to
comprehensively address and resolve storm water
issues on a campus-wide basis.
Masonry
The building’s exterior walls are brick with some
trim made of cast stone. The re-pointing issue as
outlined in the Key Preservation Issues section of this
report is applicable to Memorial. Sections of wall
on the building have been re-pointed on various
occasions with inconsistent work quality and use
of incompatible mortars. The mortar originally
used on this building is distinctive in composition,
aggregate, tooling, color and appearance.
Unfortunately, much of it has been covered up or
destroyed by later re-pointing work. In regards to
masonry damage there are areas near the north
and south entrances where the concrete trim on the
water table course is fractured. On the west elevation
Figure 8-276. Memorial Hall, Palladian-style dormers on south
roof slope (JMA 2009).
expert should be consulted to determine if the
original integrated gutters can be reopened without
damage to the roof or building. The existing copper
leader heads and downspouts should be retained
as long as they function effectively even with
dents and other minor damage. If replacement
is eventually required the new material should
be copper with the same dimension, shape and
appearance as the original. The large-diameter
Figure 8-278. Memorial Hall, east wall masonry showing cast
concrete sills, concrete foundation, discolored brick along lower
courses (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 259

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
of the building there is some white staining where
something is leaching from the mortar. Although
not a major problem, testing and analysis might be
necessary to determine the cause and source.
Interior
Memorial Hall’s interior has been almost fully
modernized with an elevator, reconfiguration of
the first-floor plan, and updated classrooms and
hallway spaces. It has a central hall plan with one
or two large classrooms on either side. A computer
lab and media center occupy most of the first
floor. A fireproof interior stairwell appears to be
relatively modern, and the original stairway is
not extant. A few original doorway openings with
1920s molding are extant in a first-floor hallway,
Figure 8-279. Memorial Hall, east wall, example of repointing
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-281. Memorial Hall, first floor main center hall, showing
elevator and newer jog for fireproof stairwell, view to southeast
(JMA 2008).
Figure 8-280. Memorial Hall, east wall, another example of
repointing (JMA 2009).
Wood
Most of the exterior trim on Memorial Hall is wood
and includes the frame dormers, dentiled frieze
board and cornice, the single story entrance porticos
on the north and south facades, and windows with
frames. There are places on the building’s exterior
woodwork that require some minor carpentry work,
specifically on some of the frame dormers and the
column/pilaster bases on the south entrance portico.
As always required with exposed wood surfaces,
periodic maintenance includes proper removal of
loose paint, sealing, priming and painting.
Other Features
Memorial Hall has original copper downspouts
on its four corners. A small metal plaque on the
north façade of the building commemorates its
construction in memory of alumni who served in
the military.
Figure 8-282. Memorial Hall, first floor side hall showing original
doorframes with replaced doors, view to east (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 260

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and original plastered wall surfaces, windows, and
plain window moldings survive throughout the
building. It appears that the original interior was
relatively utilitarian in character to begin with,
but if Memorial Hall’s interior once possessed any
distinctive elements, none has survived.
Water damage and stains from roof leaks were
noted on the slanted wall in the southeast corner
classroom on the third floor. The interior otherwise
appears to be in good condition.
There do not appear to be any major issues or
concerns regarding the installation or upgrade of
building systems in Memorial Hall. When systems
such as electrical, plumbing, HVAC and fire
suppression are upgraded in the future, the work
should be conducted in a manner that is compatible
and sensitive to the building’s architectural character
and historic fabric both inside and out.
Figure 8-283. Memorial Hall, large third floor west classroom,
showing typical conditions (JMA 2009).
Current Use
Memorial Hall is currently used as classrooms, a
computer lab, and a media center.
Treatment
It is recommended that the interior of Memorial
Hall receive a Rehabilitation treatment, preserving
remaining historic materials while allowing
updates and new uses as needed. With one of
the least modified exteriors on a historic building
at Moravian and a fine example of the Georgian
Colonial Revival architectural style, a Preservation
treatment is recommended for the exterior.
Maintenance issues noted at Memorial Hall
include:
• Grind out and re-point joints in areas with
incompatible mortar.
• Repair and reset loose roof slates.
• Reglaze and repaint window sashes.
• Reopen original gutters and reconnect to
existing copper leader heads.
• Conduct minor carpentry repairs.
• Scrape, seal, prime and paint areas needing
touch up.
• Water stains in the southeast third-floor
room indicate past or present roof leaks.
The roof should be repaired and the interior
plaster and paint repaired subsequently.
Figure 8-284. Memorial Hall, small third floor southeast
classroom, showing typical conditions (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-285. Memorial Hall, third floor southeast classroom,
showing water damage on slanted upper wall (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 261

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Johnston Hall – 1952
Historical Development
Johnston Hall was built in 1952 as a modern
new field house for athletics and large events. Its
architect was the Trautwein and Howard firm of
Philadelphia, which went on to design numerous
additional buildings on campus. Johnston Hall’s
central gymnasium was designed to seat 2,400
people for games and events, and auxiliary rooms
and facilities were included around the sides. It
was initially known as College Hall, but the name
was changed in 1958 to Archibald Johnston Hall.
This change was in memory of Archibald Johnston,
first mayor of the incorporated City of Bethlehem,
a Bethlehem Steel executive, and a longtime trustee
of Moravian College and Theological Seminary
(Weinlick 1977:85). The building has a sweeping
modernist horizontal character with its low-pitched
roof, horizontal bands of windows, and deep eaves.
However, it also incorporates details reminiscent
of the eighteenth-century Moravian buildings
downtown, such as stone veneer exterior walls and
simulated buttresses.
Over its lifespan, Johnston Hall has hosted countless
athletic competitions and serves as the primary
venue for Moravian College’s indoor physical
education programs and teams. Large convocations,
banquets, concerts, and other College events have
utilized the building, and various local community
institutions have hosted events and recreation
programs there as well (Moravian College n.d.).
Signifi cance
Johnston Hall is an example of a mid-twentiethcentury
field house. It was the first new athletic
facility constructed on the North Main Street
campus after the Gymnasium was built in 1913. It
is the College’s largest interior space and provides
a diverse range of amenities, making the building
suitable for athletics, educational presentations,
ceremonies, concerts, and social events.
Integrity
Johnston Hall is in nearly original condition. Small
changes include newer doors and some interior
retrofitting, but otherwise the building has a high
level of integrity.
Figure 8-286. Johnston Hall, west side, view to north (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-288. Johnston Hall, south front, view to northwest
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-287. Johnston Hall, south front, view to northeast (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-289. Johnston Hall, east side, view to northwest (JMA
2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 262

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Figure 8-290. Johnston Hall, north rear, view to southeast (JMA
2009).
Figure 8-291. Johnston Hall, south front entrance (JMA 2009).
Condition
Summary
Johnston Hall is a large one-story concrete-block
building with an interior steel infrastructure and
trussed roof. It faces south toward the athletic field
and Breidegam Field House is appended to its west
side with a one-story hyphen. Johnston Hall has a
sweeping low-pitched metal roof and horizontal
massing. The exterior is clad in local stone veneer.
Small stone buttresses are set at regular intervals
along the facades, and multiple tunnel-like
entrances are inset into shed-roofed extensions
of the roof flanked by stone sides. Between the
buttresses are horizontal bands of multiple-light
industrial steel windows, divided at intervals by
small brick veneer sections. At the north (rear) side
of the building is a loading dock area. Overall the
building is in excellent condition.
Additions
Breidegam Field House was appended to the west
side of Johnston Hall in 1991.
Doors and Fenestration
The main (south) entrance to Johnston Hall consists
of five pairs of security-glazed steel doors, set
within a broad entrance overhang with stone sides.
Two entrances on the east side and one on the west
side are similar but have three pairs of doors.
All of the windows are set within horizontal spaces
above the stone sides and between buttresses. The
windows are nine-light steel fixed windows with
operable lower panels. Most are arranged in pairs.
Figure 8-292. Johnston Hall, typical window unit, some paint
peeling on cornice (JMA 2009).
Brick veneer areas separate windows and window
pairs from one another. The windows appear to be
in good condition. Individual air conditioners have
been installed in the lower panels of several.
Roofi ng and Drainage
Johnston Hall has a broad, low-pitched roof
which is gabled at the center and hipped around
the perimeter. The roof is clad in modern
standing-seam metal and appears to be new and
in good condition. The exposed gable ends are
also clad in modern vertical metal cladding. The
roof drains to box gutters around the perimeter.
Numerous downspouts at regular intervals drain to
underground drains. No problems were observed
with the gutters and downspouts.
Masonry
The walls and entrances of Johnston Hall are clad
with variegated gray and brown South Mountain
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 263

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
stone, with ashlar blocks of varying size laid in
irregular courses and pointed with recessed flat
joints and gray cement mortar. Mock buttresses are
located flanking each corner and at regular intervals
along the walls on each side, and entrances are
flanked by stone-faced side walls. As with other
campus buildings, the stone exhibits rusty staining
from the contact between water and minerals in the
stone. The mortar joints are in good condition and
no problems were noted.
are set on the concrete caps of the low wing walls
flanking the entrance doors. The greyhounds have
a minimal amount of rust at their bases, but both
are otherwise in good condition.
Interior
Johnston Hall has a massive central gymnasium,
which is sized for three basketball courts, plus
large bleachers that seat 1,800 spectators. The
truss ceiling with fiberglass paneling is visible and
original bleachers are intact. The primary entrance
at the south end leads to a central lobby, which
provides access to east and west hallways. The
lobby has a marble-tiled floor, oak display cases,
and a curved back wall. Approximately 23 smaller
rooms are located in the low-roofed, windowed
spaces around the perimeter of the gymnasium.
These include restrooms, offices, locker rooms,
dressing rooms, a handball court, storage room,
and a kitchen (Moravian College n.d.). The interior
is largely in original condition.
Current Use
Figure 8-293. Johnston Hall, southeast corner, buttresses and
typical staining (JMA 2009).
Johnston Hall is currently used as an athletic facility
and event venue. This use has been continuous
since it opened in 1952.
Wood
Wood elements on the exterior consist mainly of
the roof cornice, which generally needs some paint
touchups. The east cornice has some mildew.
Other Features
The front entrance is flanked by painted cast-iron
greyhound statues, dating from the 1950s when the
college adopted the greyhound as its mascot. These
Figure 8-294. Johnston Hall, south front, greyhound statues
(JMA 2009). Figure 8-295. Unveiling of new greyhound statues (JMA 2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 264

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Treatment
It is recommended that Johnston Hall receive a
Rehabilitation treatment. While it is unlikely that
its overall use will change, historic materials on the
exterior should be retained, particularly the original
windows. Historic fabric of the interior, particularly
in prominent areas like the lobby, should also be
retained, but other updates to make the building
more functional and comfortable will likely incur
little effect, given its existing utilitarian character.
Colonial Hall – 1930
Historical Development
Colonial Hall was built in 1930 as a two-part
building complex, consisting of two oblong, nearly
identical buildings set perpendicular to one another
and forming two sides of a quadrangle. The east
building, set parallel to Main Street and known
as Colonial Hall, was originally a dormitory for
the college, and the perpendicular west building
housed the Moravian Church Archives and was
known as the Archives Building. Original plans
called for a third building on the south, parallel to
the Archives Building, to complete the quadrangle,
but this was never built. A one-story gateway with a
college sign was built between the inner corners of
the two buildings and became a common backdrop
for photos of the campus.
Over time, use of Colonial Hall shifted until the
entire space was used for administrative offices.
A basement room was converted to a classroom
for engineering in 1956. The first and second
floors became offices in 1960 and air conditioning
was installed. The dormitory rooms on the third
floor continued to house female students during
the next three years, but then were converted to
offices (Schamberger 2008, pers. comm.;Weinlick
1977:105,109). The Archives Building was redone as
offices after the Moravian Church Archives moved
to its current building nearby in 1977 (Schamberger
2008, pers. comm.). At this point, the two buildings
became collectively known as Colonial Hall.
Figure 8-296. Colonial Hall, general view to northeast (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-298. Colonial Hall, former Dormitory, front view to east
(JMA 2009).
Figure 8-297. Colonial Hall, former Archives Building, view to
northeast (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-299. Colonial Hall, former Dormitory, side view to
north (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 265

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
In 2002, the two buildings were connected with
a two-story corner hyphen addition, which
eliminated the gateway but added an elevator and
direct connections between the buildings on both
floors. A new ADA-accessible corner entrance and
round terrace was created as the entrance to the
Admissions Office.
Integrity
The exterior of Colonial Hall is largely intact and
possesses a high level of integrity. The interior has
been fully renovated and exhibits comparatively
little historic fabric, aside from overall layout on
the dormitory floors. The former archive building’s
original open two-story library space has been
eliminated, and its first and second floors were
infilled with a layout similar to the dormitory
floors. Both buildings had relatively austere and
utilitarian original interiors, meaning there are few
distinctive elements to preserve.
The 2002 connecting hyphen is brick and forms
a successful compatible addition to the overall
complex. While new, it does not detract from the
historic appearance and design of the two wings,
and actually complements the original buildings. Its
continuous roofline and reuse of the arched gateway
helps it blend into the overall composition.
Figure 8-300. Colonial Hall, former Dormitory, rear view to
southwest (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-302. The Bell House on Church Street, inspiration for
Colonial Hall (Moravian Church Archives).
Figure 8-301. Colonial Hall, former Archives Building, side view
to east (JMA 2008).
Signifi cance
Colonial Hall is a 1920s interpretation of the early
Germanic architecture of Bethlehem, combining
up-to-date dormitory and archive facilities with
vernacular German architectural details such as
stone walls, arched brick window lintels, pent
roofs, and operable wood shutters. Physically, it
provides a simpler counterpart to Comenius Hall
across the street.
Figure 8-303. Colonial Hall, completed Dormitory ca. 1930
(Moravian College Archives).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 266

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
slate-clad gambrel roofs, gabled dormers on the
third floor, round windows in the attic gables at the
exposed ends, six-over-six original double-hung
wood windows with shutters, single stone end
nonfunctional chimneys, and simple ogee-molded
cornices. Each building’s exposed gable end has a
center third-floor window flanked by fixed round
windows, and a semicircular vent in the shallow
attic above.
Figure 8-304. Colonial Hall, postcard image of both buildings ca.
1950 (Moravian College Archives).
The east wing, formerly a dormitory, faces west and
is seven bays long and three bays deep. Its roof has
a large, octagonal belvedere with balustrades and
a west-facing inset clock, a square, copper-roofed,
windowed cupola, and a weathervane. A gabled
entrance porch on the west front has full gable
returns, stone sides, and a slate floor.
The west wing faces south and is five bays long
and three bays deep. Its south (front) courtyard
entrance is sheltered by a short pent roof section at
the center. Another pent roof section is on the north
(rear) façade, where there is a street entrance.
Additions
A connecting section was added in 2002 to unite
the two buildings. The new section shares the same
roof profile and overall depth, but is constructed
with brick veneer. It has modern six-over-six fixed
windows. The front of the addition is canted to face
the front courtyard, and employs a stone segmental
arch forming a connection between the two original
wings. The addition has exposed cross-gable end
façades on the east and north sides, which are
conjectural extensions of the original buildings’
gable ends. The brick ends have gable parapets,
round third floor windows, semicircular attic vents,
Figure 8-305. Colonial Hall, postcard image of gateway ca. 1950
(Moravian College Archives).
Condition
Summary
Colonial Hall is a three-and-one-half-story
building, set on a slope with its basement exposed
at the rear (east side). Originally constructed as two
perpendicular buildings, it has been combined with
an addition into a single one. Both buildings have
Figure 8-306. Colonial Hall, 2002 corner addition, view of former
gateway to northeast (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 267

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and paired chimneys similar to those on Memorial
Hall. The east gable has a two-story copper-faced
oriel window at the center and a basement-level
modern entrance. The addition overall is in good
condition. ADA access is provided from the
courtyard at the front to the first floor, and from the
rear of the basement. An elevator in the addition
provides access to all floors.
Figure 8-308. Colonial Hall, east building, west entrance (JMA
2008).
on the east side at the bottom of the north end
stairwell.
Figure 8-307. Colonial Hall, 2002 corner addition, view from
rear to west (JMA 2008).
Doors and Fenestration
Colonial Hall retains its original doors and
windows. Each wing has a central door facing the
courtyard and a single door on the far end. The
west wing has a second main entrance facing north
toward Elizabeth St.
The east wing’s main door faces west and is set
within a gabled closed entry porch. The door is
raised about six inches from the porch floor and has
a gray concrete threshold. The door has nine panels
and is set within a Colonial Revival surround with
fluted pilasters and a four-light transom. The east
wing’s south end entrance has a recessed glazed
wood door with a multilight transom. A third door
is located in a basement areaway on the east side,
and a ca. 2002 basement door is located at grade
The south door of the west wing has a pent roof
overhang with a center gable pediment. The door is
flanked by single windows and has a reproduction
herringbone-patterned batten door set between
pilasters. The north door of the west wing is similar;
a stone entrance porch with slate steps and deck
and wrought-iron balustrade provides access from
the street.
Figure 8-309. Colonial Hall, west building, south entrance (JMA
2009).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 268

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Wood
The wood elements of the building include
ogee-molded cornices, pent roofs on the west wing,
and a gabled porch on the east wing. All appear to
be in good condition.
Other Features
The cupola on the east building has a round clock
facing west, and is topped with a metal weathervane.
Both appear to be historic.
Interior
Figure 8-310. Colonial Hall, west building, north entrance (JMA
2008).
The six-over-six double-hung windows are in
good condition and protected with aluminum
storm sash. All first-floor windows have original
paneled shutters, and most second-floor windows
have original louvered shutters. The shutters on the
east building’s south end are paneled on the first
floor and replacement vertical batten shutters on
the upper floors. Some warping is evident with the
historic shutters, but they are otherwise in good
condition.
Roofi ng and Drainage
The combined buildings have slate-clad gambrel
roofs, with a slight flare at the eaves. The roofs
drain to half-round metal gutters and from there to
several downspouts along the facades, which lead
to underground drains. No issues were noted with
the roof, gutters, or downspouts.
Masonry
Colonial Hall’s exterior is mostly South Mountain
Stone in variegated shades of gray and rust. The
random ashlar stones are laid in irregular courses
with pale brown mortar and slightly recessed
joints. A projecting stone water course runs around
the foundation at the first floor level. Contrasting
vertical stretcher bricks are set into segmentalarched
lintels above the windows. The stonework
exhibits some natural staining due to chemical
reactions with rainorthwestater. The north side
entrance on the west wing has a stone porch with
a slate deck and stairs. The bottom step has some
rising damp and mortar failure.
Colonial Hall’s interior contains lengthwise central
corridors on each floor of both buildings, with
original fireproof stairwells at each outer end and
another at the north end of the east building. The
corridors provide access to a series of small rooms
on each side. Many of the rooms in the former
dormitory wing retain their original configuration,
but others were combined to create meeting rooms
and larger office spaces. The connecting area
between the buildings houses an elevator to provide
access to all floors. The first floor has varnished slate
floors in the hallways and a room near the center
with knotty pine paneling, which was possibly a
former lounge. Some original baseboards and door
moldings are present in the hallways.
The west wing is similar in layout and appearance
to the east wing, but its finishes are modern. The
third floor was likely used as offices originally
and retains more historic fabric than the lower
floors, which were completely rebuilt in the former
two-story library space during the 1970s.
Current Use
Colonial Hall houses most administrative offices of
the College, including admissions, development,
financial aid, public relations, and offices for the
President of the College and top administrators.
Treatment
It is recommended that Colonial Hall receive
a Rehabilitation treatment. The building has
already been updated and rehabilitated and is
fully accessible. Its current use is appropriate and
its addition and alterations have been done in a
sympathetic, complementary manner. The retention
of the historic materials and details on its highly
intact exterior should be a priority in any future
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 269

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
work. The windows and doors should be repaired
and not replaced.
Other Buildings
The North Main Street Campus has numerous
non-historic (post-1960) buildings, which will not
be addressed in this plan. Non-historic buildings
within the North Main Street Campus include:
• Haupert Union Building (1962),
• Rau Residence Hall (1960),
• Hassler Residence Hall (1960),
• Bernhardt Residence Hall (1964),
• Wilhelm Residence Hall (1965),
• Jo Smith Residence Hall (1972),
• Bahnson Center (1976),
• Beck Hall (1978),
• de Schweinitz Hall (1978),
• Hillside Residences – six buildings (1988),
• Spangenberg (1989),
• Antes (1989),
• Burnside (1989),
• Lenape (1989),
• Nitschmann (1990), and
• Breidegam Field House (1991).
Some of these buildings, particularly those designed
by the Trautwein firm in the 1960s, have the
potential to be considered historic or significant in
the future. Renovations and rehabilitation of these
buildings should consider the potential importance
the buildings may have in future, and unnecessary
removal of original windows and other materials
should be avoided.
• Single family houses, some of which are
subdivided into multiple apartments,
• Small apartment buildings,
• Religious/institutional, and
• Commercial.
Figure 8-311. Modest worker row housing (249-263 W.
Greenwich St.) constructed ca. 1910 (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-312. Example of twin houses (225-227 W. Greenwich
St.) constructed ca. 1910 (JMA 2008).
8.4 Campus Ring
The Campus Ring comprises dozens of individual
neighborhood lots on streets surrounding the
North Main Street Campus. Most of these lots
contain housing, nearly all of which is over 50
years old. These buildings are used for a variety of
purposes by the College. The types of buildings in
the character area include:
• Row houses,
• Twin houses/duplexes,
Figure 8-313. Queen Anne single-family house at 1434 Cortland
St., constructed ca. 1910 (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 270

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
working-class row houses to upper-middle-class
freestanding single-family homes, reflecting the
socioeconomic diversity of the neighborhood as it
developed from ca. 1890 onward.
Figure 8-314. Modest vernacular single-family house at 115 W.
Greenwich, constructed ca. 1900 (JMA 2008).
The houses mostly date from ca. 1890-1940 and
are used for a variety of functions. Some, like the
Health Center and Campus Security buildings, are
residential buildings converted for College use. A
handful of houses are used by Greek organizations
for housing and social space. The vast majority of
the College-owned buildings in the Campus Ring
area are still used as housing for tenants, students,
seminarians, faculty and staff, and administrators
of the College. It should be noted that within pairs
or groups of attached houses, the College may own
some but not all of the units.
Interspersed among the buildings are a few
vacant lots used as perimeter parking areas for the
College. One such lot, on Elizabeth Avenue at the
corner of Monocacy Street, was still vacant when
it was obtained by Professor Howard Hoffman.
Hoffman, a tennis enthusiast with independent
financial means, funded and constructed a number
of tennis courts around the campus beginning in
1919-1920. Most were obliterated by later buildings.
He purchased the lot at the corner of Monocacy and
Elizabeth ca. 1930 and built four clay tennis courts
soon afterward (Weinlick 1977:38-39). The property
was later converted to a parking area.
Historical Development
The Campus Ring neighborhood was an
agricultural area owned by the Moravian Church
from the time of the initial white settlement
through much of the nineteenth century. It
developed concurrently with the new campus
of Moravian College and Theological Seminary.
A number of factors influenced this growth,
including the expansion of nearby Bethlehem
Steel and the need to house its employees; general
growth in Bethlehem’s industrial sector; paving
of Main Street; inauguration of streetcar service;
construction of the Hill-to-Hill Bridge facilitating
better transportation; and outward expansion of
the growing city (Schamberger 2008, pers. comm..).
The neighborhood developed piecemeal to meet
housing needs for different sectors of Bethlehem’s
population, and land speculators addressed these
Figure 8-315. Moravian College Health Center, Craftsmanstyle
single-family house at 1302 Monocacy St., constructed ca.
1915-1920 (JMA 2008).
Architectural styles within the Campus Ring reflect
the popularity of revival styles around the turn of
the century. Modest examples of Italianate homes
are intermixed with Queen Anne, Colonial Revival,
Foursquare, and Craftsman houses. At least a few
mid-twentieth-century buildings are included.
The scale of the buildings also varies from modest
Figure 8-316. Postwar single-family ranch house at 1457 Iron St.,
constructed ca. 1950 (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 271

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Signifi cance
The Campus Ring Character Area is an example
of an early unplanned suburb which developed
piecemeal based on the actions of different land
owners and developers. Overall, the neighborhood
reflects the gamut of housing needs driving
Bethlehem’s development during the 1890-1940
period, and how individuals tried to fulfill them.
Though its overall character and level of integrity
vary from block to block, the Campus Ring contains
excellent examples of a number of different housing
types and residential architectural styles.
Figure 8-317. Craftsman-style apartment house at 1423-1425
Iron St., constructed ca. 1921 (JMA 2008).
differing needs concurrently. Growing numbers of
industrial jobs at Bethlehem Steel and other plants
meant that the company and speculators built
relatively inexpensive housing for the workers.
Increased population, better transportation, and
the opening of new tracts at the north end of town
resulted in the migration of middle class and
upper middle class people from the downtown
to speculative subdivisions and houses in newly
developing suburbs. Some individuals associated
with Moravian College and Theological Seminary
built or purchased homes on lots adjacent to the
campus. These varying purposes resulted in a
neighborhood exhibiting characteristics of both
suburban and urban streetscapes. While some
streets and blocks were developed with modest
workers’ housing, others contain middle-class
detached homes, and most contain mixtures of the
two.
Integrity
Integrity of buildings in the neighborhood varies,
with variation seen even among just those buildings
owned by Moravian College. While most are
recognizably of their construction period, some are
well preserved while others have been altered with
new materials, siding, additions, and other changes.
Replacement siding, often with brick veneer, is the
most frequently seen alteration. The setting of the
neighborhood remains relatively intact in many
outer areas of the Campus Ring, but buildings
closer to campus have seen some loss of integrity
of setting. Land acquisitions and construction of
new facilities by the expanding College entailed the
demolition of a number of houses or blocks, such
as those on Otis Place and parts of Monocacy and
Laurel Streets, and the closing of parts of several
streets to traffic. Newer buildings on the outer
edges of the campus core, such as the Collier Hall
of Science and the Priscilla Payne Hurd Academic
Complex, form modern blockfaces across the street
from older houses in the Campus Ring.
Figure 8-318. Commercial-industrial building at 248 W.
Greenwich St., now Facilities Shop for Moravian College,
constructed ca. 1940 (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-319. Warped gutter and failing slate porch roof, 1417
Iron St. (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 272

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Existing Conditions
The Moravian College-owned buildings in the
Campus Ring exhibit some variation in physical
condition and overall maintenance. Common
problems include:
• Clogged, leaking, or broken gutters and
downspouts;
• Deterioration of foundation parging;
• Mortar deterioration and poor repointing;
• Paint deterioration on wood elements;
• Slate roofing nearing the end of its life
expectancy;
• Cracking and crumbling concrete steps,
walks and pads.
non-residential purposes, and it is anticipated that
others will be converted to different uses in future.
Repair and retention of remaining historic fabric
is recommended, and failing original materials
should be replaced in kind. Future alterations and
repairs should be sympathetic to the original style
and appearance of the buildings. Full removal of
unsympathetic modern materials, such as vinyl
siding and brick veneer, and rehabilitation of the
revealed historic exterior is encouraged if the
modern elements are failing and such work can be
performed without damaging historic fabric.
Treatment
It is recommended that buildings owned by
Moravian College within the Campus Ring receive
a Rehabilitation treatment, making them safe and
functional for continued use or adaptive reuse.
Many have already been adaptively reused for
Figure 8-321. Poor repointing of “butter joints” at 1300 Main St.
Repointing should replicate the original mortar type and joint
style (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-320. Modern veneer failure showing original red brick
beneath, 1417 Iron St. Removal of failing modern veneer is
encouraged if this won’t cause damage to the original surface
beneath (JMA 2008).
Figure 8-322. Peeling paint, dripping gutter, and biogrowth at
128-130 W. Greenwich St. (JMA 2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 273

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
1. Repointing of Mortar Joints – Ineffective,
inappropriate and sometimes damaging
repointing work was observed on almost every
historic building on campus. Before the College
proceeds with any more repointing projects, an
assessment of the mortars used in each historic
masonry building should be conducted by a
conservator or specialist. It is preferable that
this work occur simultaneously with the other
masonry testing and analysis outlined in this
section.
Figure 8-323. Foundation parging failure, 1457 Iron St. (JMA
2008).
Figure 8-324. Crumbling concrete steps, 1416-1418 Monocacy St.
(JMA 2008).
8.5 Overall Conditions –
Key Preservation Issues
The inventory of buildings at Moravian College
represents one of the most historically significant
small college campuses in the nation. This
impressive architectural legacy is orchestrated
through a masonry building tradition of brick
and stone. In conducting the assessment of
existing conditions for Moravian’s buildings, three
consistent preservation issues were noted. This
section outlines the key historic preservation issues
for the College to address, and recommendations
on how to do so.
Preservation Issue #1 – Masonry
It is imperative that the College adopt an appropriate
and consistent approach for maintaining brick and
stone masonry. The following conditions have been
observed and issues identified:
Original and early pointing mortars should
be analyzed on each historic building to
determine mortar composition, color, and joint
profile (tooling). Sand was almost always used
as an additive in historic mortars, however,
modern masonry or builder’s sand may not be
appropriate in color or grain size. For example,
in Memorial Hall the type of sand originally
used in the mortar has a very large grain size,
like tiny pebbles. Every effort should be made to
match the original mortar as closely as possible.
A repointing mortar that is compatible with the
original mortar will create a better bond and
weather tight seal without damaging stone or
brick masonry units. A properly repointed
historic masonry building is watertight and
does not require water-repellent or protective
coatings.
Also, mortars and masonry units should
be tested for the presence of corrosive salts,
moisture content, vapor permeability, and
compressive strength. Based on the resulting
analysis, a masonry specialist should develop
a mortar formula and method to be used for
repointing. It is likely that several different
formulas and tooling techniques will be
developed for the various historic buildings at
Moravian College.
A basic rule of thumb to follow is that a mortar
should never be harder than the masonry units
it is holding together. Portland cement, a major
ingredient in most commercial mortar mixes, is
a very hard, sticky, fast-drying substance that
generally has greater compressive strength and
less vapor permeability than most stone and
brick traditionally used in building construction.
Also, modern masonry cement doesn’t always
contain hydrated lime, the ingredient that
gives historic mortars their permeability and
elasticity. For these reasons, pre-mixed mortar
cement straight from the bag should never
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 274

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
be used on historic buildings. It may be
used sparingly as a low percentage additive
to a mortar mix customized specifically for a
particular historic building.
For additional information on this subject please
consult Preservation Brief #2: Repointing Mortar
Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings, prepared
by the National Park Service, Technical
Preservation Services (see Appendix B).
2. Stone Deterioration – Certain stone
architectural elements and features show
substantial deterioration that may require
stabilization and even replacement. The college
should hire a masonry materials specialist to
conduct an assessment of each historic building
on campus. Each type of masonry unit should
be tested for condition and hardness and at
different locations on the building. The results
of the hardness test will assist in the preparation
of the mortar formulas outlined above.
Specific conditions of deterioration observed
during the preparation of this report include:
• The spalling and delamination of certain
stone types likely caused by expansion and
contraction in the seasonal freeze-thaw
cycle.
• Cracking and breaking of certain stone
elements located at high stress points likely
caused by gradual settling or construction
activity in the immediate vicinity.
• The failure of occasional, isolated stone
masonry units due to inherent, natural
flaws or inferior quality.
• The long term effect of acidic rainfall and
smog, which has eroded and dulled some
exposed stone surfaces.
• Carbon soot accumulation from Bethlehem’s
industrial era that has permeated and
discolored some stone surfaces.
Although Preservation Brief #42: The
Maintenance, Repair and Replacement of Historic
Cast Stone specifically addresses concrete
architectural features simulated to look like
stone, the section titled Methods of Repair
is also generally applicable to the repair of
stone masonry. Prepared by the National Park
Service, Technical Preservation Services, the
document is available online or as a hard copy
(see Appendix B).
3. Protective Coatings – Protective coatings are
typically applied to stone and brickwork as a
misguided effort to create a “maintenance-free”
condition, as a perceived need to “seal” a
building from moisture penetration, or as an
attempt to halt advanced stages of masonry
deterioration. Such coatings are typically
cement-based, synthetic polymers, or a
combination of both. Sometimes a membrane,
fabric or mesh is anchored to the masonry wall
and becomes embedded in the applied coating.
For historic buildings, the use of non-permeable
protective coatings should always be viewed as
a last resort. If historic masonry buildings are
kept watertight and in good repair, protective
coatings should not be necessary.
Protective coatings are usually designed to
bond to the deteriorating masonry surface
with the hope that it will be consolidate the
remaining masonry matrix while sealing out
moisture. However, a mistake that is often
made in the use of these coatings is that the
true nature of the deteriorating condition is
not completely understood. For instance, if the
current moisture content of the masonry and
the manner in which moisture is intruding
is not known, the coating when applied may
end up sealing in moisture and accelerating
damage.
On at least one campus building, Hamilton Hall,
a cement-based coating was applied to a portion
of the exterior wall surface in what appears to be
an attempt to stabilize deteriorating brickwork.
Located on the south wall at the rear of the
building under the two-story porch, the coating
is starting to fail. At spots where the coating is
peeling off, two to three millimeters of the brick
face is going with it. This portion of Hamilton
Hall should be tested by a masonry materials
specialist to determine the cause of coating and
brick failure along with a recommendation for
stabilization.
For additional information on this subject
please consult Preservation Brief #1: Assessing,
Cleaning, and Water Repellant Treatments for
Historic Masonry Buildings and Preservation
Brief #39: Holding the Line-Controlling Unwanted
Moisture in Historic Buildings. Both documents
were prepared by the National Park Service,
Technical Preservation Services (see Appendix
B).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 275

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
4. Leaching – Iron is leaching from the stonework
on many buildings, causing an unattractive
stained appearance. Further analysis should
be conducted to determine the source. If the
source of the rust stain is iron or steel units
used to reinforce the walls of the building,
such as rebar, then serious structural damage
is inevitable. As iron and steel is exposed to
moisture the resulting deterioration (oxidation)
causes expansion. As this expansion continues
the surrounding mortar and masonry is forced
outward. The gaps and cracks created allow
more moisture to intrude accelerating the
process. If the process continues unabated the
structural integrity of the wall is compromised
and repair is costly.
On the other hand, if the staining is from
the natural iron content of the stone used in
building construction, it is less detrimental
to the inherent structure and integrity of
the building. Although larger iron veins or
inclusions in certain isolated stones may result
in their eventual demise, they can be replaced
as needed without wholesale structural
damage. Also, products are available that may
neutralize oxidation and remove the unsightly
appearance.
Another condition observed is that calcite
appears to be leaching from brick mortar joints
on some buildings at isolated locations. This
may be attributed to a bad batch of mortar mix
used in the original pointing or repointing of
the building. Although in the overall scheme of
things it is a minor issue, it is unsightly. Testing
and analysis can be conducted to determine the
nature and cause of the leaching and should
aid in identifying a cleaning product and/or
method of repair.
In addition to Preservation Brief #1: Assessing,
Cleaning, and Water Repellant Treatments
for Historic Masonry Buildings mentioned
previously, Preservation Brief #6: Dangers of
Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings should
also provide useful information on this topic
(see Appendix B).
5. Organic Growth – The growth of fungi, algae,
mold, mosses, and lichens can cause eventual
harm and damage to masonry surfaces. Such
growth can also be an indicator of larger
moisture problems such as rising damp,
plumbing leaks, mortar joint failure, gutter/
downspout damage, and ponding on roofs and
at foundations.
Although organic growth is not a major
problem for the historic buildings at Moravian
College, it was observed at isolated locations.
Each building should be routinely checked
for the presence of such growth. When found,
the cause for growth should be determined. If
it is a larger maintenance or renovation issue,
when the repair is made it will likely remedy
any future growth. Dying or dead growth
can either be brushed or scrubbed off using
non-abrasive methods. Extra care should be
taken for softer, porous stone or brick so as
to avoid damaging or removing the masonry
surface. For corners and crannies that are
inherently dark and damp by construction
or where a growth takes hold without larger
maintenance issues, these locations should be
treated with an environmentally and masonry
friendly cleaner and biocide such as D/2
Biological Solution manufactured by Cathedral
Stone® Products, Inc.
The two publications mentioned previously,
Preservation Brief #1: Assessing, Cleaning, and
Water Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry
Buildings and Preservation Brief #6: Dangers of
Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings, contain
additional information relevant for this topic
(see Appendix B).
Preservation Issue #2 – Windows
One of the primary tenets of historic preservation
is “repair rather than replace.” However, in
recent years with improvement in appearance of
prefabricated window units, implementation of
weatherization programs, and changes in regional
building codes, it has become common practice
for property owners who are renovating historic
buildings to replace the original windows with
new, prefabricated units. Frequently, the replaced
historic windows are in a repairable condition. The
cost of replacement is high, the benefit slight, and
the change in appearance can be substantial. Even if
a new window unit is of the same type (e.g. double
hung sash) and light configuration (e.g. 6-over-6)
it is not likely to have the same depth of reveal,
casing, sash rail dimension or muntin profile as the
original.
The sympathetic treatment of windows in
historic buildings has become such an important
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 276

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
preservation issue that the Technical Preservation
Services section of the National Park Service has
dedicated considerable effort to address the subject
in their Preservation Tech Note series (see Appendix
B). Of the 50 publications in the series, 22 are specific
to windows. The first 17 have been packaged and
are offered as a set called The Window Handbook:
Successful Strategies for Rehabilitating Windows in
Historic Buildings. Although not offered as one of
the online publications, most of the information is
applicable to window issues at Moravian College
and can be obtained in hard copy form.
One argument often cited for window replacement
is energy efficiency. However, there is a growing
body of evidence, such as home energy audits,
that suggests a traditional wood window, in
good condition, with a properly installed storm
window, is no less energy efficient than most
prefabricated windows currently on the market. As
stated in Preservation Brief #9: The Repair of Historic
Wooden Windows (National Park Service, Technical
Preservation Services):
Energy conservation is no excuse for the
wholesale destruction of historic windows,
which can be made thermally efficient by
historically, and aesthetically acceptable means.
In fact, a historic wooden window with a high
quality storm window added should thermally
outperform a new double-glazed metal window
which does not have thermal breaks.
Many of the windows in historic buildings at
Moravian College have already been replaced with
prefabricated units. It appears windows have been
replaced in certain buildings by entire sections
rather than assessing conditions using a windowby-window
approach. If this is the case, the priority
to date has been a matter of convenience rather than
historic preservation objectives. The remaining
historic wood windows are an important characterdefining
feature in the historically significant
architecture of Moravian College. Current policy
should be carefully revisited before proceeding
with the replacement of any more windows in
historic buildings. Both Preservation Brief #9 and
The Window Handbook, as previously referenced,
provide a framework for the physical evaluation
of historic windows. Essentially it is a windowby-window
audit that establishes three classes of
windows organized by condition. Class I windows
are those that need routine maintenance, but are
operationally sound; Class II windows require some
stabilization and may be temporarily removed for
repair; and Class III windows have substantially
damaged or missing parts that require partial or
wholesale replacement. These publications also
provide valuable information on window repair
techniques, energy conservation measures, and
compatible alternatives.
Preservation Issue #3 – Roofs and
Roofing
A weather-tight roof is a critical factor in
maintaining the structural integrity and energy
efficiency of any building, regardless of historical
importance. A failing roof needs immediate
attention so as to protect other building systems,
which sometimes requires a “quick fix.” It should
also be acknowledged that every roofing system
eventually deteriorates to the point where it
requires substantial repair or replacement.
Taking these realities into consideration, on a
historic building the roof form, materials and
related roof structures are often very important
character-defining features. Roofs with a steeper
pitch tend to have more visibility and therefore
contribute substantially to a building’s appearance.
Certain types of roofs even define an architectural
style such as the mansard on a Second Empire
building. The large hipped roof and cross gables
on Comenius Hall; the gambrel roof with gabled
dormers on Colonial Hall; and the mansard roofs
on the Single Brethren’s House and on Clewell
Hall are examples of roofs that define architectural
character at Moravian.
The material used is another important feature
of architectural character on sloped roofs at the
college. On the other hand, the material used on the
flat roof at West Hall is considerably less significant
since it can only be observed from a bird’s eye
view. The predominant historic roofing material
at Moravian is slate. One noteworthy exception
is the wood shake roof on the Single Brethren’s
House. Although the original 18th century roof on
the building in all likelihood was wood shingles
or shakes, historic photos reveal that slates were
installed at a later time. American slate was not
commonly available as a roofing material until the
mid 19th century and imported slate was costly.
It appears that the current wood shake roof was
added as part of the building’s restoration in 1976.
Although most of the roofs on significant historic
buildings at Moravian retain their characterdefining
features and materials, recent renovations
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 277

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
to Monocacy Hall resulted in the replacement of
slates with asphalt composite shingles. Whatever
the justification, this approach cannot become the
trend or standard practice for building renovations
on campus. If at all possible, when historic roofing
materials including flashing are replaced the new
material should match in composition, color, size,
configuration and appearance. Other examples
of inappropriate roofing treatments include the
oversized flashing on Comenius, the painted finials
on Comenius, and the vinyl soffits on Zinzendorf.
For additional information on general historic
roofing issues please consult Preservation Brief
#4: Roofing for Historic Buildings, prepared by the
National Park Service, Technical Preservation
Services. Another Preservation Brief has been
prepared specific to issues associated with slate
roofs; Preservation Brief #29: The Repair, Replacement
and Maintenance of Historic Slate Roofs (see Appendix
B).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 8 • Historic Buildings • 278

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Nine
Treatment Guidelines for Buildings
9.0 Introduction
The Treatment Guidelines for Buildings should be
used in conjunction with the existing conditions
analysis and treatment recommendations for
Moravian College’s historic buildings included in
Chapter 8 of this Preservation Master Plan. While
Chapter 8 identifies the materials, issues, and
conditions associated with individual buildings at
Moravian College, this chapter provides specific
guidelines for the treatment of the various materials
and features common to Moravian College’s
buildings.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide overarching
preservation guidance and best-practice
approaches for exterior building envelopes. General
recommendations for historic interiors are also
included. The architectural treatment guidelines
contained in this chapter were developed based
upon the issues observed in buildings surveyed and
JMA’s previous experience working with historic
buildings. The guidelines are a tool that will assist
facility decision-makers in appropriate ways to
manage, maintain, and treat historic buildings.
The guidelines are generally organized according
to the broad divisions used by the construction
industry for organizing construction specifications.
The broad divisions are broken down by building
element, such as site work, masonry, exterior
woodwork, roofing, windows, and doors, etc. Each
section contains a brief description of the material
and its use in the buildings on the Moravian
College campus. A summary of typical conditions,
checklist for inspections, overview of the causes
of deterioration, and guidance for repair and
replacement then follow for each building material
or element.
Applying the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and specifically
the Standards for Rehabilitation are discussed in
Chapter 4 – Stewardship. The Standards provide a
strong but flexible philosophical foundation with a
set of basic preservation approaches and principles
for the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction of historic buildings. The Standards
are not rules, nor do they provide universal answers
for every situation, since each building presents
unique issues and opportunities.
The recommendations in this chapter are based
on the Standards and emphasize the following
approaches that should be incorporated into efforts
associated with historic building stewardship.
• Repair: Conduct regular inspections and
replace deteriorated sections, features,
and materials promptly. Materials and
workmanship should be executed in-kind,
that is, matching the historic fabric.
• Replacement: If historic features and
materials are too deteriorated to repair, they
should be replaced in-kind to match the form,
materials, detailing, and other physical and
visual qualities of the historic fabric.
• Reconstruction: Rebuilding missing
features should only be undertaken based
on historic drawings and/or photographic
documentation.
• New Construction/Additions: New work
should be similar in size, scale, material,
design, and color to the existing historic fabric
and should not obscure or damage characterdefining
features. Designs that mimic the
historic appearance or are borrowed from
another building are discouraged because
they confuse the historic record and diminish
the integrity of the resource.
All proposals for work on historic buildings,
whether they are repair, renovation, restoration, or
new construction, should start with identification
of the important design features and materials
that make the building in question significant and
unique. Chapter 8, Historic Buildings at Moravian
College, is intended as a resource for significance
and integrity assessments and provides baseline
building-by-building information for this critical,
yet simple, features assessment. The primary
considerations that one should look for are building
shape, materials, roof and roof features, windows
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 279

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and fenestration patterns, entries and doors,
projections such as bays or porticos, woodwork
and trim features, craftsmanship, and setting and
site. Using this approach will result in projects that
accommodate needed change while preserving the
historic fabric and significant features of a historic
building.
9.1 Site Drainage
Site drainage consists of drainage boots, channel
drains, splash blocks, and underground drains, as
well as landscape elements such as sloped grading,
site drains, catch basins, drainage swales, and
culverts. Roof drainage and site drainage are often
intimately connected and should be considered
as part of the same overall drainage system. Site
drainage should be designed to accommodate local
rainfall conditions, as well as the allowable runoff,
which is determined by the applicable building
code. Site drainage is a particular issue with historic
buildings at Moravian College due to incremental
changes to grades over time that prevent water
from draining away from buildings, causing water
damage to masonry walls. Repaving of roads and
walkways has created ponding problems in some
places, while poorly located drains (i.e. draining
directly to grade adjacent to a foundation) are
causing deterioration at others.
Typical Site Drainage Conditions
Clogged underground drains lead to overflowing
downspout boots, which causes soil erosion. Tree
roots are notorious for growing into and clogging
underground drains. Breaks in underground drains
can leak water against building foundations. Terra
cotta pipes of a certain age are almost certain to
have some cracking along the underground drain
line.
Soil erosion and soil build-up around foundation
walls and downspouts indicate that the adjacent
area is not adequately graded to handle the water
runoff from roofs. Over time, soil erosion and
build-up can lead to ponding water, where water
sits or creates boggy conditions depending upon
the adjacent soils. These areas often support moss,
ivy, and other biological growth that thrives in
these conditions. Adjacent ground or planting
beds that slope towards the building will direct
water runoff directly against building foundations.
Underground springs or high water table levels
will cause chronically wet foundation conditions.
Site Drainage Inspection
Routine inspection is the best method of identifying
potential problems that may lead to deterioration
of building elements. Inspections should be carried
out while it is raining, or immediately following a
rain event. The inspection should concentrate on the
site immediately adjacent to building foundations,
on the interior side of building foundations, and on
the areas where drainage is directed. Site drainage
inspections should note the following warning
signs of site drainage problems:
• Known locations of underground springs,
which may require a permanent sump pump
system.
• Overflowing downspout boots.
• Underground drains that leak or do not
properly flow to the stormwater system,
which can be checked by running water
through the drains and checking the flow at
the stormwater line outlet.
• Soil erosion around downspout boots, splash
blocks, and/or downspout ends.
• Ponding water or immediate site that slopes
toward building foundations.
• Moss, ivy, or other biological growth that
thrives in excessively moist conditions.
• Mulch or planting bed materials heaped
against building foundations.
• Clogged channel or site drains.
• Excessive moisture at building foundations
or basements.
• Efflorescence and/or biological growth at
building foundations or basements.
• Foundation settlement.
• Rotting woodwork at or near the foundation.
• Rising damp in brickwork.
If an inspection identifies major deterioration, a
landscape architect and/or civil engineer should
conduct an in-depth assessment of topographical,
soil, and vegetative conditions.
Causes of Site Drainage Deterioration
Site drainage can deteriorate from poor initial
design; for example the design did not adequately
address the entire drainage system from roof to
storm sewer. Too often, downspouts drain to grade
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 280

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
with no further method of draining away from the
building. Site drainage can also become problematic
through alteration of the original design intent, such
as when increased water runoff is directed to a part
of the system that was not designed to handle the
extra flow or when planting beds are introduced
that build up the soil level and change topography.
Lack of maintenance or improper maintenance will
cause site drainage failure. When drains become
clogged, the entire site drainage system can back
up and overflow, causing problems at building
foundations. Over time, the mulching of planting
beds can lead to mounded beds that direct water
against the foundation.
Site drainage systems are often subtle features in the
landscape, or even underground. It is easy to forget
about them. Often, building owners of historic
buildings do not even know where underground
drain lines are located. Old underground drain lines
can break, become clogged with tree roots, and fill
with sediment and debris. These unseen problems
may go unnoticed until they create obvious water
problems within buildings.
Site Drainage Improvements
Open site drainage systems, including swales,
surface and channel drains, and culverts, must
remain properly sloped to effectively drain water
runoff from buildings and circulation surfaces.
At downspout ends, where downspouts drain to
grade, try to direct runoff so that it empties at least
four feet away from the building foundation where
it will drain away from the building, using ground
leaders or splash blocks. Keep swales and surface
drains free of debris, vegetation, and utilities.
Regrade areas where water runoff has eroded the
site drainage system. Excessive soil erosion may
indicate a need to redesign the open drainage
system.
Closed site drainage systems, such as underground
drains and catch basins that may lead to a storm
sewer, can be costly to upgrade. Replacement
of underground drainage systems involves soil
disturbance and may trigger archeological oversight.
It is important to flush out underground drains
annually. Snaking out drains may remove small
clogs in the system. When underground drainage
systems must be replaced, it is worth replacing the
entire system with high quality materials if possible.
Install cleanouts at downspouts and at underground
drains for easier maintenance. Replace old terracotta
pipes as part of site drainage improvements.
It is important to keep a record of where all new
underground drains are installed and to document
the new system.
A French drain is essentially a pit or trench filled
with gravel that is sloped to direct water to a
well-drained location. The gravel may be wrapped
with a geotextile fabric to keep out silt and the
trench may have a pipe at the base. The drain can be
left open or can be covered with topsoil. A French
drain is appropriate in areas with slow moving
water, not in areas with storm runoff. French drains
can be helpful in areas where ponding water,
underground springs, or boggy soil conditions are
noted, near building foundations, and adjacent to
roads and walkways.
9.2 Concrete
Cast-in-place concrete is a common material used
for building foundations, porch flooring, access
ramps, areaway structures, and entrance steps.
At Moravian College, cast-in-place concrete has
been used primarily at later additions and changes
around existing historic buildings, such as new
entrance areas. Concrete used in visible locations,
such as entrance porch flooring, is finished with an
exposed aggregate finish. Cast-in-place concrete
is vulnerable to deterioration from site drainage
problems, freeze/thaw cycling, salt damage, and
structural stresses.
Cast-in-place concrete is a conglomerate material
composed of a cement matrix that has hardened
around an interior matrix of coarse and fine
aggregate and metal reinforcement. In contrast to
pre-cast concrete, it is poured into formwork, cured,
and finished on-site. Its compressive strength is
acquired from the hydration of the cement which
forms a binding paste around the aggregates. Metal
reinforcement gives concrete tensile strength.
The alkalinity of sound concrete protects the
reinforcement from corrosion by stabilizing an
oxide film over the steel. Corrosion will be inhibited
as long as the oxide film over the reinforcement is
not impaired.
Typical Concrete Conditions
Concrete work that predates ca. 1950, when
concrete was poorly-understood as a building
material, is prone to failure from design or
installation flaws. Expansion joints were typically
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 281

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
not properly installed in monolithic cast-in-place
concrete construction, leading to cracking. Metal
reinforcement was often installed too close to the
surface, causing rapid reinforcement corrosion.
Concrete mixes contained too much or too little
aggregate, producing shrinkage cracks or spalling.
Harmful additives, such as chloride containing
compounds, were added to alter setting times.
Air-entrained concrete evolved in the mid-1930s
and significantly improved concrete’s ability to
withstand freeze/thaw deterioration. This process
creates air bubbles in the mix, which form a system
of fine, discrete pores that aid in relieving freeze/
thaw stresses. Concrete installed prior to this
invention is therefore inherently more vulnerable.
Cracking in concrete can range from overall hairline
cracks to large gaping cracks and may be caused by
a combination of deterioration mechanisms. Overall
map cracking, an interlocking system of fine cracks,
is caused by shrinkage of the concrete during
installation or internal stresses, such as occurs
with the alkali-silica reaction of certain aggregates.
Vertical cracks may be caused by natural expansion
forces in the material or by shrinkage during the
original concrete set.
Delamination is the loss of concrete material in thin
sheets. Delamination is caused by inherent flaws in
the original material, such as too much aggregate in
the mix, and is exacerbated by freeze/thaw cycling,
salts, and structural stresses. Many of Moravian
College’s historic buildings have concrete parging
on the foundations, which is delaminating in places,
often due to water damage.
Concrete Inspection
As with all exterior envelope materials, routine
inspection is the best method of identifying
potential problems in order to avoid any major
failures. A thorough visual inspection should look
for the following potential signs of deterioration:
• Discernable crack patterns.
• Rust staining or efflorescence associated with
cracking.
• Delamination of surface material.
• Spalling or loss.
• Rust staining.
• Efflorescence.
• Water leakage, ponding, or areas of poor
drainage.
• Exposed and/or corroding reinforcement.
• Foundation settlement.
If an inspection identifies major deterioration, a
structural engineer with experience in historical
concrete construction should conduct an in-depth
assessment.
Causes of Concrete Deterioration
Freeze/Thaw
Deterioration from freeze/thaw cycles is dependent
on the permeability and porosity of the concrete.
Damage will not occur unless there is a sufficient
amount of water in the capillary pores of the
concrete. The entire volume of the concrete does
not need to be saturated to cause damage as surface
layers can spall and delaminate from freezing
pressure. Air-entrained concrete reduces these
pressures by allowing expansion within the small,
discrete voids. The introduction of air-entrained
concrete dates to the mid-1930s, and much of the
failure of earlier concrete was caused by freeze/
thaw deterioration.
Salts and Effl orescence
Solutions of salts or carbon dioxide percolating
through concrete can cause leaching and
deterioration of the concrete. The type of
efflorescence depends on the rate of evaporation
of the solution when it reaches the surface of the
concrete. If the evaporation is rapid, salts can
be deposited within the pore system inside the
concrete. The pressures caused by crystallization
and hydration of salts in the presence of a saturated
solution can then disrupt the cement paste. Finally,
damage occurs on surfaces where drying takes
place.
If the rate of evaporation is fairly slow, efflorescence
will appear on the surface of the concrete. The
formation of efflorescence requires that water laden
with certain elements move through or flow over
the concrete. These deposits come from elements
that were carried in the water. In particular,
calcium carbonate in the water is problematic.
It forms on the surface of concrete when carbon
dioxide in solution percolates through the concrete,
dissolving the carbonates in the cement paste, and
then depositing them on the surface. This leads to
unsightly masses on affected surfaces.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 282

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Corrosion of Reinforcement
Corrosion of the metal reinforcement in concrete is
inhibited by the high alkalinity of the surrounding
cement paste. An oxide film forms over the steel
and prevents further attack. Sufficient concrete
covering on the reinforcement will further inhibit
corrosion. The protective alkalinity of the concrete
can be disrupted by lowering pH values through
carbonation, cracking, or loss of the surface concrete.
Carbonation is the reaction of carbon dioxide with
the cement paste, which forms calcium carbonate.
This reaction significantly lowers the pH of the
concrete. If the zone of carbonation reaches the
reinforcement, it can disrupt the protective oxide
layer and induce corrosion. Corrosion can also occur
if other problems, such as cracking, delamination,
or spalling, disrupt the concrete cover and allow
water to reach the embedded metal.
Concrete Repair and Replacement
Concrete repair work, whether its purpose is to
repair cracks, delamination, or spalling, install
large replacements, or repair rusting reinforcement,
usually involves removal of deteriorated material.
Deteriorated concrete must be removed using
methods that do not damage surrounding sound
concrete. Impact methods may cause new cracking
in adjacent sound concrete. Cutting methods or
small, hand-held chipping guns are preferred
methods.
The surface of the concrete and reinforcement to be
repaired must be properly prepared. Inappropriate
preparation of concrete surfaces is the primary
cause of failure for concrete repairs. The concrete
surfaces to be repaired must be clean, free of
dust, and roughened to promote a mechanical
key with new concrete. Embedded, rusting
reinforcement must be exposed to the full extent of
the corrosion. The rusting reinforcement must be
cleaned of all corrosion down to clean metal. The
cleaned reinforcement should be painted with a
rust-inhibiting coating.
New concrete can be placed using conventional
cast-in-place methods, through shotcrete methods
for large areas, or by hand-troweling or groutinjection
repairs for smaller areas. Repair mixes
must be formulated to match the strength and
appearance of existing material and also have low
shrinkage. In important building elements, such
as entrance porches, the exposed aggregate finish
must be matched. Concrete that does not have an
exposed aggregate finish may be coated with a
silicate mineral paint or other breathable masonry
coating to cover repair work.
9.3 Masonry
The majority of the historic buildings at Moravian
College are constructed with brick or stone
masonry, which helps define the overall Germanic
architectural style of the area. Most of Moravian
College’s historic stone buildings have load-bearing
masonry walls and are constructed of regionally
available, rough faced stone. Stone has also been
used as foundations on many brick buildings, or to
emphasize architectural features on facades. Smooth
limestone is used as an accent material for door
thresholds, window sills and lintels, water tables,
and capstones. Bluestone and greenish brownstone
are also seen as trim elements on certain buildings.
Brick is perhaps the most common material used for
historic buildings at Moravian College, including
most of the Priscilla Payne Hurd Campus and
Hamilton, Memorial, Monocacy, and Zinzendorf
Halls at the North Main Street Campus.
Even though masonry is durable, proper care
should be taken to ensure its long-term survival.
Exterior walls respond to the effects of rain, wind,
sun, and temperature and their stability underpins
long-term preservation of the building. Masonry
maintenance is not just an aesthetic consideration
but a structural one. As with all historic materials,
frequent evaluation and careful maintenance can
solve minor problems before they become large
and expensive repairs. The preservation approach
emphasizes retention and repair; any necessary
replacements should be made in-kind, matching
the existing in color, texture, size, and other visual
qualities. Each masonry material has its own design
and maintenance issues that should be considered.
Stone
Stone was used to construct the oldest and most
prominent historic structures at Moravian College,
including the 18th-century Single Brethren’s
House and the Widows’ House, and the Comenius
Hall group from 1891-1907. Also, many of the
brick buildings on campus have rough stone
foundations using stone that was quarried locally.
Natural stone has a variety of physical properties,
depending on its type, place of origin, and method
of quarrying. Stone is a long-lasting material, but
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 283

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
still vulnerable to decay. All stone can be damaged
by salts, freeze/thaw cycling, inappropriate or hard
mortars, harsh chemical or abrasive cleaning, and
improper coatings. The local stone used on many of
Moravian’s buildings contains iron ore, resulting in
staining reactions between the stone and rainfall.
Limestone is used as trim material for window sills
and surrounds, water tables, capstones, and steps.
Indiana limestone is a buff-colored homogeneous
limestone with few mineral inclusions. It is so
regular in color and texture that it can easily be
confused for cast stone. The fineness of Indiana
limestone makes it ideal for carved sills and
capstones.
Slate is also sometimes used for terraces and steps.
Slate is a metamorphosed sedimentary rock that
tends to delaminate along natural bedding planes.
Slate is a durable paving material, but is susceptible
to deterioration from salts.
Brick
Brick construction is used for the majority of
historic buildings at Moravian College, and is
used as ornament on some of the stone buildings.
Bricks vary according to their composition and
manufacturing process. Early brick making
technology produced bricks of varying quality.
The quality of the brick used in historic buildings
varies considerably, depending upon the materials
used, shaping methods, firing quality, and other
manufacturing considerations. The better quality
bricks were used for exposed, exterior brick. The
softer, salmon-colored bricks were used in the
construction of inner walls or exterior walls that
were meant to be covered with stucco.
Like a loaf of bread, bricks have an outer crust and
a softer inner material. Without the outer crust, the
inner brick is vulnerable to rapid deterioration.
Removal of the outer crust by harsh abrasive or
chemical cleaning greatly reduces the durability of
the original bricks. Brick functions best when laid
with bricks of a similar type and with a mortar mix
that is carefully matched to the brick type.
It is important that brick masonry be protected
from water infiltration through adequate roofing
and site drainage. Bricks are porous and can absorb
moisture much like a sponge. Water infiltration can
cause freeze/thaw damage to bricks in cold weather.
Water from the ground can carry salts in solution
into the brick masonry, which can cause internal
stresses as the salts form during evaporation.
Waterproofing coatings are not recommended
for brick masonry. They are often responsible for
trapping water within the masonry rather than
keeping it out.
Individual brick units may be damaged by the
corrosion of embedded metal elements and
structural stresses. Embedded metal materials,
such as structural steel angles, metal anchors, and
through-wall pipes, will corrode in the presence
of water. The expanding corrosion products have
enough force to crack brick units and even seriously
disrupt brick masonry. Structural concerns, such as
settlement, may shift an entire wall causing cracking
through brick units and joints. Any masonry
disruption creates new avenues for water to enter
the building, which leads to further deterioration.
Typical Masonry Conditions
Historic masonry conditions throughout Moravian
College’s campus are good overall with some
serious, ongoing masonry deterioration. Water
infiltration of masonry is widespread throughout
Moravian College’s historic buildings, caused by
problems with both roof and site drainage. Affected
areas show mortar loss, biological growth, and
rising damp at the base of walls. In combination with
salts and freeze/thaw forces, water infiltration has
caused wholesale disintegration of stone and brick
units. Masonry is further disrupted by structural
movement, which causes settlement-type cracking
through both joints and stone or brick units.
Masonry has also been damaged by HVAC and
electrical alterations. At some locations, vents
have been cut through the existing masonry walls
during HVAC upgrades. This work has disrupted
the surrounding masonry, which has been
inappropriately repaired in several cases. Electrical
cables have been directed out through holes in
the masonry walls and strung along the face of
the buildings. These conditions could be avoided
through more sensitive and holistically planned
renovations.
Masonry Inspection
The best course of action to maintain masonry is
cyclical inspection and repair. A yearly baseline
inspection should be comprehensive and examine
building exteriors and interiors, particularly in
attics and basements. Water penetration is the major
source of masonry damage. Although masonry is a
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 284

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
durable material, it is still vulnerable to decay. To
remain in good condition, the masonry wall must
be structurally stable and weather tight, while
also allowing enough flexibility to accommodate
seasonal movement and remaining breathable.
Inspections should include a comprehensive survey
to identify potential problems. Exterior masonry
inspections should be conducted in tandem with
a complete roof drainage system inspection.
Evidence of any of the following should trigger
further investigation or remediation:
• Leaking, broken, or overflowing roofs,
gutters, and downspouts.
• Soil erosion, lack of splash blocks, negative
•
drainage.
Ponding and underground drainage
problems.
• Rising damp (moisture migrating up
from sub-grade/foundations into masonry
walls causing efflorescence, staining, and
delamination).
• Biological growth, staining, or efflorescence
on walls.
• Invasive vegetative growth on or near
masonry surfaces.
• Quick-fixes such as caulks and sealants.
• Mortar erosion, mortar failure, and open
joints.
• Cracked masonry in conjunction with hard
cement-type mortar.
• Uneven weathering.
• Mechanical injury.
• Spalling and damage from deicing salts or
other chemicals.
• Spalling or buckling caused by movement.
• Differential building settlement.
• Cracks through masonry joints or masonry
units caused by movement.
Causes of Masonry Deterioration
Water Infi ltration
Water infiltration is the most common causes of
masonry deterioration. Water is the usual culprit; it
erodes joints, carries salt into the masonry, promotes
biological growth, and causes freeze/thaw stresses.
Water can penetrate walls from above because of
faulty roof drainage or from below due to rising
damp. Regular inspection of roofing systems and
site drainage in conjunction with inspection of
masonry walls is the first line of defense.
Efflorescence is a whitish stain on stone or brick
that is the result of crystallized water-soluble
salts. Widespread efflorescence on an historic wall
indicates moisture penetration. Inappropriate
chemical cleaning can lead to efflorescence, as can
chronic moisture from clogged or inadequate roof
and site drains. In these situations, diagnosis and
remediation should be undertaken to resolve the
underlying problem. The most serious efflorescence
problems at Moravian College can be seen at the
back wall of the Steel Field Grandstand bleachers.
A common problem at Moravian College’s historic
buildings is dampness at building foundations
caused by problematic roof drainage combined
with poor site drainage. This is directly related to
damaged, clogged, or missing gutters, downspouts
and underground drains, which result from a
lack of maintenance for these drainage systems.
Eroded mortar, efflorescence, biological growth,
and rising damp are symptoms of an underlying
moisture problem. Water is absorbed by the wall
and drawn upwards through the masonry pores
by capillary action. Water then gravitates to
the masonry surface where evaporation occurs,
resulting in a characteristic tide line of wet masonry
at the base of the wall. Biological growth will form
on the surface of chronically damp masonry. In
addition, water that is drawn from the soil into
the building wall is laden with salts. These salts
evaporate out of the water at the point in the wall
where the rising damp stops. Here, salts will form
just under the masonry surface, damaging the
microstructure of the masonry from within. It is
important to identify the cause of any deterioration
that is found and undertake appropriate repairs.
Repairing the masonry alone will not fix the root of
the problem, and future masonry deterioration will
be inevitable.
Vegetation
Moss or biological growth on masonry or adjacent
soil surfaces is a sure sign of long-standing moisture
problems. This is commonly seen in buildings with
poor roof and site drainage and is seen on many
buildings at Moravian College, particularly in
shady areas or between closely spaced buildings.
The roots and tendrils of moss, lichens, and other
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 285

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
biological growth also trap moisture within the
masonry and contribute to deterioration.
Ivy was a historic feature on some of Moravian
College’s buildings and has an appealing visual
impression. Over time, however, ivy and other
clinging vines growing directly on masonry walls
saturate them with moisture; the tendrils work their
way into cracks and mortar joints, which erodes
mortar and causes spalling during freeze-thaw
cycles. Attempts to remove established ivy often
results in damaged masonry surfaces and pitting.
Ivy, therefore, should be cut off at the base, left to
die off completely, and then removed gently by
hand. Subsequently, it is recommended that ivy not
be allowed to become established again. Vegetation
may be grown up masonry walls through the use of
trellises mounted several inches away from the face
of the wall, the proper selection of non-clinging
vines, and careful maintenance to ensure that the
vegetation does not get out of control.
Should ivy be permitted to grow on walls, it should
be periodically removed as noted above to allow
for inspection and repair of masonry walls. On a
yearly basis, ivy on walls should be trimmed back
from windows, door opening, roof eaves, and any
wood features.
Shrubs and trees in close proximity to masonry
walls trap moisture and prevent walls from drying
out properly. Likewise, tree limbs that extend over
roofs deposit debris that clogs or damages gutters
and downspouts.
Structural Stress
Masonry wall cracks are problematic because
they indicate building movement or deterioration
of internal structural members and provide
opportunities for moisture penetration and
further deterioration. Cracking may be caused by
settlement, structural failure, freezing moisture
within the wall, or corroded metal reinforcements.
Cracking along the mortar joints or through
masonry units is an indication that the masonry is
in motion. Bulging, leaning, or disrupted masonry
units indicate an advanced state of deterioration.
If cracks or disrupted masonry are observed in
a masonry wall, a structural engineer should be
consulted to determine the cause and appropriate
remedial treatments. The majority of structural
problems can be prevented through proper
inspection and preventative maintenance. It is
important to identify ongoing deterioration, such
as water infiltration and poor site drainage, before
it leads to structural problems.
Improper Maintenance Treatments
Improper maintenance treatments, such as aggressive
cleaning, use of deicing salts, waterproofing
coatings, inappropriate sealant installation,
and hard pointing and bedding mortars, can
accelerate or directly cause masonry deterioration.
Sandblasting, harsh chemical cleaning, and other
abrasive cleaning methods inevitably damage the
exterior surface of the masonry. This damages the
hard, protective surfaces of brick and limestone
masonry. By roughening the surface of all types
of masonry, such cleaning methods increase the
potential for reactions with acid rain and biological
growth.
Traditional sodium, calcium, and magnesium
chloride based deicing salts can damage entryway
and foundation masonry, as well as doors and door
frames. The salts are then absorbed into the masonry.
As the masonry dries, salts form deep within or on
the surface of the masonry causing internal stresses
and damage. Alternative deicing materials have
proven to be effective while reducing their effects
on the environment. Alternative deicing materials
include sand, cat litter, or chemical deicers, such as
calcium magnesium acetate.
Waterproofing coatings, synthetic stucco, and
exterior insulation should not be installed over
historic masonry because they create interior
condensation that damages the wall’s integrity.
Masonry buildings must be allowed to breathe by
allowing water vapor from the building interior to
migrate through the wall and evaporate outside.
Masonry walls should only be insulated from
interior surfaces using a proper vapor barrier.
The exterior walls of historic buildings should not
be insulated if it means removal of intact historic
interior finishes. Additionally, such barriers
inevitably fail when applied over historic masonry
and allow water into the wall, often trapping it in,
exacerbating all of the problems associated with
water infiltration.
Sealant should only be installed in masonry units
located on wash surfaces, such as coping units,
projecting water table and belt courses, and steps.
Sealant should never be installed on vertical wall
surfaces. Sealant will trap water within the masonry
wall, forcing the water back into the masonry units.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 286

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Any embedded metal anchors located within the
wall will corrode causing stresses.
Historic masonry is often repointed with extremely
hard, dense Portland cement mortars in a mistaken
belief that a stronger mortar makes for a more
durable masonry wall. In most cases, the cement
mortars are harder than the masonry, causing
eventual deterioration of the softer, more porous
masonry during freeze/thaw cycles. Masonry
load-bearing walls are also subject to daily and
seasonal movement from differential thermal
movement. Hard, dense Portland cement mortars
are inflexible and do not allow for this movement,
leading to cracking of the masonry.
Thermal Movement
Minor masonry deformation and some systemic
cracks can be caused by thermal movement.
Masonry walls expand when warm and contract
when cool. In historic walls, this movement is
taken up in the soft mortar joints of the masonry.
The most visible form of thermal movement is the
deformation of masonry chimneys over time. Tall
chimneys will slowly twist as each face is warmed
by the sun. Over time, this can lead to wracking
of the chimney, necessitating complete rebuilding.
Existing through-wall cracks in masonry walls
should be monitored to ensure that the masonry
is no longer moving; however, cyclical movement
may be caused by thermal movement. Cracks
in masonry that are stable will open and close
through thermal movement, opening in the winter
as the wall contracts and closing in the summer as
it expands.
Masonry Repair
Masonry repair is a complex subject. Repairs to
historic masonry should only be performed by
craftsmen skilled in historic masonry preservation
approaches and techniques. The type of masonry,
the type and extent of damage, and the proposed
methods of repair should be determined
prior to beginning any work. The following
recommendations are intended to be a general
treatment guide; case-by-case solutions can vary
depending upon the specific individual conditions.
It is important to understand that different types
of masonry have different physical properties,
weights and densities, and weathered surfaces.
Detailed information on appropriate treatments for
historic masonry can also be found in the National
Park Service series of Technical Preservation
Briefs. It is best to consult a restoration contractor
or preservation professional before undertaking
repair or repointing because appropriate work is
important, not only for aesthetic reasons but also for
the masonry’s long-term stability and durability.
Water Infi ltration Problems
Many deterioration mechanisms in masonry
are related to or exacerbated by moisture and
water infiltration. Masonry repair often begins
by identifying the source of moisture or water
infiltration and rectifying these problems first. As
long as the deterioration is not critical to structural
stability, repairs to masonry units and mortar joints
should be postponed until water problems have
been addressed.
Rising damp is the wicking of moisture up into a
masonry wall from the ground. Solutions to rising
damp conditions are complex and should be handled
by a contractor or specialist skilled in historic
masonry. Consultation with a landscape architect
is often required for site drainage issues. Repair
or replacement of faulty roof drainage systems
saturating the soil adjacent to foundation walls is a
primary cause of rising damp. Remedial measures
can include the installation of underground
drainage, replacement of underground drainage
pipes, and regarding to move water away from
the wall. A vapor barrier can be installed along the
base of the wall to prevent moisture from rising
up into the masonry, but this can involve extensive
excavation and cost.
Adjacent trees and shrubs, as well as vines and
biological growth growing on the masonry
contribute to moisture problems by preventing
walls from drying out. As with all moisturerelated
problems, careful diagnosis should precede
remedial work. Pruning, selected removal of
foundation plantings and gentle hand removal
of plants attached to masonry should precede
repair work. Biocide masonry cleaners containing
quaternary ammonium compounds may be
effective in areas of heavy biological growth.
Any cleaning method deemed necessary to remove
biological growth, gypsum crusts, or other soiling
should use the gentlest means possible. The cleaning
method must be tailored to the type of masonry to
be cleaned, the current condition of the masonry,
and the nature of the soiling to be removed. Harsh
chemical and abrasive cleaning must not be allowed
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 287

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
because it exacerbates rising damp and related
moisture problems. The desire for a clean building
must be weighed against the possible risks to the
masonry materials.
Holes, vents, or borings in brick and stone masonry
that can admit water should always be limited
in size and number. Any opening should be cut
through mortar joints with minimal harm to the
adjacent masonry. Openings with protruding
metal elements, such as pipes or conduit, should
be treated with an appropriate sealant colored to
match the existing material. Openings that have
been abandoned with no protruding elements
should be repaired by completely moving any
embedded metal and installing a cementitious
patch that matches the existing masonry surface in
color, strength, texture, and finish.
Masonry Crack Repair
All cracks in masonry must first be properly
diagnosed. Cracks caused by structural stresses
must be investigated by a structural engineer who
can recommend remedial repairs. As with moisture
problems, the underlying structural problems must
be addressed before performing repairs.
Cracking from a one-time event, such as small-scale
settlement, may require a cementitious mortar or
grout repair. Cracking through masonry joints
should be repaired by repointing the affected joints.
Cracking through masonry units may require the
installation of reinforcement and a cementitious
patch or grout repair. Long, deep cracks in the
masonry must be patched using a knife-grade
patching compound to prevent further moisture
penetration. The visual impact of such a repair
should be minimized by using a colored mortar
that is similar to the color of the masonry being
patched.
It is important to note that not all cracks in masonry
require repair. Cracks may simply be a part of
the natural weathering process for some stone
masonry. Small, hairline cracks on vertical surfaces
of stone masonry should not be repaired unless
they are deep enough to allow water to infiltrate
into the masonry wall. However, such cracking on
horizontal wash surfaces should be patched with a
knife-grade patching compound to prevent water
infiltration.
Corroding Lintel Repair
The repair of corroding lintels is a costly and
invasive procedure. The steel lintel is a substantial
structural element, which causes major masonry
disruption as the metal corrodes and expands. The
greater the amount of corroding metal in the wall,
the greater the disruption of the masonry units.
The long-term solution to the problem of corroding
lintels is to remove the piece of corroding metal
in its entirety. First the window must be properly
shored, using techniques that have been approved
by a structural engineer. Then the overlying brick
or stone units must be removed, a minimum of four
courses of brick above the window and one foot to
either side. The original bricks or stones should be
removed as whole units, cleaned of mortar, and
salvaged for use in the masonry repair.
The corroding lintel can then be removed and
replaced with a new one. The new lintel must be
properly flashed, with the flashing cut into the
masonry backup at the top, then run vertically
against the masonry backup for a minimum of
eight inches, and then flashed over the steel angle.
If the flashing cannot be cut into the masonry
backup, it must be attached using a termination
bar and high-quality sealant. The salvaged brick or
stone should be used to reconstruct the masonry
facing over the window lintel. It is important that
the masonry repair follow the brick or stone size,
pattern, and row height in the surrounding wall.
Replacement mortar must match the original in its
thickness, color, texture, and finishing.
Patches and Dutchmen
Small pieces of masonry lost through spalling or
delamination can be repaired with a cementitious
patching compound that matches the color and
hardness of the primary masonry. Proprietary
patching compounds must only be installed by
trained masons. Many manufacturers offer training
courses and product certification for masons.
Commercially-available patching compounds
can be either Portland cement-based or natural
hydraulic lime-based. It is important to choose a
patching compound that is compatible with the
compressive and flexural strengths and permeability
characteristics of the masonry to be repaired.
Damaged areas of masonry that are too large to
patch may be repaired by installation of a masonry
dutchman. In this procedure, the deteriorated
portion of the masonry is cut away and a new piece
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 288

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
of masonry (the dutchman) is installed to match
the existing. Dutchman repair is a much more
durable repair than a cementitious patch repair. A
cementitious patch may need to be replaced after
10-15 years, while a properly-installed dutchman
should last as long as the masonry itself. Dutchman
repairs require skill to install correctly and should
not be attempted by inexperienced personnel.
Consolidation
Consolidation of masonry should only be considered
in situations where the masonry is friable (prone
to crumbling) and exhibits surface disintegration.
Consolidation works on a microscopic level to
strengthen cohesion between grains. Consolidation
is not appropriate for delamination, spalling,
or large-scale cracking. Commercially-available
consolidants are not appropriate for masonry
containing a calcium carbonate binder, such
as limestone. Consolidants have only proven
effective on silicate-based masonry such as brick or
sandstone.
If the masonry type and deterioration warrants
consolidation, the first step is to characterize
the masonry through petrographic analysis and
materials characterization. Testing is performed
in a laboratory to investigate how the consolidant
treatment affects the physical characteristics of
the stone. It is also important to investigate how
effectively the masonry takes up the consolidant
treatment. Consolidants must not be used if the
masonry is adversely affected or if the consolidant
is not properly absorbed. If laboratory testing
determines that the consolidant is well-absorbed
by the masonry and does not significantly alter
its physical characteristics, then the consolidant
should be tested in field mockups. Consolidation
is an irreversible treatment and should not be
undertaken by unskilled personnel or without
proper laboratory and field testing.
Cleaning
Careful project planning is essential when making
decisions about cleaning historic masonry. The
initial assessment should evaluate the historic
material, the type of soiling, the reason for cleaning,
and the cleaning method. Cleaning should be
undertaken only where dirt or other material
obscures significant architectural features, or is
causing, or has the potential to cause, damage to
masonry. Cleaning methods should be carefully
selected to do the job without harming the historic
material. It is also important to repoint deteriorated
mortar joints prior to cleaning to ensure that water
does not penetrate the wall during cleaning.
Cleaning should never remove the patina that is
evidence of a structure’s history and age. It should
never be performed for the sole purpose of achieving
a new appearance. Moreover, it is important to
have realistic expectations: historic buildings will
never have the same clean appearance as those that
were recently built. It is better to under-clean than
to over-clean because the latter inevitably causes
damage.
Cleaning treatments fall into three general
categories: water-based, chemical, and mechanical
methods. Water-based methods include
pressurized water spray, heated water treatments,
and mist-spray. Chemical methods involve the use
of soaps, detergents, acidic and basic cleaners, and
biocidal treatments in a variety of gels, liquids,
pastes, and poultices. Mechanical cleaning methods
include the use of tools, such as brushes, scrapers,
and specialized rotating and laser-based cleaning
equipment. It is possible to combine treatments for
the best results, such as combining mild mechanical
methods with low-pressurized water spray.
The preservation approach is to always employ the
gentlest cleaning method starting with low-pressure
water and natural bristle brushes. Water pressure
should be no stronger than 150-200 pounds per
square inch (psi). High-pressure water spray can
damage masonry surfaces and drive moisture into
cracks and joints. Several cycles of mist-spray can
be effective in removing some black gypsum crusts
with minimal scrubbing. Any cleaning method
using water should not occur when the temperature
will fall below 50 degrees Fahrenheit for three days
(72 hours) after cleaning.
Chemical treatments should be approached with
great caution because they can cause irreversible
damage. They should never be applied by unskilled
personnel. Understanding the physical properties
of the masonry and type of soiling in question is
a vital first step before proposing or testing any
chemical cleaners. If chemicals must be used, test
panels should be developed and carefully evaluated
to avoid over cleaning. Chemical cleaners must
be chosen by a knowledgeable professional who
understands the type and condition of the masonry
material to be cleaned. Only non-acidic neutral
pH detergents should be used in conjunction with
non-metallic brushes or scrapers; metal brushes
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 289

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
can permanently damage masonry. Acidic cleaners
or highly alkaline cleaners can damage historic
materials and should be avoided. Prior to cleaning,
the proposed methods should be tested in an
inconspicuous area to evaluate potential adverse
impacts. Cleaning solutions should start with the
lowest recommended concentration and gradually
be increased to find the appropriate level. Although
it is time-consuming, the best way to determine the
long-term effects of a cleaning process is to treat
a small portion of the wall and observe it over a
seasonal cycle. Staff and contractors applying the
treatment follow the manufacturer’s instructions
exactly. If chemicals are improperly applied, they
can result in permanent damage that far outweighs
any benefit of cleaning.
Abrasive sandblasting should never be used on
historic masonry because it is irreversible and
extremely damaging. Sandblasting accelerates
deterioration of historic masonry materials and has
a profound negative impact on a building’s historic
character. Sandblasting removes the hard, protective
surface of the masonry, especially brick, and breaks
mortar joints, leading to moisture penetration.
If masonry surfaces were painted historically,
they should remain painted. Paint has a specific
protective function and often plays a part in the
overall historic design and appearance. Paint
clings tenaciously to the tiny pores and fissures
of a masonry wall and its mortar joints. For this
reason, paint on masonry is difficult to remove and
should not be attempted only for aesthetic reasons.
If conditions warrant paint removal, it should be
approached cautiously using the gentlest means
possible. Test patches in inconspicuous locations
should precede any large-scale or overall cleaning.
Masonry Coatings
Waterproof coatings, paint, or stucco should never
be applied to uncoated masonry buildings to solve
moisture-related problems or as a substitute for
repointing and preventative maintenance. Over
time, these band-aid repairs trap moisture within
the walls and cause a host of related problems.
In some cases, a breathable masonry coating may
be desired, to conceal concrete or stucco repairs,
or unsightly staining. It should be understood
that most masonry coatings are difficult, if not
impossible, to remove. Coating masonry must not
be undertaken without considering the long-term
effects. If a masonry coating is required, the
selection of a true breathable coating is critical for
the long-term performance of both masonry and
coating. Opaque, breathable masonry coatings
are currently available as acrylic latex paints
specifically formulated for masonry. They reduce
the breathability of the masonry by ten percent. In
theory, it may be possible to remove these coatings
in the future, but this has not yet been tested.
Silicate mineral paints are also available for painting
silicate-based masonry, such as brick and sandstone.
Silicate mineral paints reduce the breathability of
masonry by only three percent. However, a silicate
mineral paint will permanently bind to the silicatebased
masonry substrate if properly prepared and
should only be used where permanent coatings are
desired. A mockup should be prepared to evaluate
the coating in situ prior to large scale treatment.
Buildings that have been painted may prove to be
a lasting maintenance problem. New coatings must
be compatible with the existing paint to adhere
properly. All loose or deteriorated paint should be
removed and a new, breathable masonry coating,
compatible with the existing paint substrate,
should be applied. However, over time, paint will
build up on the surface of the masonry, which may
cause moisture to be trapped in the wall or cause
the paint to fail.
Sealants
Waterproof building sealants should only be applied
to joints in horizontal surfaces at coping units, sills,
steps, and at projecting cornice, belt, and water
table courses. These joints are particularly prone
to water penetration. Proper sealant installation
involves installation of a foam backer rod with the
correct diameter for the size of the joint. Sealant
must be installed against the backer rod, forming
a concave joint between the masonry units. Flush
sealant joints that do not have a concave shape have
been improperly installed. Do not allow sealants to
overlap the outside face of the masonry, as it will
cause the sealants to fail prematurely. Do not use
sealant in joints on vertical wall surfaces because
it will trap moisture within the wall and lead to
deterioration.
Masonry Repointing
Repointing is the repair of deteriorated mortar
joints, accomplished by removing and replacing
old, deteriorated mortar. Appropriate repointing,
using preservation techniques, is critical to a historic
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 290

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
masonry building’s physical condition and plays a
significant role in integrity and appearance. When
mortar joints fail in masonry, they allow water to
flow into the areas around the masonry, creating
a chain of events that can weaken the entire wall.
Repointing techniques and mortar mixes will
vary according to the type of masonry. Therefore,
consultation with preservation contractors and
professionals is strongly recommended before
undertaking repointing projects. Masons trained
in new construction usually lack expertise with
historic masonry.
Replication Mortar Mixes
The mortar mix is critical to masonry function
and aesthetics and will vary according to the type
of masonry. Ideally the composition of the new
mortar would duplicate that of the original mortar
mix. However, it should be noted that even current
mortar analysis techniques cannot accurately
determine the actual original mix; there are far too
many variables. Mortar analysis techniques can
provide subjective data on properties of the mortar
such as probable binder content, hardness, air
content, and color. However, no technique available
today can accurately determine the actual original
mix.
An historic mortar analysis can, however, provide
valuable information for characterizing the
original mortar. This simple acid digestion and
gravimetric analysis is usually performed by a
building conservator for a modest cost. It is highly
recommended as the first step in matching existing
mortars for spot repointing. The analysis releases
the original sand, allowing analysis of sand color,
mineralogical content, and grain size; matching
the original sand is important to finding a good
replication mix. Iron oxide pigments may be
added to match the color of historically pigmented
mortars. Multiple test panels are usually needed to
achieve the right color and texture match.
In addition to mortar analysis, it is critical to
understand the strength and permeability of
the existing historic masonry. Knowledge of the
physical properties of the existing masonry will
aid in choosing a mortar mix with compatible
characteristics. The new mortar must be weaker
and more permeable than the existing masonry,
while achieving good bond with the masonry
units. It is important to evaluate the performance
characteristics of the mortar mix as well as its
appearance.
Mortar installed prior to 1920 was typically
composed of lime, which is more flexible and
permeable than Portland cement-based mortars.
Today’s high-strength, commercially-available
Portland cement mortars are inappropriate for
historic masonry buildings because they are
hard and dense. Modern mortars are designed
to match the characteristics of new, unweathered
stone and contemporary hard brick, not historic
masonry. Commercially-available masonry
mortars should also be avoided because they can
contain unnecessary, and undisclosed, additives
and fillers. In addition to these functional concerns,
modern mortars have a brighter and more uniform
appearance than historic mortars.
When hard Portland cement-based mortars are
used for pointing historic masonry, the mortar is
often harder than the masonry. Adding mortar that
is too hard or dense to the soft or weathered historic
masonry leads to accelerated masonry deterioration.
The hard mortar traps moisture within the wall,
which then cannot escape through the joints as it
would normally. Instead, the moisture enters the
softer and more permeable masonry and causes
spalling, cracking, and deterioration.
In historic masonry buildings, soft mortar joints are
flexible enough to allow for the seasonal expansion
and contraction of the wall. Modern buildings
control this movement through expansion joints. If
a historic masonry wall is pointed with a harder,
less-flexible mortar, the masonry becomes the
weakest link. The masonry, not the mortar joints,
will crack, spall, or deteriorate as it absorbs the
stress caused by seasonal changes and movement.
If left unchecked, this masonry deterioration can
result in structural failure of the wall.
Non-hydraulic lime is a traditional building material
produced by burning limestone and other calcium
carbonate-rich materials, like shells. The resulting
burned material is then slaked, or combined with
water, to create a plastic, highly workable lime
putty. The lime putty is mixed with sand to create
the final mortar. Alternatively, dry, unslaked lime
was “hot mixed” with sand and water to form the
mortar. Non-hydraulic lime putty is commercially
available. However, proper installation and curing
is absolutely essential. Non-hydraulic lime mortars
are extremely susceptible to shrinkage and failure
from freezing temperatures.
Currently, the majority of masons are comfortable
with using combined Portland cement and hydraulic
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 291

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
lime-based mortars. These hybrid mortars combine
the quick set and strength of Portland cement with
the flexibility and greater workability of hydraulic
lime. The great advantage of these hybrid mortars
is that they are mixed and cured in a similar
manner to modern Portland cements. Most masons
are familiar with these methods, which greatly
improve the chances of achieving a successful
repointing job.
Natural cements and natural hydraulic limes
have become available in the U.S. and should be
considered for repointing historic masonry. Natural
cements are produced from burning clay-rich
limestone at temperatures that are lower than those
used to make Portland cement. Natural cements
tend to perform in a similar manner as Portland
cement and hydrated lime mixes. It is imperative
that natural cements be installed by a mason
who is familiar with the product and the curing
requirements.
Natural hydraulic limes are also produced from
burning clay-rich limestone at lower temperatures,
but typically have more free lime than natural
cements. Hydraulic lime mortars are more vapor
permeable than cement-lime mortars, which
aids water and salt removal within the masonry,
and have better elasticity, allowing for building
movement without cracking. However, hydraulic
limes do require treatment after placement to ensure
proper curing, which is vital for frost resistance.
The choice of a contractor with experience using
natural hydraulic limes is the key to a successful
project.
Good Repointing Practice
Mortar should only be removed when it is
absolutely necessary, such as when the mortar is
unsound, cracked, eroded, or crumbling. Removal
of mortar at all joints in an effort to achieve a
uniform appearance is rarely necessary. Unsound
mortar should be removed to a depth of 2.5 times
the width of the joint, or to sound mortar, whichever
is greater. Work should be performed using
hand-held, non-power tools. Power tools such as
masonry saws can easily damage masonry. In some
circumstances, a thin saw cut may be run down
the center of a horizontal joint with the remainder
removed by hand. However, masonry saws should
never be used on vertical joints. This work should
only be attempted by skilled preservation masons.
New work should match historic mortar joints
in color, texture, joint size, profile tooling, and
any decorative details, such as penciling. Where
necessary, voids in bedding mortar must be packed
with new mortar, and then repointed to prevent face
loading of the masonry and consequent spalling.
Masons should achieve visual continuity between
surviving historic material and new patches. Mask
grouting is essentially a cosmetic fix that applies
a skim topcoat of mortar over existing joints. Not
only does it hide any underlying existing mortar
problems, it changes the appearance of the entire
building. This practice should be avoided.
Masonry Replacement
In areas of extensive deterioration or missing
features, limited replacement of the masonry units
may be appropriate. Replacement should only be
considered if the material is deteriorated-beyondrepair.
Removal or rebuilding of a substantial
portion of exterior masonry walls should only
be undertaken when it is crucial to a building’s
structural integrity. The replacement masonry
should be carefully chosen to match the damaged
masonry in size, color, texture, appearance, and
physical properties. New work should match
the existing profile, pattern, and coursing details
of damaged sections and features. Avoiding the
need for large masonry replacement is important;
preventative maintenance and minimizing openings
for equipment installation should prevent the need
for later rebuilding.
Replacement brick must be suitable for exterior
applications. Brick that is stronger than the original
brick should not be used because of water migration
that results in spalling and damage to softer bricks.
New work should match the existing bond (pattern
within a row), course (pattern of rows), color, and
size of bricks when replacing sections of a wall. Brick
should always be toothed-in to historic brickwork.
Locating replacement stone to match the existing
stone used in historic masonry can be problematic.
Many historically used stone types are no longer
quarried for building stone, and it is difficult to find
sources for the dimensional stone used in walls.
Potential sources of stone may include salvaged
stone or replacement with similar, though not
identical, commercially available stone from other
locations.
Indiana limestone and slate are still commercially
available. The homogeneity of Indiana limestone
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 292

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
makes it a reliable replacement material. It is
relatively easy to match the color and texture of
historic Indiana limestone. Replacing slate requires
careful matching to available materials, which can
range from mauve to gray to green.
9.4 Metals
Metals are found in various architectural elements,
including handrails, light fixtures, and gates. The
metals most frequently used in architecture are
alloys containing lead, tin, zinc, copper, nickel,
aluminum, and iron. Iron and its alloys, including
steel, are particularly prevalent because of the
moderate production costs brought about by
technological breakthroughs in manufacturing
in the late nineteenth century. Metal elements are
inherently durable if properly maintained. Metals
used in the production of doors, windows, and their
associated hardware will be dealt with separately
in the section on doors and windows.
Typical Metal Conditions
Architectural metalwork is present in historic
buildings at Moravian College as entrance handrails
and balustrades, lighting fixtures, plaques, gates,
cupolas, finials, and fire escapes. The majority of
this exterior metalwork appears to be in relatively
good condition.
Metal Inspection
Architectural metalwork should be included in
regular cyclical maintenance inspections. Metal
handrails and gates should be inspected as part of
entrance and access safety. Rooftop ornament should
be inspected during roof surveys, particularly to
ensure that they are properly anchored. Inspections
should note any of the following potential signs of
deterioration.
• Loose handrails.
• Loose anchors or attachments.
• Missing rails or decorative elements.
• Rust or rust staining through paint.
• Cracking or other disruption at anchors and
screws.
• Cracking through soldered joints.
Causes of Metal Deterioration
Corrosion is the major cause of deterioration of
architectural metalwork and is exacerbated by the
presence of moisture. Corrosion can be caused by
structural stress, electrochemical reaction with
dissimilar metals, or corrosive environments, such
as salt-laden water. It is accelerated wherever water
collects against metal elements, such as at post
anchor locations in masonry. Metals undergoing
corrosion are slowly reverting to their natural ores,
such as iron oxide. This process involves significant
expansion of the corroding metal, which can cause
extensive masonry cracking.
Architectural metals can also deteriorate from
mechanical failures, such as overloading or fatigue.
For example, excessive use of handrails will slowly
work sections loose from their anchors and disrupt
the masonry at the anchor connections. The exposed
nature of metal fire escapes can lead to corrosion
and potential life-safety issues. Fire escapes should
be inspected regularly.
Metal Repair
The architectural metalwork at Moravian College’s
historic buildings can be maintained through
proper surface preparation and application of
protective coatings. Deteriorated paint should be
removed using appropriate methods, including
wire-brushing for non-decorative elements
exhibiting light rust, or chemical paint removal for
heavier built-up paint. Severe corrosion may require
that entire sections of metalwork be removed to a
shop for repair. The newly-cleaned metal should be
immediately protected with a rust-inhibiting primer.
Alkyl-based enamel paints are recommended for
finishing iron alloys. Latex and other water-based
paints are not recommended.
Metal Replacement
When metalwork components are beyond repair,
replacement of the element with reproduction metal
is a practical solution. Where new or replacement
handrails are required, they should match the
characteristic environment of the character area.
Modern stock handrails are not appropriate for
most historic buildings, though sympathetic
modern installations can be found. Decorative light
fixtures and finials should be reproduced to match
the existing historic elements in size, thickness, and
details.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 293

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
9.5 Exterior and Structural
Wood
Historically, wood was used extensively for its
structural and aesthetic value. In particular, historic
wood cladding and wood details are highly-visible
and significant features of a building’s exterior.
While there are no historic frame buildings on either
campus, and only a relative few among the Collegeowned
neighborhood houses, even predominantly
masonry buildings on the campus have some wood
elements or frame additions. Wood windows and
doors are unique elements and will be discussed
separately in this chapter.
Wood elements tend to be relatively limited at
Moravian College. Roof eaves are protected and
embellished with wood cornices. Gable end walls
are ornamented with cornice returns, and wood
moldings, pediments, and hoods are found in
association with entrances. Many of the historic
buildings have open wooden porches. Although
wood details can be challenging to repair once
they are allowed to deteriorate, they are significant
elements of a building’s character and appearance,
and should be maintained and preserved.
The ease, with which wood can be used to form
decorative details, and its exposed position on
exterior walls, make it naturally susceptible to
weathering and deterioration. The complex design
and execution of wood details creates many
opportunities for damage from water, air, and
insects. The condition of wood elements is highly
dependent upon the extent and quality of regular
maintenance. Without routine inspection and
prompt remedial action, wood deterioration will
accelerate rapidly on both the interior and exterior.
Early detection and repair avoids more extensive
and costly repair later. Unfortunately, once they
have deteriorated, wood details are often removed
rather than repaired or replaced. Cornices are
among the most vulnerable wood features because
they weather quickly and are difficult to access for
regular maintenance.
Historic craftsmanship was based upon the uses
and characteristics of different wood species. In
rehabilitation and repair projects, the replacement
wood should match the historic materials.
Availability, cost, and quality, however, are also
important considerations in the selection of wood
species. For instance, old-growth white pine was
used extensively for structural framing historically
and was much denser than the white pine available
today. Cedar, on the other hand, was not available
historically, but is now preferable for use in wood
detailing that will be exposed to the elements
because of its resistance to weathering.
Typical Wood Conditions
The most prevalent problem affecting exterior
architectural woodwork is water penetration
from poorly-maintained roof, flashing, and site
drainage systems. This can be seen at various wood
elements, including cornices, porch columns, and
wood cladding. Water penetration can lead to
wood rot and insect infestation. Buildings are also
vulnerable to infestation with termites. Termite
damage can occur in both wood frame and masonry
buildings wherever termites can reach architectural
woodwork. Termites can cause significant damage
to the wood framed and detailed buildings before
the damage becomes readily visible.
Wood Inspection
Preservation of historic exterior woodwork and
cladding is important to the character of historic
buildings. Therefore, maintenance of exterior
walls and features begins with regular periodic
inspections. Before repair and alterations are
made to a historic building with wood features,
the existing wood elements should be carefully
evaluated and examined for their historical
significance and physical condition. Characterdefining
exterior historic building fabric should be
retained and repaired whenever possible.
Inspection should include interior and exterior
conditions and a careful examination of structural
elements associated with the walls, floors and
roof framing. Wood should be inspected annually,
particularly for insect infestation. Regular
inspections are the key to prompt repair that will
arrest deterioration and its underlying causes.
Preventative maintenance inspections prevent
widespread damage and save money in the long
run. Evidence of any of the following should trigger
in-depth diagnosis and remediation.
• Peeling paint and/or damaged paint
surfaces.
• Rotted wood that is soft and spongy. Dry,
cracked wood does not necessarily indicate
wood failure.
• Cracks or loose joints.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 294

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• Worn and damaged clapboards.
• Clogged gutters and downspouts.
• Failed flashing.
• Interior ceiling and wall damage.
• Water stains.
• Biological growth.
• Buckled, rotting, or damaged porch floors
and ceilings.
• Settlement at porches.
• Animal nests and/or termite trails.
• Insect infestation.
If insects are suspected, all of the building’s first
floor wood features and foundation should be
investigated. The easiest test is to attempt to
penetrate the wood to a depth of up to ¾-inch with
a sharp awl, using only hand-pressure. If the awl
enters the wood easily, either insects or rot are
likely present.
Causes of Wood Deterioration
Decay and Rot
In nature, decay and rot is part of the life cycle of
all living things. In historic architecture, however,
wood decay should be arrested to prolong the life
of the building. Rot is caused by water penetration
that softens and breaks down the fibrous structure
of wood, diminishing its capacity to carry loads
or its ability to withstand crushing. Without these
structural qualities, a building’s wood frame
becomes fragile and unstable.
The growth of fungi is a clear sign that decay is
present. It also indicates water penetration. To
survive in wood, fungi needs a moisture content
of at least twenty percent and warm temperatures.
Simply removing fungi and repairing the rotted
wood is a superficial approach; the source of the
moisture must be identified and eliminated. With a
constant water source, decay will recur and spread.
Moisture penetration into wood primarily occurs
for one of the following reasons.
• Leaking gutters.
• Peeling paint, cracked siding, missing
shingles.
• Inadequate or deteriorated flashing.
• Unventilated spaces.
• Improper insulation or lack of a vapor
barrier.
• Contact with soil or moist masonry.
• Poor site drainage at the foundation, including
negative drainage toward the building.
• High water table or rising damp.
• Plumbing leaks.
Wood-destroying Insects
Termites, powder post beetles, and carpenter ants
are the natural enemies of wood. Even in buildings
primarily constructed of masonry, termites are
attracted by moisture and can enter buildings
through basements, crawl spaces, and foundation
cracks. Mulch, scrap wood, and vegetation
immediately adjacent to a building contribute to
the problem and should be removed. Signs of insect
infestation include the following.
• Swarming termites and carpenter bees in
warm weather.
• Half-round vertical termite tunnels on
foundation walls, piers, pipes, and on other
building and crawlspace surfaces near the
ground. These mud tunnels are the most
direct route from the ground to the food
source in exposed moist wood.
• Minute amounts of fresh boredust at
crawlspaces, walls, and foundations.
• Evidence of previous termite damage in
wood. Termite-damaged wood is porous and
shot-through with borings that run with the
grain. It is fragile and crumbles easily.
Termites
The greatest danger to buildings that contain wood
comes from termites. There are two types: the generic
termites that swarm in the spring and Formosan
termites that cannot be easily detected because they
do not swarm but stay primarily underground.
Both types are attracted by moist wood. They build
colonies and burrows underground, much like
ants, and eat into wood before returning to the soil.
Termites are most active in the spring and summer
months, although they are present year-round in
mild climates. Formosan termites pose the greatest
threat because they are hard to detect and have
migrated from the Deep South into the upper South
and beyond.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 295

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Termites typically are found in basements and crawl
spaces and in situations where wood is in direct
contact with soil or mulch. They have been known
to enter slab-on-grade buildings through tiny
cracks in the slab. Their constant traffic results in
mud tunnels and passageways on vertical building
surfaces, usually at-grade or slightly below grade.
Tiny specks or piles of sawdust are also telltale
signs of termite activity.
Carpenter Ants
Like termites, carpenter ants usually attack a
building from a crawl space or basement and are
they are attracted to moist wood. Carpenter ants are
a natural resident of our surrounding woodlands
and so are frequently present around historic
buildings. Their nests can be extensive and cause
serious damage to a structure.
Carpenter Bees
Carpenter bees swarm in the spring and bore
holes into vertical wooden elements. These bees
are substantially larger than the honey bee and
produce sizeable holes up to ½ inch in diameter
in which to lay their eggs. Breaking the cycle is
therefore important and professional treatment
is recommended. They can be very destructive
and are attracted to the type of thick framing
members typically found on log structures. Other
buildings are not immune however: large wooden
architectural features, such as exposed rafter ends,
solid wood columns, and half-timbering, can host
carpenter bees.
Beetles
Powder post beetles are attracted to wood that
has already been softened by rot or fungal attack.
Preventing moisture penetration, repairing
deteriorated wood features, and fungal removal
are effective preventive maintenance techniques
for beetles.
Old house borer beetles in their larvae stage cause
damage to wood, especially in moist wood found in
unventilated attics or in areas of water penetration.
They inhabit timbers that are more than one inch
thick. Old house borer beetles may be introduced
when modern infested wood is installed in existing
buildings. New wood may be infested in the
lumberyard, especially if it has not been kiln-dried.
The best prevention is to always use lumber that
has been kiln dried and, possibly, treated with a
borate spray.
Wood Repair
Repair work should be carefully planned to have
the least physical impact on historic wood. Any
cleaning should be undertaken using careful,
non-abrasive techniques. High-pressure blasting
using either water or abrasives is very damaging
and should never be used. If the exterior woodwork
requires painting or caulking, this will serve as
its primary protection from weathering. Painted
surfaces should be well-maintained. In general,
use an alkyd primer coat and two coats of latex
finish paint on wood surfaces, according to the
manufacturers’ instructions.
As with all historic material, damaged sections
should be replaced in-kind to match the historic
in all visual and physical qualities. Rotted wood
should be removed and replaced, especially if it
is structural. It is usually not necessary, however,
to remove an entire wood element that has limited
areas of rot. The deteriorated portion of the wood
element can be selectively removed and a wood
dutchman installed as a patch in the original
wood feature. For structural elements, a structural
engineer should be consulted to determine the
nature and extent of the repair required. In areas
of significant or ornamental wood elements,
commercially available epoxy consolidants can
be used to give strength to the existing wood.
Consolidants can also eliminate the need to remove
original historic wood elements.
Decay and Infestation Prevention and
Remediation
Remove invasive plants on or near wood and
address fungus or insect infestation problems
promptly. The best prevention of termite infestation
is to avoid direct contact between wood and the
ground and eliminate building water penetration.
Mulch piled against building foundations attracts
termites and should be pulled back from the
walls. Likewise, raised landscape beds that come
in contact with a building are problematic. Beetle
infestations can be prevented by preventing
moisture penetration, repairing deteriorated wood
features, and removing fungal growth. Carpenter
ants can be controlled with soil-applied fumigants
applied along the perimeter of the building. In the
case of carpenter bees, professional pest control
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 296

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
experts should be consulted. To prevent damage
and/or help stop infestation, the following measures
are recommended.
• Block open channels, holes, and openings
where pipes and conduits enter a building or
its foundation wall.
• Remove loose pieces of wood lying on the
ground in proximity to buildings.
• Avoid direct contact between wood and the
ground. Porch lattice, wood posts, and wood
steps are particularly vulnerable.
• Keep mulch at least 3 feet away from
foundation walls.
• Remove raised planting beds that touch
buildings.
• Examine untreated lumber in fences and
other structures periodically.
• Retain a professionally qualified firm to
regularly inspect and treat infestations.
Once-a-year application of chemical poisons
and soil-applied fumigants are not as effective
or as safe as in-ground systems. A warrantee
and routine follow-up inspections should be
part of the treatment program.
• If the damage is serious, structural work may
be required. Work may include shoring up
the building, removing damaged wood at
least one foot beyond the infestation, and
other structural repairs. The same species of
wood should be installed to replace the wood
that has been removed.
Wood Siding
Wood siding is the skin of a building and an
important character-defining feature. Its purpose
is to protect a building’s underlying structural
framing and interior features from weather. When
wood siding is protected from water, it can last for
many decades. To function properly, siding must
accomplish two tasks: it must shed water from the
exterior and allow water vapor to pass between the
building interior and exterior. Any siding material
that fails to allow the passage of water vapor will
promote deterioration within the wall.
Whenever possible, retain original wood siding.
Repair original wood siding by removing
deteriorated pieces and replacing them with
new pieces to match. When repairs are required
to the interior of the wall, it may be appropriate
to remove and reinstall original exterior wood
siding. By completing the repairs from the outside,
interior historic plaster and wood lath is left intact.
Electrical, plumbing, and insulation work may also
be undertaken in this manner.
Wood siding should be protected with properly
applied paint. A good paint job should last twelve
to fifteen years. Do not power wash exterior
wood walls. Power washing causes exposed
wood to absorb significant amounts of moisture.
The absorbed moisture will cause paint failure,
especially if it is applied while the wood is still
damp. Power washing raises wood grain and drives
water into the building’s frame. The preferred
method of cleaning wood siding is with a neutral
detergent and light water wash before painting.
Apply paint with a brush; do not spray. Brushing
results in a thicker coat with better adhesion than
spraying or rolling.
Wood Replacement
Partial Replacement
When only one part of a wooden feature is
damaged, the entire feature should not be removed.
Instead, the preservation approach is to keep
sound materials and repair the damaged sections.
Replace deteriorated parts with in-kind materials.
If substitute materials are used, they should convey
the visual appearance of the original feature,
duplicating size, shape, texture, and detail.
Total Replacement
If wooden pediments or cornices are damaged or
lost, replace them promptly. The cornice protects
the rafter ends of the roof structure. If the cornice
deteriorates, deterioration of the roof structure will
soon follow. A missing cornice also contributes to
deterioration of a building’s façade by providing
avenues for vertical water penetration. Cornice
loss drastically changes an historic building’s
appearance, especially if it dates to the nineteenth
or early-twentieth century. If a missing cornice
cannot be replaced quickly, an interim solution
should be devised to protect the exposed area.
Retain the removed original damaged features for
accurate replication.
If existing wood siding cannot be repaired, it is
preferable to replace it in-kind by using wood
siding with the same width, profile, details, and
appearance as the existing. If limited replacement
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 297

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
of wood siding is required, the new siding should
match the species of existing wood. This practice
gives the wall a consistent texture and appearance
and avoids problems with expansion rates, which
vary between wood species.
Reconstruction of a missing wood detail or feature
that does not have a salvaged historic prototype
should be guided by historic, physical, and pictorial
evidence for accurate restoration. Reconstruction
of missing elements should be based on historical
evidence and match the appearance of surviving
features in size, scale, material, and color. Do not
replace missing wood features with conjectural
historic reconstructions or contemporary elements
that are incompatible with the building’s style,
character, and other historic features.
Synthetic Materials
A number of buildings at Moravian College have
synthetic cladding applied over wood elements,
including cornices, window frames and sills, and
the few areas of wood siding. The installation of
vinyl or aluminum siding or cladding materials on
historic buildings is not an appropriate preservation
treatment. Synthetic materials seriously alter the
historic appearance and character of a building by
removing or covering important details such as
cornices, window and door trim, and wood siding.
The use of synthetic siding on new construction
within an historic context, such as an addition,
should also be discouraged. It cannot be considered
a compatible treatment.
Synthetic siding materials are not recommended for
historic wood-clad buildings. They should never
be applied over wood nor should they replace
wood siding. Synthetic siding can cause serious
long-term damage to buildings. Foremost among
these is moisture trapped beneath new siding,
which decreases the efficiency of insulation and
accelerates deterioration of structural elements.
Condensation behind the siding and leaks can cause
serious damage to the underlying wood structure.
Related interior consequences include peeling paint
and cracked wall surfaces.
Synthetic siding materials are also problematic
because they are not maintenance-free as frequently
advertised. Colors and finishes fade over time,
synthetic materials crack and warp, and products
are changed or discontinued. The cost of periodic
vinyl or aluminum siding replacement is more
expensive than the cost of maintaining historic
wood.
When properly maintained, historic cladding
materials are durable and serviceable. Properlymaintained
and painted wood siding is the more
structurally and historically sympathetic option.
9.6 Roofs and Drainage
Systems
In terms of protection and preventative
maintenance, roof systems are among the most
important building elements. The roof, composed
of framing, sheathing, flashing, and roofing
materials, and the roof drainage elements should
be approached as one system, since failure in
one component can cause extensive damage and
deterioration elsewhere. Providing a weather-tight
roof and properly functioning drainage system is
critical to historic building preservation and should
be addressed before any other concern.
The roof not only keeps water out of a building’s
interior, it also keeps water from penetrating
structural members and exterior walls. Although
each roofing material requires its own level of
maintenance and repair, the essential function of
any roof is to prevent water infiltration. Roofs are
more, however, than merely the system that protects
the structure and interior of a building from the
elements; they are important and highly-visible
design features. A roof is characterized by its shape,
height, configuration, materials, and decorative
elements, which help define the architectural style
of a building. Since a roof is constantly exposed to
the elements, it will reach a point where partial or
major replacement is necessary. The preservation
approach places emphasis on retention and
repair with any necessary replacements matching
the existing in color, texture, size, and other
visual qualities. All roof components should
receive the same level of preservation; characterdefining
roof elements include roofing materials,
dormers, cupolas, and decorative features such as
weathervanes, finials, and crests.
Roof drainage systems are an important component
of properly functioning roofs. Roof drainage systems
include gutters, scuppers, downspouts, boots,
and underground drains, as well as site drainage
components, such as splash blocks, drainage swales,
French drains, and channel drains. Typically, the
roof is sloped to drain water to a perimeter gutter
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 298

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
system or scupper, which in turn directs water to
an internal or external downspout. The downspout
carries water down to the foundation and directs
runoff into an underground drain, French drain,
grade level channel, or splash block in order to
move the water away from the building foundation.
Ideally, the roof and roof drainage system, from
rooftop to site or storm sewer, is designed and
maintained as one system.
Typical Roof and Roof Drainage
System Conditions
Roofs throughout the Moravian College campus
include a variety of materials and shapes ranging
from gambrel to gabled to flat. Roofing materials
include traditional slate or wood shingle, as well
as modern asphalt shingle, built-up, and EPDM
roofing. Ornamental features, such as dormers,
belvederes, and cupolas, add visual interest. Roofs
typically drain to hanging half-round gutters
and round downspouts, which drain either to
underground drain lines or to grade. In a few cases,
the roofs drain directly to grade with no provision
for roof-edge collection.
Roofing materials are undergoing minor
deterioration, particularly at slate roofs where
slates are loose, broken, or missing. On a few
buildings, gypsum can be seen as a white crust on
slate surfaces, which is an indication of long-term
weathering and approaching end-of-life service
for the material. Metal flashing is rusting in a few
locations. Roof leaks have led to damage in some
interior spaces and deterioration of exterior walls.
The most severe and prevalent problems of roofs
at Moravian College are related to problematic
roof drainage systems. Gutters are bent, clogged,
or inadequately sloped and chronically overflow.
In a few places, entire downspouts or bottom
sections of downspouts are missing. Where
they are intact, downspouts fail to direct water
away from the building foundations because of
inadequate or clogged underground drainage,
or because they release water at points that are
close or directly against the building foundation.
Deteriorated masonry, open or eroded masonry
joints, rising damp in masonry walls, salts forming
on masonry surfaces, biological growth, wood rot,
ponding water, and soil erosion are indicative of
long-standing issues and a general lack of focused
cyclical maintenance.
In the few locations where the roofs are designed
to drain directly to the ground, site drainage must
often be improved. Underground drain lines are
frequently clogged. Many underground lines are
composed of terra-cotta pipe that becomes broken
or displaced through ground movement and root
action.
The relatively simple task of regular inspection is an
urgent priority: the gutters and downspouts of all
historic buildings should be inspected and cleaned
at least twice yearly. Moisture-related problems
affecting roof systems should be properly diagnosed
and corrected at their source. Missing, bent,
sagging, and inadequately sloped gutters should
be replaced. Missing downspout components must
be replaced immediately or temporary measures
installed to redirect water drainage. Problems with
site drainage must be holistically investigated and
properly addressed in order to improve conditions
at building foundations. Roof and roof drainage
system work should become a priority and should
be accompanied by implementation of cyclical
maintenance and monitoring.
Roof and Roof Drainage System
Inspection
The best course of action in maintaining a roof
and its drainage system is periodic inspection and
repair. The baseline roof inspection should include
a yearly inspection of the entire roof system and
twice-yearly removal of debris from gutters and
downspouts. The yearly evaluation should be
comprehensive and examine not only exteriors,
but also the attic, basement, and crawl spaces. Roof
components such as flashing, gutters, downspouts,
hatches, and mechanical equipment should be part
of this inspection. Inspection should include testing
and/or observation during major rain events to
ensure that the roof drainage system successfully
diverts rainwater away from the building.
Underground drains are especially susceptible to
failure, largely because they are difficult to inspect
and maintain. Remote inspection techniques are
often required, such as a flexible rod equipped with
a radio transmitter or fiber optic camera. By the time
problematic conditions are detected, substantial and
expensive damage may have occurred. Therefore,
the first line of defense is regular roof inspection.
A roof system in good condition should meet all of
the following criteria during inspection.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 299

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• Capacity to shed rainwater during major rain
events without ponding.
• Unobstructed flow of water from the roof to
the ground and away from the building.
• Overall watertight roof surfaces.
• Watertight, free-flowing gutters and drains.
• Intact flashing around chimneys, parapets,
dormers, skylights, and valleys.
• Roof venting to prevent moisture
condensation.
• Drainage system that carries water away
from the foundation.
Inspections should include a comprehensive survey
to identify potential problems. Evidence of any of
the following conditions should trigger an in-depth
diagnosis and remediation.
• Ponding water at roofs and gutters.
• Excessive water runoff or overflowing
gutters.
• Water escaping between the seams of
downspouts.
• Rotted wood and peeling paint, especially at
wood cornices.
• Movement or cracking in masonry walls and
surfaces.
• Efflorescence on masonry surfaces.
• Missing or deteriorated mortar joints.
• Interior water penetration such as
cracking, plaster failure, powdery residue,
efflorescence, and dampness.
• Wood-destroying insects.
• Biological growth at foundation walls or at
adjacent surfaces.
• Soil erosion at the foundation and around
downspouts and boots.
Chimneys are subject to the same forces of decay
that affect other masonry features, and should be
inspected on an annual basis for leaning or cracking,
deteriorated brick or masonry, failed pointing and
flashing, faulty flue liners, and bird nests and other
intrusions. If in active use, interior soot and residue
should be cleaned annually.
Roof and Roof Drainage System
Repair
The baseline preservation approach is to repair
deteriorated roof components, features, and
materials promptly. Repair of deteriorated sections
of historic roofing material should be considered
before complete replacement. Leaky roofs can be
temporarily covered with plastic tarpaulin or roll
roofing nailed in place. Plastic drainage pipes can
be used to temporarily redirect water drainage
and several buildings at Moravian’s North Main
Street campus have their downspouts connected
to PVC pipe lengths. However, these are not a
permanently acceptable solution. Without this
type of intervention, the deterioration of surviving
building materials will be accelerated. However,
implementation of appropriate repairs should
be the highest priority whenever roof and roof
drainage systems are discovered.
Repair, including materials and workmanship,
should be executed in-kind to match historic
conditions. For example, copper gutters should
be replaced with copper, and galvanized with
galvanized. Significant materials should be
replaced to match the historic, especially on visible
roof surfaces. The gutter profiles and mounting
system should be consistent with the historic
versions. When in-kind replacement is not feasible,
replacement materials should match the visual and
physical characteristics of the historic roof system.
Repairs should be made using building-appropriate
materials and techniques that are meant to last for
the long-term and are not simply a short-term fix.
For example, patches and roofing compounds do
not solve the real problem; they are subject to early
failure and are often unsightly. Likewise, the use
of inappropriate contemporary materials should
be avoided in the repair of historic roofs. This is
particularly unadvisable when the replacement
material has a much shorter service life than the
historic material, i.e. using asphalt shingle to
replace historic slate roofing.
Slate Roofi ng
Slate is a common material for historic building
roofs at Moravian College, and some of the
buildings on campus still retain their original
historic slate. Improvements in transportation led
to an expansion of the slate industry, which peaked
around 1890-1914; however, slate has always been
a popular durable roofing material for institutional
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 300

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
and quality buildings. Well-maintained slate
roofing has a service life of 60 to 150 years.
Regular roof inspections from the ground or a
high lift should note cracked, broken, misaligned,
or missing slates, especially at the roof edge, hips,
and valleys. Slate roofing should not be walked on
during regular maintenance and inspection work.
Slates may have begun to delaminate and hold water
through weathering and age, particularly on low
slope roofs or at roof edges. As the slate weathers,
it becomes more porous. Mineral impurities within
the slate then begin to react with the atmosphere
to form gypsum, which will lead to expansion of
the slate along bedding planes and, eventually,
delamination. Weathered slates can be sounded to
test their condition. Inspections should also occur
in the attic in order to identify any water staining
or wood rot.
Deteriorated or missing slates should be repaired
promptly. The detailing, patterns, and installation
techniques are all important to the overall
appearance of slate roofing and should guide all
repair or replacement work. It is important to match
the size, color, thickness, texture, exposure, and
coursing of the original slate. Single deteriorated
slates can be removed and replaced with new slate
to match the existing; the attachment location of
replacement slates should be protected with copper
flashing. Slate roof replacement should only be
considered when over twenty percent of the slates
are deteriorated. When repairing large sections or
replacing a slate roof, traditional details should be
recreated at valleys, hips, and ridges.
Wood Shingle Roofi ng
Wood shingle or shake roofs are common on historic
residential buildings and can last from fifteen to
thirty years if properly installed and maintained.
The service life of a wood shingle roof depends
upon the wood type and thickness of the shingle,
UV exposure, slope, presence of biological growth,
and ventilation. A wood shingle roof will last longer
if kept dry, well-ventilated, and free of debris and
biological growth. The repair of wood shingle
roofs requires that the replacement shingles be the
appropriate size, shape, wood type, and surface
texture. Single wood shingles can be replaced and
held in place with a metal anchor. Strips of metal
flashing can be installed to temporarily stop leaks
through deteriorated shingles.
Large scale wood shingle repairs or partial roof
replacement must follow the original detailing and
pattern of shingle installation, including shingle
exposure length and nailing, type of roof substrate,
and details at the roof eaves, ridges, and valleys.
If over twenty percent of the wood shingles are
deteriorated, the entire roof should be replaced.
Care should be taken to retain sound original roof
lath and sheathing. Nail holes in the original roof
substrate can provide information on the size and
pattern of the historic wood shingle roof. All work
done should be completed by a contractor who is
familiar with historic wood shingle roofs.
Flashing
Flashing is a continuous metal barrier that
effectively seals vulnerable roof joints. It bridges
gaps between dissimilar materials, especially
those with different rates of expansion, and/or
incompatible profiles. Flashing prevents water
from infiltrating the building at corners, ridges,
valleys, or other changes in plane that are prone to
separation, such as the joint between an addition
and the original structure.
Flashing should be inspected at least once a year.
In addition to looking for obvious flaws such as
cracks or corrosion, small holes or pinholes are a
sign of trouble. If the flashing is not in a prominent
location, limited and small temporary patches can
be made with roofing cement. Roofing cement,
however, should never be considered a permanent
repair.
Repair or replacement of deteriorated flashing
should be part of routine preventative maintenance.
Corroded flashing should be replaced promptly.
The type and gauge of flashing should be selected
based on compatibility with the historic roof.
Flashing should be secured with nails of the same
material because dissimilar metals in continuous
contact can corrode and stain adjacent surfaces.
New or replacement metal flashing should not be
placed in contact with any metal with which it has
the potential for an electrochemical reaction that
causes corrosion. Flashing should not be applied
over clapboards or any other siding material.
Gutters, Downspouts, and Site Drainage
Lack of maintenance of the roof drainage systems
is the most serious and widespread problem for
historic buildings at Moravian College. Failure to
effectively control and direct water runoff from
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 301

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
the roofs and away from buildings causes multiple
and expensive deterioration problems in wood and
masonry walls. Roof drainage systems should be
holistically evaluated as an architectural, landscape,
and civil engineering issue. This evaluation should
investigate how water drains from the roofs, where
the water runoff falls to the ground, and how the
water is carried away from the building.
Historic gutters and downspouts should be replaced
in-kind to match all visual qualities including
materials, profiles, and details. Replacement
gutters should not alter the character of the
building’s architectural trim. Type-K (moldingshaped)
corrugated gutters and downspouts are
not appropriate on historic buildings. The use of
synthetic materials such as PVC and vinyl is not
recommended; they are incompatible with the
historic context of historic buildings at Moravian
College and have a short life-cycle. Galvanized
steel gutters and downspouts should only be used
to replace steel. Gutter guards should be considered
to reduce the collection of leaves and other material.
Because of the winter climate in Bethlehem, all
sloping roofs should have snow guards above
the eaves and up the lower portion of the roof to
prevent snow and ice from falling on pedestrians.
The placement and quantity of downspouts on
historic buildings should be carefully planned.
They should be securely attached to the wall
with a sufficient number of anchors. Splash
blocks or downspout extenders should be placed
beneath downspouts to carry water away from
the foundation and to limit soil erosion and
subsidence. Downspouts should not interrupt
or cross significant features such as cornices,
pilasters, or trim. All historic buildings should
have downspouts adequate to shed water from the
entire roof. They should also be put in unobtrusive
locations to the greatest extent possible. Modern
downspout extensions should be unobtrusive to
avoid visual impacts on the historic building and
its immediate setting.
Existing connections to underground drainage
pipe systems should also be tested; the clay tile
pipes typically used in the early- to mid-twentieth
century grow brittle with age and are prone to
cracking and breaking. Soil erosion at boots is
usually a sign of clogged or broken underground
connections. Below-grade pipe replacement with
modern PVC pipe is appropriate. When replacing
underground drain systems involving excavation
in historic areas, particularly at the Priscilla Payne
Hurd campus, consultation with archeologists
should take place before and during work.
Rooftop Additions and Attachments
New rooftop construction is a sensitive issue
in any historic building project. Large-scale
rooftop additions or equipment installations are
inappropriate on most historic buildings. Even
small rooftop additions alter the height, profile,
and overall exterior character of a building and
are not recommended. Only small, low-profile
mechanical equipment should be considered for
rooftop mounting on historic buildings, and then
only in a secondary location. Visibility is a key
issue; sight lines from nearby buildings, streets, and
other vantage points should always be evaluated.
In general, elevator overruns and areas of fire
refuge on historic buildings usually involve minor
changes. Nonetheless, they should be studied
for the overall visibility from all viewpoints and
compatibility with the building’s historic materials
and visual qualities.
Roof Replacement or Alteration
All historic roofs eventually need major or total
replacement. Skilled maintenance staff or roofing
contractors should carefully examine gutters,
leaders, valleys, and flashing before determining
that wholesale roof replacement is necessary. If
replacement is required, the historic materials
should be replaced in-kind, matching the existing
in color, texture, size, profile, seaming, patterning,
proportion, and other visual qualities. Slate and
tile roofs are durable and can last for many years
if well maintained. Traditional roofing materials
are expensive, but a life-cycle cost analysis
demonstrates that their use is actually very
cost-effective; for example, slate typically lasts for
a hundred years, while the average asphalt shingle
lasts about twenty years.
Slate roofs were installed on historic buildings
for both their visual appeal and longevity. Slates
vary in color, shape, pattern, and detailing, and
should always be replaced in-kind. Compatible
contemporary roofing systems, such as synthetic
slate, are readily available, but their cost is
comparable to the traditional material. Variation
from the existing slate type in making roof repairs
can be deleterious to the existing roof structure
and detract from the integrity and aesthetics of
the historic building. Generally, replacement of
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 302

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
individual slates should always be undertaken
before replacement of the entire roof. Proper
installation and maintenance of slate roofs can
result in a life span of a century or more.
Roof replacement and major repair projects
should preserve and/or replace all characteristic
decorative roofing details in-kind. These may
include specialized roof shapes, dormers, skylights,
finials, crests, gutters, and cornices. The details
and materials of any replacements should match
the existing. Hidden construction materials and
details such as decking, fasteners, and flashing
should be selected for durability and compatibility,
while highly-visible elements such as ornamental
scuppers and copper guttering should be replaced
in-kind. If design features such as the dormers,
cupolas, or trim features are too deteriorated to
repair, new replacement features should be based
on the form, materials, detailing, and other visual
qualities of the historic features.
Adjacent buildings, architectural features, and
landscape elements should be protected from
damage during roofing projects. When replacing
a roof, remove existing roofing material before
adding new material. Removing old layers will
prolong the life of the roof and restore the original
profile of the roof edge. Asphalt shingles should
not be applied over wood shingles, because the
asphalt will trap moisture and cause deterioration
of the roof structure.
Although roofing material is an important aspect
of a building’s design, if the roof has a flat gently
sloping profile, which cannot be easily seen, it is
acceptable to use a contemporary roofing system
that meets functional needs. Visibility is a key issue;
sight lines from nearby buildings, streets, and other
vantage points should always be evaluated. The
chosen material must provide adequate anchorage
against wind and precipitation. Roofs should never
actually be flat but should always slope positively
to gutters and roof drains. Water ponding on a roof
surface should never be permitted.
Roof Insulation
Energy efficiency is a central consideration in roof
replacement projects. Roof insulation should occur
only in well-ventilated spaces. Insulating poorly
ventilated spaces will lead to moisture condensation
on roofing and insulation materials. To avoid
moisture damage and maximize thermal efficiency,
a proper vapor barrier must be provided on the
warm side of all insulation materials, especially in
attics and crawl spaces. The standard preservation
recommendation is to install batt-type insulation;
blown-in insulation is only recommended for attics
and crawl spaces where vapor barriers have been
installed beneath. The vapor barrier prevents the
passage of moisture and its accumulation in the
insulation; damp or wet insulation is virtually
useless. There are several ways to achieve an attic
vapor barrier: a foil-facing material on fiberglass
insulation; a Kraft paper-facing if it is backed with
a bituminous or tar-like coating (Kraft paper alone
is not a vapor barrier); or polyethylene sheeting
placed between the insulation and inside surfaces.
In an unheated attic space, the insulation may be
installed over the flooring with the vapor barrier
facing down. If the attic space is heated, the
insulation is place between the roof rafters with the
vapor barrier facing in.
9.7 Doors
Doors are more than functional entryways; they
are important architectural elements and special
care should be taken to preserve their integrity.
Although the surface of the doors may show some
wear, the door itself is usually structurally sound
for decades. Historic wood doors are typically built
of harder and heavier wood than commonly in use
today and are thicker and more substantial overall.
The environmental effects of constant use and
exposure, however, can lead to rapid deterioration;
therefore, regular inspections and maintenance are
critical. Repair of an existing historic door is more
cost-effective than replacing it with a new one.
Typical Door Conditions
Moravian College’s historic buildings have a
well-preserved collection of original wood doors,
though some have been replaced when buildings
have been renovated. The historic doors are
generally in good condition, although there are
some failed and worn finishes, and general deferred
maintenance. Weathered surfaces, worn finishes,
minor cracks, and damaged hardware should be
repaired. The original doors and door hardware
should be maintained. Weather-stripping should
be replaced in order to improve thermal efficiency.
Door Inspection and Maintenance
Regular inspection and routine maintenance
should identify small problems before they become
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 303

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
major issues. Doors at historic academic buildings
receive heavy use and require frequent inspection.
Door inspections should note any of the following
conditions:
• Sticking or gapping doors
• Damaged hardware
• Missing screws or anchors
• Worn finishes and exposed wood and steel
substrates
• Cracked or rotted wood
• Broken glazing, including transoms and
sidelights.
The best practice approach retains and repairs
as much historic fabric as possible. Regular
maintenance for historic doors should include:
• Gentle cleaning of door and hardware
surfaces
• Cleaning and lubrication of hinges and
closers
• Rust removal at hardware and the application
of appropriate protective coatings
• Replacement of missing screws or anchors
• Refinishing or repainting
• Replacement of cracked or broken glazing.
Causes of Door Deterioration
Doors are most commonly damaged from constant
use. Inspections are important to ensure that doors
are operating properly and hung correctly to avoid
failure at hinges or other hardware. Push plates and
kick plates protect the finishes in these vulnerable
areas. Wood and metal doors are also damaged by
moisture which causes wood rot and corrosion.
Deicing salts can cause damage to wood finishes
and dramatically accelerate the rate of corrosion.
Exposure to the elements will cause degradation of
the underlying wood.
Door Repair
Doorway features contribute to the building’s
architectural character and should be retained.
Historic doors often feature door hardware,
transoms (operable or fixed sash over doors),
sidelights (vertical or fixed ribbon windows
flanking a door), pilasters, entablatures, columns,
thresholds, and steps. Wood doors can be refinished
to repair scratches or worn areas. Typically, wood
doors would be finished with an oil varnish, though
modern polyurethane based varnishes are more
common today. It is important to match the original
finish of the wood doors in both color and gloss
level. Historically, doors were often more colorful
or sometimes darker than the modern palette. It is
important to retain the original design intent. High
gloss levels are inappropriate for new finishes.
Missing elements should be replaced in-kind, and
the door’s original size, profile, and configuration
should be preserved. Glazed entry features such
as transoms, sidelights, and partially glazed doors
should also be retained, repaired, or replacedin-kind.
In some situations, improved weatherstripping
around door frames can increase energy
efficiency and help protect a door’s historic features.
Deteriorated doors that are beyond repair should be
replaced in-kind, to match the original in materials,
design, visual qualities, and size.
Retrofitting for fire-safety should be done in a
manner that preserves the door’s historic features.
Many state building codes have special provisions
for historic buildings; these should be fully explored
before alterations occur. Fire-retardant coatings,
other means of egress, areas of refuge, rated
partitions, and other measures allowable under
life safety codes can avoid removal of a significant
historic door.
Door Replacement or Reconstruction
During the nineteenth and early-twentieth
centuries, the main building entrance often
featured substantial, if not monumental, doors
with elaborate moldings and features. If an existing
historic door is deteriorated beyond repair, it should
be replaced with a new door that is appropriate
to the period and style of the building. Historic
double-leaf doors should not be replaced with a
single-leaf door. Exterior historic doors that are
non-functional should be left in place and sealed,
not removed. Doors on primary elevations should
match the original in materials, design, size, and all
visual qualities.
Historic door openings should not be filled with
modern doors. New standard-size doors do not
readily fit into an old door opening and would have
a profoundly negative impact on the building’s
integrity. When historic door replacement is
necessary, the new door should be custom-made
to fit the historic opening. Modern flush design
doors are inappropriate for historic buildings. Door
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 304

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
hardware should be reused wherever possible.
New door openings should be avoided on a historic
building façade; if needed, they should be located
on secondary elevations to limit negative physical
and visual impacts.
Reconstruction of altered or missing historic
entranceways must be based on historical, pictorial,
and physical documentation. Historic building
designers used door detailing and frame articulation
to develop a hierarchy and thus differentiate
between primary and secondary entrances. If
there is not sufficient information to determine
the original feature, a compatible new design
should blend with the architectural character of the
building and its surroundings. Conjectural designs
without historic precedent are not appropriate.
9.8 Windows
Historic windows are one of the most important
features of a building and proper treatment is
extremely important. Both fenestration patterns
and the configuration of individual windows
are character-defining features that contribute
to a building’s design, proportion, and rhythm.
Historically, light and ventilation were very
important commodities in buildings before
electric service and artificial air conditioning
became commonplace. Windows were designed to
maximize interior natural light. They also provided
a critical ventilation function and their placement
was carefully designed. Windows placed on
opposite sides of a room allow cross-breezes to
circulate fresh air to inside spaces.
Typical Window Conditions
Historical window sash are still extant in many
of the historic buildings at Moravian College
and are generally in good condition. Windows in
some renovated buildings, such as Day House and
Hamilton Hall, have been replaced. In some cases,
replacements were made only on certain parts
of the building. Windows in Moravian College’s
historic academic buildings tend to be double-hung
wood sash. Wood windows in high-use areas often
have exterior paint failure and show heavy wear,
though most are still operable. Wood windows in
areas of water problems, particularly at basement
windows, exhibit rot at vulnerable elements.
Future efforts should be directed towards
preservation and repair of remaining historic
windows whenever possible. Even when the new
windows are appropriately designed, fill the existing
openings, and maintain the building’s overall
fenestration pattern, some materials, configurations,
profiles, and colors are inappropriate preservation
treatments.
Window Inspection and Maintenance
As with other historic features, regular inspection
and maintenance are the first line of defense for
windows. Inspection should look for the following
problems:
• Open joints.
• Areas for moisture penetration.
• Failed glazing putty.
• Broken glass.
• Failed finishes on exterior window surfaces.
• Failed finishes on interior surfaces around
windows.
• Failed or missing hardware, including
screws, bolts and hinges.
• Wood rot, particularly at bottom rails.
• Corrosion, particularly at anchors, screws,
and movable parts.
• Bowing, warping, misalignment of sash.
• Condensation on interior window surfaces.
• Faulty window operation.
• Deteriorated or missing perimeter sealant.
Frequent maintenance now prevents expensive
headaches later. For instance, windows rely on
paint for weather protection. Without paint, the
extremes of heat, cold, sunlight and moisture
can quickly act on the exterior frame and sash.
The maintenance of perimeter window sealant
may also protect embedded steel lintels and
reduce corrosion; though no amount of sealant
will permanently correct a faulty design. Regular
window inspections, combined with appropriate
scraping, priming, painting, and sealant repair has
a critical place in Moravian College’s maintenance
and preservation planning.
Causes of Window Deterioration
Water penetration is the primary cause of window
deterioration. The chronic presence of water
at windows leads to failure of finishes, metal
corrosion, and wood rot. Moisture and water
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 305

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
typically infiltrate windows at the perimeter of the
window sash and at lower window rails. Water
problems are exacerbated in areas which do not
shed water, such as improperly sloped window
sills, at rough surfaces, or in pockets created by
missing glazing putty. Window sills are often the
first elements to exhibit deterioration. Condensation
that forms on interior window surfaces can also
cause deterioration. It is important to distinguish
moisture penetration caused by condensation from
that caused by water infiltration. Each requires
different remediation techniques.
Windows that have been protected from the
elements by exterior storm sash are not immune
from moisture-related problems. Poorly ventilated
storm windows can actually accelerate damage to
wood and metal windows. Condensation forms as
the warm interior air meets the cool exterior storm
window. If there is no ventilation, condensation is
trapped against the sash, causing failure of finishes
and, ultimately, wood rot or corrosion.
Window operation is impaired by loose joints and
misaligned sash. Maintenance level painting often
covers hinges and other moving parts, eventually
causing excessive paint build-up. This can lead to
sticking or inoperable sash.
Window Repair
Historic windows should never be replaced unless
they are missing or beyond repair. Contrary to
popular belief, repaired historic windows will
last far longer than most modern replacement
windows because they are made with superior
quality materials and craftsmanship, especially
wood windows. Epoxy consolidants may be used
to strengthen and save deteriorated wood elements,
especially at sills. Special patching compounds
may be used to repair steel window parts. Warped
wood sash and bowed or bent steel sash can often
be repaired by skilled craftsmen.
Replacing deteriorated parts, not the entire window,
is the preferred solution, using elements that are
visually and physically compatible with original.
Historic windows are easily disassembled for
cleaning and repair. Unlike modern replacement
windows, historic window units were constructed
so that damaged portions could be repaired or
replaced one part at a time. Individual window
elements that should be retained include frames,
sash, muntins, glazing, sills, lintels, hardware,
heads, hoods, paneled or decorative jambs and
moldings, interior and exterior shutters, and blinds.
The damaged portion of a window component
should be replaced with material matching the
original material and fabrication techniques.
Any repair should match historic window sash,
muntin configuration, reveal depths, glass-toframe
ratios, glazing patterns, frame dimensions,
trim profiles, and decorative features. Replacement
glazing should match the qualities of the historic;
low-E and reflective glazing are not appropriate in
historic contexts. New window elements should
be based on surviving prototypes including hood
molds, sash, sills and interior or exterior shutters.
Windows should also operate smoothly. Window
mechanisms such as sash locks, cords, and weights
should be maintained, repaired and, if necessary,
replaced. This approach results in cost savings,
because when properly maintained, historic
windows can last for decades.
Removal of prominent window features should
be avoided because it damages a building’s
architectural integrity. Important features include
frames, sash, muntins, glazing and glazing patterns,
sills, hardware, heads, hoods, paneled or decorative
jambs and moldings, interior and exterior shutters,
and blinds. They should not be blocked, infilled, or
obscured.
Window Weatherization
Historic repairable windows should never be
replaced with new units simply as a weatherization
measure. Most loss of thermal efficiency at a
window occurs around a leaky frame rather than
through the sash itself. This can be addressed
through simple weatherization techniques such
as installing weather-stripping or storm windows.
Weatherization techniques can greatly increase
the energy efficiency of the overall building
envelope and are always less costly than wholesale
replacement of an entire window unit.
Weatherization
Historic windows can be made as energy efficient as
new windows through the installation of weatherstripping.
Weatherstripping methods include
installation of compressed metal or spring clips
or compressed foam tape. Weather-stripping is
installed between the window frame and operable
sash and along the meeting rails of the sash. Do
not apply reflective or insulating film to window
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 306

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
glass. Blinds or insulating curtains may be added
to the interior for privacy and increased thermal
performance. In addition to weather-stripping,
there are a variety of retrofit techniques that can
provide thermal efficiency. These methods are less
expensive than wholesale replacement and insure
that the greatest amount of historic material is
retained.
Storm Windows
Storm windows help achieve increased thermal
efficiency without removing historic materials
and features. Storm windows are appropriate as
long as they fill the window opening completely,
without the use of spacers or filler panels. Wood
storms with removable storm sashes and screens
are available commercially and are particularly
appropriate for use on historic buildings. Stiles and
meeting rails should align with those of the prime
sash. Do not install exterior storm windows in a
manner that damages historic windows frames.
Exterior storms should either be painted or acquire
a factory-applied finish matching that of the prime
sash. Bronzed and silver mill-finish treatments are
not appropriate. Low-E and reflective glazing are
also not appropriate in historic contexts.
Interior storm windows are also available and
are already being used in a number of Moravian
College buildings, particularly on the Priscilla
Payne Hurd campus within the Central Bethlehem
Historic District. Because interior storm windows
maintain the appearance of the exterior facade,
they are preferable, and often less expensive,
in cases where the windows are non-operable.
Inexpensive and reversible magnetic storms can
be removed in warm weather so that windows
can open. Permanent interior storms are more
appropriate for institutional buildings. Install
interior storm windows with air-tight gaskets,
ventilating holes, and/or removable clips to avoid
condensation damage to wood or steel sash. Where
interior storms are used, sufficient ventilation
must be provided at the historic prime sash to
avoid moisture condensation that will damage the
historic unit.
Window Replacement and Alteration
Total replacement of all windows on an historic
building is not a preservation treatment. Peeling
paint, broken glass, stuck sash, and air infiltration
are problems that can be remedied; they are not
valid reasons for replacement. Windows should
only be replaced when they have reached the end
of their service life and the majority of the window
components have deteriorated beyond repair. New
windows should match the originals in material,
finish, configuration, setback, profiles, and all other
visual and reflective qualities. Details such as sash,
muntin configuration, reveal depths, glass-toframe
ratios, glazing patterns, frame dimensions,
trim profiles, and decorative features should be
faithfully replicated.
A number of window manufacturers make
customized replicas of historic sash and frames.
They also offer more generic reproduction historic
window lines. Both are much more costly than
proper maintenance and repair of existing historic
windows over their life-cycle. Replacement
windows should always be based on the original
in all respects; installation of a generic historic
window is not appropriate.
Steel Windows
The replacement of steel windows can be more costly
than repair work. Even large scale replacement
of custom parts can be more cost effective. When
planning for steel window replacement, it is
important to understand that many steel windows
are often anchored into the surrounding masonry.
Steel frames were typically built into the masonry
structure during the original construction.
Replacing steel frames may involve costly masonry
disruption around the window opening.
Removing steel frames by cutting off the anchors
and leaving the anchors embedded in the masonry
is not acceptable. This will leave embedded steel
anchors in the surrounding window masonry,
which can lead to major masonry disruption
when these anchors corrode and expand. The
cost of dismantling, rebuilding, and repairing the
surrounding masonry should be factored into any
cost analysis of steel window replacement.
Modern steel windows are made of a mix of rolled
and pressed steel, bronze and brass sections, and
aluminum glazing beads, while the originals were
manufactured with rolled steel sections. New
steel windows rely heavily on weatherstripping to
prevent water infiltration. Aluminum replacement
windows are not acceptable alternates for historic
steel windows. Steel windows are characterized by
thin section details, a testament to the strength of
steel. Aluminum is not strong enough to recreate
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 307

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
these thin section details and requires wider and
thicker shaped components. Also, the thermal
performance of steel windows exceeds that of
aluminum windows.
If replacement windows are installed in a historic
building, match the existing shapes, widths,
thicknesses, and configurations of the stiles, rails,
and muntins of the historic windows. Window
operation such as casement and awning sash
should be the same as the historic window. Use of
insulated glass is acceptable, but the use of applied
muntins, and especially use of embedded muntins
between insulated glass panes, is not appropriate.
Wood Windows
Historic wood windows that cannot be repaired
should be replaced with new wood windows.
Vinyl and aluminum replacement windows are not
appropriate. Likewise, windows clad in a synthetic
material should not be considered. These modern
windows are of inferior quality with shorter
life spans than traditional wood. Replacement
windows should have the same operating system
(i.e., double-hung sash, casement, pivot, fixed)
and configuration as the original windows.
Replacement multi-pane windows with true
divided lights should be used; snap-in and applied
muntins are not appropriate because they do not
match the historic muntin profiles. Using modern
muntins alters the historic reveals and proportions
characteristic of historic sash. Contemporary sheetglass
windows and tinted, low-E, or reflective glass
should also be avoided.
Fenestration Patterns
The spacing, location, size, placement, and rhythm
of historic windows are a signature feature of
historic buildings. Original fenestration patterns
should be retained and maintained. New windows
or altered openings are not appropriate in historic
contexts, particularly on the main façade and other
visible elevations. Do not alter the number, size,
location, or shape of original windows. Replacement
windows should match the full size of the historic
window opening. Large window openings should
not be filled with a number of smaller windows.
If new windows must be added to a windowless
secondary elevation, the work should minimize the
number of new openings and be compatible with
the scale, location, and size of historic window
frames elsewhere on the building.
Air Conditioners and Vents
Wherever possible, window air conditioners
should only be installed on a building’s secondary
elevations. If the window is removed to install an
air conditioner, the window opening should be
maintained and preserved. Protect and preserve
historic window sash and frames if the installation
of heating/air conditioning units requires their
temporary removal. Protect surfaces below the
window from moisture damage from condensation
from window unit air conditioners. Unit drains
should direct water away from sills and walls.
Although windows should generally not be used
as vents for air-conditioning systems and exhaust
fans, this solution is sometime the least intrusive
option for a historic building. If this option is
chosen, the vent or fan should be installed in a
window on a secondary elevation. The removed
sash or window should be stored in the building
for future reinstallation.
Through-the-wall vents, condensate drain lines,
and cooling units are never appropriate on historic
buildings. They destroy historic fabric and impact
building integrity. These penetrations impact the
overall symmetrical pattern of masonry and glazed
surfaces. They also disrupt the masonry walls and
introduce new locations for water problems on the
façade.
Interior Alterations That Impact Windows
Interior alterations such as lowered ceilings, new
floors, or mezzanines should not impact either
historic windows or the building’s exterior spatial
and visual experience. Lower ceilings are often used
in renovation projects to accommodate mechanical
equipment. Their extent and drop should be
minimized because the alteration can affect the
appearance of windows and have a negative visual
impact on the building’s exterior. Dropped ceilings
that block or cover window frames and glazing
are inappropriate in historic contexts. Chases for
ductwork within the room are a better solution. If
a drop must be accommodated, the design should
incorporate generous setbacks that allow the full
height of the window to remain unobstructed. Other
alterations that may block or cover windows, such
as new floors, loft spaces, and staircases, should be
avoided as well.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 308

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
9.9 Stucco
Stucco is a form of mortar used to give walls a
smooth, finished appearance and protects them
from deterioration caused by exposure. Stucco was
traditionally applied in two or three coats directly
to the underlying substrate. Buildings that have
historically been covered with stucco should remain
so. The underlying masonry may have been of
inferior quality and was never meant to be exposed
to the elements. Stucco should not be installed on
buildings that were never historically stuccoed or
as a substitute for maintenance. Masking problems
with a surface coating solves nothing. Stucco is
meant to be a sacrificial protective coating and,
therefore, requires cyclical maintenance and
reapplication.
Typical Stucco Conditions
Stucco has been used only in limited areas at
Moravian, such as the east side of the Widows’
House.
Stucco Inspection
Stucco is a material that requires routine repair and
replacement. Regular inspection of stucco finishes
will extend its lifespan. Inspection of stucco finishes
should note the following signs of problems.
• Cracks
• Rust staining
• Openings at building penetrations
• Leaking gutters and downspouts
• Intrusive vegetation or biological growth
• Failed paint
• Staining or rising damp
• Efflorescence or whitish staining
• Poor site drainage
• Hollow sounding areas when tapped with a
hammer
• Delamination Loss
Causes of Stucco Deterioration
Moisture and water infiltration is the main cause of
stucco deterioration and failure. Problems with the
roof drainage system accelerate stucco deterioration.
Excessive water runoff over the stucco surface will
lead to disintegration of the stucco. Water splashing
up from the foundation, or moisture penetration
through rising damp, can cause the stucco to lose
its bond to the substrate. Wet stucco is vulnerable
to freeze/thaw deterioration in cold weather. Water
moving through the stucco leaches out carbonate
material, which builds up in areas where the water
evaporates on the surface. Salts from the ground
may accelerate stucco deterioration through salt
crystallization.
Cracking in the stucco can be caused by several
mechanisms. Shrinkage cracks can form if the stucco
has dried too quickly during installation. Building
settlement can cause cracking in the stucco finish.
Metal elements, such as metal lath or metal corner
beads, expand at different rates than the stucco,
causing cracking.
Stucco that has been applied over metal lath is
particularly vulnerable. Often, the metal lath or
lath nails have been inadequately-sized and are
not strong enough to hold the applied stucco. The
stucco on metal lath may have no expansion joints,
which are required to absorb the movement of the
lath during thermal expansion. Water infiltration
into the stucco and metal lath system will cause the
lath to corrode and fail.
Stucco Repair and Replacement
Stucco is composed of a binder of sand and often a
reinforcing fiber. It is applied in two to three coats.
The first coat is called the brown coat. The second is
the scratch coat and the final coat is the finish coat.
Stucco was traditionally composed of lime-based
binder materials; modern stuccoes are usually
composed of Portland-cement and hydrated lime.
It is important to repair existing stucco with similar
materials. Dissimilar materials will have problems
bonding to the existing material. Portland cementbased
stucco mixes are too hard and dense for soft,
permeable historical masonry. Natural hydraulic
lime-based stucco mixes will require more care
during installation, but provide a flexible breathable
coating that is compatible with historical masonry.
Successful patch mixes can be tinted to match the
weathered appearance of the existing material.
Before applying the replacement material to a large
wall area, use a test panel to determine if the color
and finish are appropriate. Once a proper blend
has been determined, it should be recorded for any
future repairs to the building.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 309

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Cracks in stucco should be repaired with
cementitious materials similar to those found in
the original mix. Sealant should never be used to
repair cracks in stucco. Hairline cracks can be filled
with a slurry made of the finish coat mix. Larger
cracks must first be cut to provide a groove or
“key” for receiving the new work. A groove can be
cut by using a knife to open up an existing crack.
The edges should then be undercut with a hammer
and chisel. After applying stucco, it should be kept
moist for three to four days to allow curing.
Where existing stucco is deteriorated, only the
deteriorated area should be removed and repaired
to match adjacent surfaces. To repair stucco, all
of the loose or severely cracked stucco should be
removed to the masonry substrate. The area to be
patched should be cleaned of all debris. Masonry
joints may need to be raked out ⅝-1 inch to
ensure good bond between the substrate and the
new stucco. Stucco should be applied directly to
masonry whenever possible. It is best to avoid the
use of chemical bonding agents because a good
mechanical key will provide the best support for
stucco repairs. Where it is not possible to apply
stucco directly to the masonry, stucco may be
applied over metal lath, but the stucco on metal
lath must have appropriate expansion joints and be
protected from water. Otherwise, stucco on metal
lath will fail rapidly.
Stucco repairs should be undertaken only when
temperatures are above 50º Fahrenheit. In applying
stucco, begin from the top of the wall with a smooth
application. The dimension between the surface
of old and new stucco should remain unchanged.
Surplus stucco should be washed off with a light
stream of water. Allow the stucco to set for 30 to
60 minutes before using a fine spray of water to
etch the surface to match the texture of the historic
existing stucco. Stucco repairs must be properly
protected and cured to prevent shrinkage cracks
and premature failure. All stucco repairs must be
installed by a skilled plasterer.
9.10 Paint
Paint is the final layer of finish on many historic
exterior building elements, including woodwork,
metals, windows, doors, stucco, and masonry. Paint
protects exterior features from the elements and
adds color and character to the building envelope.
A good coat of paint, well-bonded to its surface, is
an excellent means of preservation. Keeping wood
surfaces painted has been a serious maintenance
issue at Moravian College.
Paint Inspection and Maintenance
To prevent the deterioration of painted surfaces,
regularly check surface conditions. Paint will fail
when the bond to the underlying substrate fails.
Inspection of painted surfaces should identify the
following signs of deterioration:
• Exposed substrates,
• Chipping, or flaking,
• Bubbling or blistering,
• Alligator cracking,
• Abrasion,
• Rust staining, and
• Biological growth.
Painted Masonry
At Moravian College, the historic masonry buildings
surveyed have not been painted except for part of
Hamilton Hall, and historic paint was removed
from several buildings during restoration work.
Masonry buildings that have not been previously
painted should not be painted in the future. The
most appropriate treatment for painted masonry,
however, is to keep it coated. Stripping paint layers
will cause irreversible damage to the underlying
masonry. For painted masonry buildings with
areas of peeling paint, remove only damaged paint
to the next sound layer before applying a new
compatible paint coating. Paint that remains firmly
adhered to the masonry should be left in place. Use
a breathable masonry paint that allows moisture
to pass through the walls. Do not coat masonry
with any material that forms a moisture barrier;
this barrier traps water and moisture within the
masonry, causing spalling and cracking during
freeze-thaw cycles and salt crystallization. Quality
masonry paints should be used to avoid chalking
of paint.
Painted Metals
Certain metals are painted for protection while
others should be left unpainted. Cast iron and
steel should be painted to protect them from
corrosion. As with all paint work, the metal surface
to be painted must be properly prepared. Rust,
oil, grease, and loose paint must be completely
removed. Modern alkyd paints are suitable for
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 310

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
painting these metals. However, alkyd-based rust
inhibitive primers should be used to protect the
substrate since modern alkyd paints tend to go on
thinner than traditional coatings. Zinc-rich primers
will provide a more durable finish, but they can only
be applied over clean metal; they are only suitable
for shop-prepared metalwork. Copper, bronze, and
stainless steel should be left exposed.
Painted and Varnished Woodwork
Retain and renew paint coatings on wood features
that have been painted in the past; paint helps to
protect the surface from moisture and light damage.
Paint that is firmly adhered should be left in place
and not removed unless it is failing. If all paint is
planned for removal during a rehabilitation project,
samples of the existing layers of color should be
taken prior to complete removal. This is used to
perform a paint analysis that records the historic
sequence of colors.
Many of the main entrance doors have been finished
with a colored varnish or with a stain and clear
varnish coating. Shellac or oil-based varnishes were
traditionally used to protect woodwork up through
the post-World War II era. Many of these exterior
doors may have been refinished with modern
polyurethane varnishes. It is important to identify
the existing varnish coating prior to refinishing.
Shellac varnishes can often be refreshed using
mineral spirits and new shellac. Oil-based varnishes
can be removed with solvents and renewed.
However, polyurethane coatings require complete
removal down to bare wood. The wood will need to
be re-stained and varnished. Polyurethane coatings
should be applied by a skilled contractor to avoid
lap marks, bubbling, and super high gloss finishes.
Painted Stucco
Traditionally, stucco was integrally colored through
the use of colored aggregate and the addition of
lime-stable pigments in the finish coat mix. In
the nineteenth century, stucco was also routinely
whitewashed. These early coatings were later
replaced by modern paints as the commercial
paint industry expanded circa 1875. Stucco that
has been painted should continue to be coated.
Appropriate coatings include lime and cement
paints, latex paints, and alkyd paints. Paint type
will be determined by the previous coatings; new
paint must be compatible with existing coatings.
Unpainted Surfaces
Do not paint masonry or stucco that has never been
painted. Painting undamaged masonry surfaces is
not a preservation treatment. This is unnecessary
unless the surface is much deteriorated from extreme
weathering, water penetration, or sandblasting and
other abrasive treatments. Do not paint windows
shut or coat the window glass.
Repair and Repainting
Before removing, handling, or disposing of paint,
it is critical to determine if it is lead-based. Most
paints installed prior to 1978 can be assumed
to contain lead. If properly encapsulated with
modern, non-lead containing paints, the earlier
lead paint layers are not typically considered a
hazard. A higher level of scrutiny is required in
areas where children are present, on friction and
impact surfaces, and where the paint is severely
deteriorated. It is critical to follow best protection
practices when scraping or sanding surfaces that
have been painted with lead-based paints. Ensure
that the removal process complies with local, state,
and federal laws and avoid breathing or ingesting
the dust of lead-based paint.
Use the gentlest means possible to remove paint and
only remove deteriorated paint layers. For buildings
with extensively deteriorated paint, remove all
unstable coatings to bare substrate after sampling
and recording the historic paint color sequence.
Architectural features should not be stripped and
left bare. The unprotected substrate will quickly
discolor and deteriorate; metal substrates will
quickly corrode.
Hand-scraping and hand-sanding is the best
technique for removing paint on some historical
materials. Limited and judicious use of chemical
strippers can be considered, provided test patches
are evaluated prior to large-scale stripping. Care
should be taken that chemical strippers do not
damage adjacent building or landscape materials.
Alkaline chemicals should be approached with
caution when removing paint from wood substrates;
they raise the grain and can easily damage wood.
In contrast, alkaline paint strippers have proven
to be the most effective type of stripper for use on
iron-containing metals. On masonry, mild chemical
strippers may be appropriate but only under skilled
supervision with prior test patches. It is important
to ensure that chemicals are thoroughly rinsed
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 311

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
off after treatment. Failure to do so will cause
premature paint failure of the new coating.
Sandblasting is extremely harmful to historic
material surfaces and should never be used. It
leads to water penetration and deterioration.
Water-blasting is only appropriate for loose paint
on masonry surfaces if used at low pressure
(150-200 psi maximum). Pressure-washing wood is
detrimental as it raises the grain and forces moisture
into the walls. It leads to paint failure, wood decay,
and structural problems.
Propane or butane torches, electric hot-air guns,
and electric heat plates are never recommended for
paint removal because they can scorch the surface
of the wood and ignite debris behind clapboards.
Likewise, electric sanders can cause irreversible
damage by removing the wood surface in addition
to paint.
Substrates to be painted must be properly prepared
and primed. Manufacturer recommendations
must be followed for each type of substrate to be
painted. Primer helps the finish coats bond to the
new and previously-painted surfaces and combats
deterioration caused by moisture absorption.
When choosing a paint system, pick one that is
appropriate to the existing coating, the surface to be
painted, and the site’s environmental microclimate.
The extra cost of high-quality paint is a good
investment because it maintains a better surface
for a longer period. New paint must be compatible
with the old paint. Surfaces previously painted
with oil-based paint should only be repainted
with oil paint. Alkyd and oil paint should not be
combined in multiple layers. Apply paint with a
brush, because spray-on paint has poor adherence,
a thinner coat, and greater failure rate.
Historic Paint Colors
While paint offers an important protective coating
for architectural materials, it also provides valuable
information on the aesthetic intent and changing
tastes over time. Often when a historic building is
restored or renovated, there is a desire to repaint
using original or historically appropriate colors.
When a historically accurate restoration is needed,
a materials conservation professional should be
engaged to do a paint analysis or seriation study.
This study analyzes a paint sample in cross-section
using a microscope under special lighting conditions
to study the colors and sequences of all the coating
layers (seriation) on the surfaces of architecturally
significant elements and building surfaces. Historic
paint analysis can aid in the investigation of the
history and development of a building, as well as
provide information on coatings applied over time.
It is valuable in determining appropriate colors for
repainting.
Alternatively, for less sensitive spaces or simpler
finishes, it may be appropriate to choose from a
palette of period colors for repainting. Prior to the
nineteenth century, the color palette was typically
confined to natural colors, such as grays, buffs,
tans, ochre yellows and iron oxide reds. Bright
colors were restricted to greens and Prussian blue.
Care was taken to produce high gloss finishes,
particularly on woodwork. In the early nineteenth
century, new colors became available, including
chrome green and yellow and reds. The color
palette was slightly brighter and less gray. New
paint formulations brought about a fashion for
low-gloss finishes circa 1830. Factory-made paints
became widely available circa 1875 during a time of
exuberant color choices in the Victorian era. Tertiary
colors, a mix of secondary colors, such as olives
and red-browns, were popular. High gloss finishes
were used on woodwork; low-gloss paints were
used on wall surfaces. The turn of the century saw
a pendulum swing back to subdued colors with the
growing popularity of the Classical Revival styles.
In addition to color, other factors affect the
appearance of historic paints and must be
considered when applying new paint. Prior to
the widespread commercialization of paints circa
1875, paints tended to have coarser pigment grains
causing an unevenness of color. Unless the paint
layers were later rubbed smooth, brush marks
were often visible; the type of brush used left
distinctive lap and brush marks. The content and
thickness of the binder affected the final gloss level.
It is important to understand that gloss level and
application methods, as well as color, affect the
final appearance of paint.
9.11 Interiors
Much of the activity surrounding architecture takes
place on the interior. Interiors offer rich histories
about the use of the building over time. Pristine,
unaltered interiors may reveal a specific aesthetic
of a certain era, use, or owner. Interiors that have
been altered by each succeeding generation present
tales of change and technological improvements.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 312

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Unfortunately, interiors that have been heavily
renovated are often stripped of their rich histories.
Typical Conditions
Significant interior spaces have been retained in
many of Moravian College’s historic buildings.
The majority of these historical interior spaces are
in good condition. However, some of Moravian
College’s historic academic buildings that have
been renovated for new uses and original interiors
have been significantly modified. Most of Moravian
College’s renovated historic buildings, however,
retain much of their original floor plans, room
configurations, staircases, and some finishes and
details.
Inspection
Historic interiors can be inspected on several levels.
Architectural inspection focuses on the overall
features, materials, finishes, form, and circulation.
Structural inspections review loads and settlement
issues, focusing on foundations, structural
members, and attic spaces. Systems and fixtures
inspections involve review of the existing electrical,
mechanical, and plumbing systems for adequacy,
efficiency, and code requirements. Additionally, the
interiors can be inspected with a focus on life safety,
fire protection, and building code review. Often, a
thorough historic interior assessment will require
that all of these issues are addressed.
For the purposes of these guidelines, the focus is on
the architectural assessment of historic interiors. It is
important to methodically inspect and document an
historic interior, noting the following conditions:
Flooring
• Wood: loose boards, buckling, water damage,
wear, scrapes, cracking and splitting, stains,
failed finishes
• Tile: loose tiles, cracks, chips, loss of glaze,
loss or failure of grouting
• Terrazzo: Cracks, loose areas, loss,
disaggregation, failure of finishes
Walls and ceilings
• Plaster: cracks, failure of finish, delamination,
hollow or bulging plaster that is loose from
lath, water damage, efflorescence, loss, mold
• Wood paneling: loose panels, cracks, split
panels, wear, water damage, insect infestation,
failure of finish
Stairs
• Sagging or loose stair members, including
stairs, newel posts, and handrails.
• Insect infestation
• Missing parts
• Failure of finishes
• Excessive wear
Doors and doorways
• Water damage
• Excessive wear at doors, door trim, and
threshold
• Broken glazing
• Failed finishes
• Poor operation of hardware
• Sagging or loose doors that do not close
Windows
• Broken interior screens and shutters
• Failed finishes
• Water stains
Wood trim
• Water damage
• Excessive wear
• Scrapes and gouges
• Failed finishes
• Loss
• Wood trim that is clearly not original
Fireplaces
• Failure of finish, loss, or damage at fireplace
surround.
• Loose, broken, or lost hearth materials.
• Failed structural support for hearth
• Failed firebox lining and/or water staining
Causes of Deterioration
The majority of the deterioration to historic interiors
is caused by damage to the exterior envelope of the
building. Water infiltration is one of the greatest
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 313

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
causes of problems on building interiors. Water
may be entering the building at points above gradelevel,
including the roof, walls, wall penetrations,
and door and window openings. Water may also
enter the building from below-grade through rising
damp at foundations. This can be exacerbated by
poor site drainage. Interior systems may also be the
cause of water infiltration. Leaking plumbing pipes
and mechanical equipment can cause localized
damage. Climate control systems may also cause
condensation, which can occur on surfaces where
warm humid air mixes with cooler surfaces.
Movement and settlement throughout the building
can alter interior finishes. Plaster can crack and
detach from the backup lath. Door and window
openings may shift, blocking the operation of doors
and sash. Floors may sag or buckle. It is important
to determine if significant movement is stable or
ongoing by consulting a structural engineer.
Inappropriate maintenance and heavy wear may
cause extensive deterioration of historic interiors.
Updating interior finishes and systems is required
for the continued use of many historic interiors.
However, improper treatments, insensitive
upgrades, and heavy handed alterations cause
irreversible damage. Upgrades for small scale
utilities, such as phone and cable lines, can cause
multiple, small penetrations in exterior walls. Over
time, these can lead to more serious damage. The
construction of new bookshelves or cabinets can
cause permanent damage to walls, wood trim, and
floors.
character-defining features are identified, all future
repairs and alterations can be assessed for their
impact on these features.
Interior repairs and renovations should proceed
along these general guidelines:
• Retain character defining floor plan elements,
such as stair configurations.
• Avoid partitioning or opening up characterdefining
spaces.
• Avoid the use of drop ceilings in spaces
defined by high ceilings.
• Retain historic finishes and decorative
features and materials. Repair features to
the greatest extent possible. Replace historic
features with matching materials wherever
possible.
• Retain and preserve visible features of
character-defining mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems.
• Do not recreate interior conditions that did
not exist historically.
Repair and Renovation
When considering repairs or alterations within
an historic interior, it is important to identify the
character-defining features that create a unique
interior space. The overall form of the interior
is often significant, including the floor plan, the
volume of spaces, and the relationship of rooms.
Many buildings will have primary public spaces
with finer finishes and secondary utilitarian spaces.
Certain key interior features may be of particular
importance, such as a main stair case, ornamental
woodwork, and fireplace surrounds. Other features
may be less prominent but, taken collectively, define
the style and feel of the interior. These include the
floor and wall finishes and detailing, wood trim,
doorway openings, doors, window treatments,
and hardware. The natural and artificial lighting
of the interior is important and is closely linked to
the treatment of windows on the exterior. Once the
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 9 • Building Guidelines • 314

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Chapter Ten
Guidelines for New Construction and
Alterations
10.0 Introduction
One of the primary purposes of the Getty Foundation
Campus Heritage Grant Program is to ensure that
historic preservation and stewardship are integrated
into long-range planning efforts and day-to-day
decision making at Moravian College. The desire
of this institution to do so is readily apparent in its
vision to create “a community of wise stewards,
who care for and enhance [the college’s] treasures of
heritage, people and place for generations to come.”
The strategic plan dictating growth and policy for
the college through 2015 further elaborates on this
vision:
“Moravian proudly maintains and uses
colonial-era buildings as part of its beautiful,
historic campus. In order to ensure that these
highly valued facilities are properly maintained,
we will devote significant resources to the
restoration and upkeep of our older facilities. In
addition, we will add exciting new spaces…”
This Preservation Master Plan is an important step
towards implementation. It is recommended that
this plan be formally adopted by Moravian College
and integrated into the institution’s maintenance,
planning, design and budgeting processes.
Adoption of the plan will further establish an
institutional historic preservation ethic and assist
in the stewardship of nationally significant historic
resources by developing awareness of best practice
techniques for facility managers and maintenance
staff; communicating standards and guidelines
to consultants and contractors; and fostering an
understanding and appreciation among faculty,
staff and student body. With the pending completion
of a college-wide master development plan this
preservation plan will also provide an important
framework for considering historic preservation
issues in the design and planning for the expansion
of the two campuses at Moravian College.
Existing Administrative Procedures
The current administrative and review procedures
followed at Moravian College are informal. There
is no standardized process for decision-making
related to either new construction or maintenancelevel
work. The decision making process on new
construction is also centralized, involving only a
few key administrators, staff, and members of the
Board of Trustees. It typically does not involve
college personnel, consultants, or contractors
that represent historic preservation interests and
perspectives. When donors contribute to capital
projects, their interests also weigh heavily into the
decision-making process. These interests may not
always support historic preservation objectives.
Consideration regarding impacts to historic
resources should always occur at the earliest stages
of project planning. When historic resources are
considered late in the design or in the permitting
phase of a project it is more difficult, from a
practical, economic and scheduling perspective,
to integrate historic preservation measures and
mitigation. Also since the City of Bethlehem
includes historic resources in the municipal review
of proposed development projects and the Priscilla
Payne Hurd Campus is in a local historic district, it
is good project management practice to anticipate
and address any concerns and issues the city may
bring forward in a development proposal.
A case in point occurred during the preparation
of this study. In 2008, during the construction of
the new residence hall at the Hurd Campus, two
nineteenth century root cellars were encountered
during excavation for the foundation of the new
building. Project work was halted to allow for
historical research and salvage archeology. A third
cellar was also discovered, and although the three
were documented, all were ultimately destroyed
because they were located within the new building’s
construction footprint. The three root cellars were
directly associated with the centuries-long history
of development and use of the land by members of
the Moravian Church. There were no alternatives
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 315

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
available for mitigation other than to quickly
document the resource prior to its demolition.
If, during the design phase of the project, regard
was given to the possibility of archeological
resources existing on campus, a survey would have
been conducted without duress and mitigation
alternatives explored. Instead, the result was
additional unforeseen project costs for the college,
time delays for the contractor, and inevitable
destruction of a significant historic resource.
Another important step to take in the
implementation of this Preservation Master Plan is
to introduce and integrate comprehensive historic
preservation standards and guidelines along with
best management practices into the college’s existing
maintenance program. With the formal commitment
expressed to devote significant resources towards
the proper maintenance and upkeep of these highly
valued facilities attention should now be given to
identifying and prioritizing projects within the
annual maintenance budget. It is not uncommon
for maintenance programs and personnel at
institutions to follow a reactive, rather than guide a
proactive, approach. Maintenance work orders are
typically complaint driven and quantity with cost
suppression trumps quality. It just so happens that
when decisions are made and work is performed
using this model that costs are often higher over
the long-term because lower quality, lack of
craftsmanship, and use of inappropriate materials
results in the eventual un-doing of inappropriately
performed work and increased frequency of
replacement. This begins with the recognition that
when it comes to the maintenance and upkeep of
historic buildings, “low bid” means trouble, “the
way we’ve always done it” is not always the best
way, and “maintenance-free” is a mere marketing
ploy.
10.1 Administrative
and Management
Recommendations
The following sections focus on identifying
recommendations and guidelines for administrative,
management, and review procedures at Moravian
College. The recommendations are compiled under
six headings:
1) General Recommendations,
2) Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Adaptive Use
Projects,
3) Guidelines for New Construction Projects,
4) Recommendations for Energy Conservation &
New Building Systems,
5) Recommendations for Sustainable Design, and
6) Recommendations for Barrier-free Access.
The General Recommendations section focuses on
broad administrative and staffing guidelines to
help ensure that Moravian College considers its
historic resources in all stages of the decisionmaking
process for projects which have the
potential to impact the built environment of both
campuses. These recommendations should be
incorporated when undertaking any maintenance
or new construction project.
There are several key administrative and
management needs that are critical to Moravian
College’s success in fulfilling its stewardship
responsibilities. The following recommendations
focus on how to incorporate historic preservation
sensitivity into the decision-making process and
steps to standardize and improve existing review
policies and procedures.
General Recommendations
1. Hire a Historic Preservation Specialist
Moravian College should retain the services
of a historic preservation specialist to assist
in making sensitive decisions about the
stewardship of historic resources on campus.
The historic preservation specialist may be
a full or part-time employee, an individual
consultant on retainer, or a full-service company
providing a wide range of expertise under
contract. The historic preservation specialist
would work closely with maintenance staff
and project managers to ensure that adequate
consideration is given to projects that have
the potential to impact historic resources.
Such a specialist, if an individual, should
have an educational background in historic
preservation and practical experience in
dealing with preservation issues. Augmenting
the expertise of existing staff, this person
should possess knowledge of historic materials
conservation; the appropriate treatment of
significant architectural features; and should
be well acquainted with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties—the nationally recognized and
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 316

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
accepted best practice methods and procedures
for historic preservation. Also, a familiarity
with archeological resources and cultural
landscapes is highly desired. It is recommended
that the historic preservation specialist be given
the authority to oversee maintenance work
and special projects associated with historic
buildings, structures, and certain landscape
features. This individual should also be directly
involved in the planning process for new
construction projects to ensure preservation
issues are appropriately and adequately
addressed.
2. Develop Criteria for Design Consultant
Selection
When choosing architectural, engineering,
planning, or landscape consultants, Moravian
College should ensure that select members of
the design team have experience in historic
preservation and working within a historical
context. Developing design solutions that
are sensitive to the historic character and
setting of both campuses is critical to future
development. Since both campuses are also
within a larger historical framework associated
with the City of Bethlehem, all projects have
the potential for historic preservation issues
and concerns. Not only should the historic
character and integrity of on-campus buildings
and resources be considered, but the impact
on adjacent neighborhoods and districts as
well. An in-house review process is outlined in
recommendation #4 below. Without experience
in working in a historic setting, the project
design team may inadvertently disregard
important aspects of the project and its impacts
on surrounding historic resources. The selection
of experienced consultants, in conjunction with
a defined review process spearheaded by the
historic preservation specialist, will ensure
that Moravian College continues to meet its
stewardship goals.
3. Standardize Review Criteria
A standardized set of specific historic
preservation guidelines should be prepared to
be used during the review process for major
projects. The guidelines should be shared
with all design professionals, contractors
and construction managers responsible for
oversight and approval of work on campus.
Criteria should address compatibility of the
proposed project with surrounding buildings
and uses and impacts on historic character and
significant architectural features. In addition,
detailed design considerations are outlined
in the treatment guidelines for architecture
and landscapes within this Preservation Master
Plan.
New construction projects should be evaluated
and considered against both the specific
historic preservation guidelines and a series
of standard questions related to project
impacts. Ideally, projects that fail to meet an
established resource preservation/sensitive
treatment baseline would return to the
drawing board until modifications are made
and the baseline is reached. A baseline could
be as simple as adopting the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties and/or any historic
preservation design guidelines adopted by the
City of Bethlehem used for review of proposed
development projects.
For all proposed construction projects on
campus, the following issues and related
questions should be addressed:
A. Assess how the project will directly impact
significant historic resources on campus.
• Is a significant historic building the
subject of the proposed project? If so,
what significant architectural features
are affected?
• Are there significant landscape
features and/or archeological deposits
identified in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed project? If so, what are
the features/deposits and how are they
to be affected?
• If no known archeological deposits are
in the vicinity, what is the likelihood
they might exist? If the likelihood is
“high” an archeological assessment
survey should be completed early on
in project planning.
B. Assess how the project will indirectly impact
significant historic resources on campus.
• Are there significant historic buildings
adjacent to the proposed project? If so,
how will the proposed project affect
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 317

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
use, access, traffic (pedestrian and
vehicular), and views of the significant
historic buildings?
• Are there significant landscape features
and/or archeological deposits within
+/- 200 feet of the proposed project? If
so, will any construction work related
to the proposed project have an impact
on these features/deposits? Take into
consideration such things as utility
lines, service equipment, temporary
traffic detours, and construction
staging areas.
C. Ensure that damage or loss of historic resources
is minimized.
• For proposed projects where an impact
on significant historic resources has
been identified, what procedures,
efforts and/or design alternatives could
be considered to minimize the loss?
New projects should be re-designed
if they will substantially damage
or destroy an irreplaceable historic
resource.
D. Evaluate the finished product.
• Once construction is complete, new
projects should be assessed to identify
any areas where improvements could
be made when considering future
projects.
4. Formalize Internal Review Procedures
Internal review procedures at Moravian College
need to be formalized to ensure consistency from
project-to-project. A designated committee,
including the historic preservation specialist
and representatives from the maintenance
and facilities staff, should be formed. The
committee should meet on a regular basis
to review proposed, active and recently
completed projects. The following procedures
are offered as a way to facilitate and implement
this review process. Additional staff and design
consultants may attend on an as-needed basis
in association with larger projects, and safety
or technical issues that should be coordinated
with historic preservation goals and objectives.
(Specific review procedures for maintenance
projects are identified under the Guidelines for
Maintenance Projects section in this chapter.)
Preferably before a design consultant team
is hired, the review committee would be
notified of an issue, need or idea that directly
or indirectly involves a significant historic
resource. The information should be presented
to the committee by the respective dean,
department head or manager. A SWOT analysis
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats)
is completed for the proposed project and
affected resources. If possible, alternatives are
considered with project goals and preservation
guidelines discussed in a team setting. When
a preferred alternative or solution is reached,
a written summary outlining conceptual
information about the project and possible
impact on resources should be compiled. This
information would then be provided to the
prospective design consultant team under
contract or as part of the Request for Proposals
(RFP) process. If the direct and indirect impacts
of the project on significant historic resources are
minor or non-existent than no Determination
of Need document would be produced.
5. Develop a Work Schedule and
Detailed Condition Assessments
Building on the Existing Conditions
assessments in Chapter 8 developed as part of
the Preservation Master Plan, Moravian College
should continue to maintain records for each
building on campus regarding conditions,
potential problems, short-term and long-term
maintenance needs. The detailed conditions
assessment should be updated each time work
is completed on a historic building or landscape
resource.
The detailed conditions assessment will
provide a framework for the college in the
development of a prioritized work schedule
and budget for all historic buildings and
landscape resources. The prioritized work
schedule and budget for short and long-term
projects should be developed as quickly as
possible, as routine maintenance projects are
one of the most significant problems plaguing
historic buildings on campus. The prioritized
work schedule and budget is necessary to
ensure that issues are not deferred until they
become major structural problems.
Funding needed for the maintenance of historic
buildings and landscapes should be identified
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 318

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
annually and incorporated into relevant
budgets. Maintenance needs should not be put
on hold in lieu of new construction projects.
A prioritized work program and associated
budget will ensure that necessary maintenance
projects, both short- and long-term, are
incorporated into the capital improvements
program.
6. Maintain a Preservation Technical
Library
A library of literature relevant to preservation
treatments and techniques should be created
that is accessible to maintenance and operations
staff.
7. Train Maintenance Personnel
All staff at Moravian College who are
responsible for the maintenance of historic
academic and residential buildings should be
trained to identify maintenance problems and
treatments that are specific to historic resources.
Grounds staff should be familiar with the
unique landscape needs of each character
area and be encouraged to develop areas of
expertise. All maintenance staff should be
familiar with the preservation guidelines and
recommendations for buildings, landscapes,
and new construction as defined in this
Preservation Master Plan. The plan should be
distributed to all maintenance personnel so they
can become familiar with the purpose, existing
conditions, issues, and recommendations for
the campus’s historic resources. Also, a set
of the National Park Service’s Preservation
Briefs series should be acquired and used. A
training program should be developed to assist
facilities staff in identifying potential problems
and appropriate treatments. Training should
be held on a regular basis to ensure that staff
is up-to-date on procedures and maintenancerelated
issues.
8. Defi ne Maintenance Protocols for
Building Tenants
Preservation protocols should be established
for tenants of historic buildings to ensure that
individual users do not make modifications to
buildings that would adversely impact their
historic integrity. Parameters for allowable
alterations, best maintenance practices, and
practices to avoid should be clearly identified
and distributed to all maintenance staff and
building tenants. This is particularly important
for preserving remaining historic interiors, as
interior modifications are more likely to be
conducted by individual building tenants.
Guidelines for New Construction
It is understood that Moravian College will continue
to construct new buildings on its campuses to
accommodate future growth and change. The
pending campus master plan will identify possible
locations for new construction and will be the
guiding document for growth. This preservation
plan is intended to be complementary to the
proposed master plan.
The character of institutional landscapes relies
heavily on the visual continuity established by the
repetition of similarly-designed façades. Exterior
additions to existing buildings and new construction
can both play important roles in contributing to
that rhythm. The key is to position and design
new construction so that it enhances rather than
detracts from a campus’ historic buildings. Newly
constructed buildings should be designed to reflect
the height, scale, massing, setbacks, and directional
emphasis established by surrounding structures. It
is also important for new buildings to contribute to
the pedestrian-oriented character of the campus.
Contemporary Design – New buildings and
additions that are constructed in a historic context
should have a contemporary design that is respectful
of surrounding historic buildings. Historic
elements and imagery should be avoided in new
construction because false historicism diminishes
the historic integrity of the campus and confuses
the understanding of what is old and what is new.
Each building should speak of its own time.
Design for Compatibility – New construction
should be visually sympathetic to the character
of surrounding buildings and should preserve
important views and vistas. Materials, massing, and
form are the most critical elements to respond to
in the creation of good design. In order to increase
the potential for good design, an architectural
firm noteworthy for its design and demonstrated
experience working with historic buildings should
be selected. Flexibility is required to achieve good
design in a historic context. Careful thought,
sensibility, and quality are the most vital skills with
which to work when designing for compatibility.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 319

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Materials – In planning for new construction,
materials should be selected that are sympathetic to
surrounding historic building fabrics. Using similar
materials in complementary colors, sizes, textures,
scales, and craftsmanship is the easiest way to create
new designs that are visually compatible with the
existing historic context.
Mass – New buildings should be designed to
complement the apparent mass (bulk; lightness
or heaviness) of surrounding historic buildings.
A building’s sense of massing is influenced by the
materials used in the façade and by the proportion
of solid surfaces (walls) to voids (window and door
openings). Having a proper sense of massing is
particularly important in new construction because
many contemporary materials make it easy to
create a weightless appearance that lacks historical
precedent.
Form – New buildings should have similar form
or shape as those of existing adjacent buildings.
Consider the number of stories, the roof profile, and
the building footprint in comparison to its historic
surroundings. Imposing, towering buildings or
very low, irregular forms with flat roofs may be
inappropriate.
Size, Rhythm, and Proportions – Design of new
construction should be compatible with the average
height and width of surrounding buildings. The
rhythm of the façade should reflect the visual
rhythm of existing buildings on the campus. Any
large new buildings should be designed in visually
distinct sections or bays that approximate the
average width of Moravian’s historic buildings.
These sections can be defined using vertical
elements such as piers, slight setbacks, doors,
windows, and pilasters. Window and door
openings should generally be similar in size and
proportion to their historic counterparts, as should
the proportion of window to wall space. Important
character-defining façade elements include cornice
lines, pilasters, and porches. Any new secondary
structures should be designed to complement the
scale, roof form, setback, and materials of nearby
secondary structures.
Additions to Existing Buildings
As needs change, some buildings must be adapted
to accommodate new uses. Few buildings escape
some degree of alteration over time. Additions to
existing historic buildings can have a strong effect
on the character of the buildings they serve as well
as on the character of the historic landscape in which
they are located. When constructing additions,
the design characteristics of the existing building
should be taken into account, but not copied.
Additions should be compatible, but should clearly
read as additions.
Follow the guidelines for new construction
outlined above and keep in mind the following
considerations:
Demolition and Removals – Demolition and
removals should be kept to a minimum in a
project involving historic buildings. Removals
should be limited to secondary areas and
elements where the removals cannot be avoided.
Any required demolition necessary for a project
should be carefully planned to minimize impacts
on historic features, materials, floor plans, and
spatial characteristics. Historic features, elements,
materials, and designs that will be impacted by a
project should be thoroughly documented with
photographs and measured drawings prior to their
removal.
Alignment and Orientation – When constructing
an addition, respect the orientation of the existing
building’s primary façade. In general, it is preferable
not to use an addition to turn a secondary façade
into a primary one. However, if a new primary
entrance is designed into an addition, the original
historic entrance should be retained and preserved.
Align the key elements of new additions with their
counterparts on the main building, such as the plane
of the front façade, roofline, cornice height, pattern
of masonry courses, or the width of existing wood
siding. The floor heights of an addition should
not exceed the floor heights of the main building,
and the difference between new and existing floor
heights should not vary by more than ten percent.
Placement – In general, new additions should
attach to secondary façades and be placed to the
side or rear of the historic building. A clear change
should occur at the point of attachment, preferably
a change in setback, differentiating the addition
and preserving the form of the original building.
Do not simply continue the plane of an historic
façade. Attach new additions to the main building
in a way that protects the building’s characterdefining
features. The placement of an addition
should not obscure or destroy the existing building
form, principal entrance, or any other key feature,
especially of the primary façade.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 320

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Guidelines for Rehabilitation and
Adaptive Use
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, upon which the recommendations
within this preservation plan are based, were
created specifically to assist in the rehabilitation
and adaptive use of historic buildings. These
Standards are an important guide in good decisionmaking
regarding rehabilitation and adaptive use.
The Standards encourage the study of a historic
building to determine the following:
Historical Development – The building should
be examined to determine how it has changed
over time and which components, additions,
architectural features and materials are significant
and associated with periods of change.
Period of Significance – Based upon the building’s
historical development, a period of historical
significance can be established. This range of years
should include substantial building additions
and modifications. As a general rule, changes
to a building within the past fifty years are not
considered historically significant.
Significant Features – Specific character-defining
features, configurations, and materials that relate
to the building’s period of significance should be
inventoried. In general, entrances, public spaces,
and circulation spaces should receive the highest
level of preservation treatment.
Appropriate Use – The proposed new use for an
historic building should be appropriate to the
character of the building as it relates to the retention
of character-defining features. Inappropriate uses
that require the reconfiguration, disfigurement,
removal, or destruction of character-defining
features should be discouraged. For significant
features, the program, design, and layout for a
permitted use should adapt to the preservation
requirements of the building, not vice versa.
Appropriate uses and levels of change may be
identified for each treatment level identified in a
building.
Retain Historic Building Fabric – Retain existing
historic building fabric and architectural details
whenever possible. The removal or alteration
of historic building fabric and architectural
detailsseverely diminishes the integrity and
aesthetics of historic façades and interiors, especially
those that date from the nineteenth or eighteenth
century.
Replacement In Kind – When deteriorated historic
building fabric cannot be retained, the deteriorated
materials should be replaced in kind. Historic
materials are generally preferred over contemporary
synthetic ones because they reflect authenticity
from the past and their long-term performance is
fully understood.
Damaged or Missing Features – If adequate
physical and documentary evidence is available,
highly deteriorated or missing historic architectural
details may be reproduced. If adequate evidence is
unavailable, missing features should be replaced
with contemporary elements that are physically
and visually compatible with the building and the
landscape. It is especially important to understand
the physical properties of the materials that are being
used. For example, some metals corrode when they
are placed in contact with one another. Size, scale,
material, and color should also be considered.
Synthetic Materials – When natural, historic
materials are unavailable or prohibitively expensive,
the use of synthetic materials may be appropriate.
Today, many synthetic materials are designed to
closely match the appearance and characteristics
of natural materials. These materials should be
researched extensively and chosen carefully,
however, because their weathering characteristics
and longevity may not be known.
False Historicism – Do not construct new features
that attempt to appear historic but are not based
upon actual documentation because it confuses
the understanding of authentic historic buildings
and diminishes the actual legacy of the past. For
example, it is inappropriate to copy the features
of another existing historic building for use in
the rehabilitation of a building that lacks such
features even if it is thought that the building
might have had something similar at some time.
Avoid speculation and conjecture as to what a
building or feature might have looked like. It is
especially inappropriate to create a feature that
appears to predate the actual date of construction
of a building, such as introducing a Federal-style
detail on a Victorian-era building. Authenticity and
the preservation of real historic fabric are primary
goals in the rehabilitation of historic buildings.
Doorways and Entrances – Preserve the existing
doorways and entrances to a building undergoing
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 321

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
rehabilitation or adaptive use. Preserve and
retain existing historic materials and hardware.
The primary entrance to the building should be
maintained other historic entrances and door
openings should not be removed or infilled.
Windows – Retain and repair existing historic
windows and window detailing. Where windows
are deteriorated beyond the ability to reasonably
repair them, replace the windows in-kind using
matching materials, configurations, and detailing.
Weatherstripping and storm windows should
be added to existing windows when compatibly
designed and installed. Insulated glass may be
used in replacement windows. Do not remove or
infill historic window openings from the exterior.
Historic Interiors
Most of the historic buildings at Moravian have
had substantial interior changes over the years.
The extent of these interior changes range from
complete renovation and adaptive use where
entire interiors are lost (such as at Monocacy Hall),
to careful rehabilitation projects where historic
fabric is preserved while needed interior changes
are implemented (such as at the Single Brethren’s
House). Changes such as these may be considered
historically significant as part of the evolution of
the buildings and should be treated with care.
Additional changes in these buildings have occurred
as well, and future changes are anticipated, such
as the installation of new mechanical systems and
universal access features. These future changes
should be implemented in accordance with the
recommendations and processes outlined in this
preservation plan.
Assessing a Potential New Use – Adaptive reuse
projects usually require some degree of new
interior construction. In considering a potential
new use for a building, careful planning and
evaluation should first determine if the proposed
use is appropriate to the building and whether the
degree of change necessary to accommodate the
use can be accomplished without significant impact
to the building’s historic character and significance.
Some historic buildings cannot accept dramatically
different new uses.
Planning and Design – Proposed interior
construction work should conform to the same
principles and processes as that for exterior work
on historic buildings. It is recommended that a
historic preservation professional be included in
projects involving the college’s historic buildings.
In planning for interior work it is usually helpful
to divide the historic interior into a hierarchy
of zones of sensitivity. Principal spaces, such as
entrance halls and parlors in a residence, might be
considered zones of high sensitivity where little or
no change should occur. Secondary spaces, such
as work areas, dressing rooms, closets, basements,
and attics in a residence might be more appropriate
for change. New work should generally be confined
to secondary or non-significant spaces and areas to
minimize its impact on the historic building.
The historically significant elements of each interior
space should be identified. Historically significant
elements include large-scale elements such as
the overall spatial flow, room plans and layouts,
circulation patterns and interior volumes. They also
include the more obvious elements such as building
features (windows, doors, stairways, fireplaces,
trims, etc.) and materials (plaster, wood, tile, etc.).
Each historic space and element should be assessed
for the degree of change it can sustain with the goal
of preserving as much historic character and fabric
as possible.
New Interior Construction – New interior
construction work should be compatible with
the existing historic character, but should be
distinguishable from it. As discussed above under
new construction and additions to historic buildings,
exact duplication of historic materials and elements
should be discouraged to avoid confusion between
what is authentically historic and what is new.
Where new walls or other partitions are planned,
for example, an appropriate approach might be to
use new trim and woodwork similar to the historic
woodwork in scale, material, and general character,
but different in profile and detail. The challenge is
ensuring that the new interior construction work
is compatible without being a copy of the historic
building. While it should be clear to the casual
observer that the work is new and not historic, the
design and materials should respect and reflect the
original building.
Recommendations for Energy
Conservation and New Building
Systems
Among the most difficult design challenges
relative to historic buildings is the accommodation
of new mechanical and electrical systems. This is
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 322

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
particularly true of Moravian College, where a
number of principal historic buildings, are in need of
new or upgraded systems. In general, new systems
can take up a large amount of space and can cause
substantial destruction when they are installed.
Sometimes, the most appropriate approach is to
simply and discreetly allow the system to be seen,
with the least possible amount of damage to historic
materials and penetration of historic fabric.
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
Systems
The introduction of new heating, ventilation and
air conditioning systems into historic buildings
should be handled carefully so that it has the least
possible impact on historic character and building
fabric. In significant historic spaces, systems should
be concealed if at all possible. This concealment can
sometimes be accomplished by locating equipment
and ductwork in basements or attics and feeding
the rooms from below or above. Another acceptable
approach is to locate ductwork in soffits running
along the walls and ceilings of secondary spaces
and feeding into primary spaces. The least desirable
solution is the installation of new suspended
ceilings. A mechanical engineer with experience
and sensitivity in installing HVAC systems in
historic buildings is a worthwhile investment.
If separate from heating, air conditioning systems
can be building-wide systems or individual room
systems. In a building-wide system, a single
condenser provides coolant to several zoned air
handlers. Cool air is then distributed through
ductwork. How the ductwork is run and concealed
will be different building-by-building. In an
individual room approach, residential type cooling
units are exposed and wall- or ceiling-mounted in
each room, with individual controls and individual
coolant lines to ganged condensing units.
Through-wall HVAC units are not appropriate
for use on historic buildings because they require
the removal of historic fabric and because they
are highly visible on the exterior. Considerable
care should be taken in locating equipment and
lines when installing systems with a centralized
chiller serving a large building or more than one
building.
Electrical and Plumbing Systems
Any new necessary electrical or plumbing work
should also be planned to have the least possible
impact. Existing chases, channels, and closets can
sometimes provide opportunities to conceal new
work. New systems should be consolidated if
possible, keeping the impact localized and minimal.
It is sometimes most appropriate to incorporate new
electrical, telephone, and computer distribution
lines into a common metal raceway exposed
and surface mounted low on the wall above the
baseboards. While visible, such an approach allows
for easy access and change, and is fully reversible.
New soffits for the distribution of electrical and
plumbing systems are most appropriate when
located in secondary areas with little impact on
significant material and spaces.
Weatherization
Most historic renovation projects include some forms
of weatherization to make buildings weathertight
and to help conserve energy. The goal of appropriate
weatherization measures is to increase the thermal
efficiency of the overall building envelope with
minimal impact on historic fabric. Weatherization
treatments have the potential to obscure, alter or
destroy historic features, but careful planning can
mean retention of character-defining features and
added savings. The wholesale removal of historic
windows in a building as a weatherization measure
should be avoided
Energy Conservation
Good design is directly related to energy
conservation. Sustainable or Green Building Design
as a formal programmatic initiative is discussed
in the next section of this chapter. The buildings
at Moravian were constructed with solid, durable
materials that have withstood the test of time. A
building’s systems and infrastructure, however, do
not always meet current goals for energy efficiency.
Future renovations offer opportunities for
improving energy efficiency and comfort as well as
for sustainable design. Other general design issues
related to any college buildings include:
• Use natural systems to support design
solutions and develop solutions that
engender environmental stewardship,
social responsibility, and economic
viability.
• Use plant materials, trees and landscape
features that perform a passive solarenergy
function such as sun-shading and
wind breaks.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 323

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• Evaluate affordable solutions to address
thermal loss around leaky window frames
such as caulking, weatherstripping, and
storm windows before undertaking
expensive window replacement, which
is usually unnecessary and should be
avoided.
• Improve the energy efficiency of existing
historic features through non-destructive
means such as high-quality weatherstripping,
caulking, double glazing, storm
windows, and insulation of ductwork and
pipes to minimize heat loss.
• Utilize the inherent energy-conserving
features of windows and blinds, double
vestibule entrances, and other techniques.
• Consider and evaluate improvements and
upgrades in natural and artificial lighting,
insulation, and building systems including
energy-efficient lighting sources and light
shelves, clerestories, and energy-efficient
skylight elements that will maximize
daylight.
• Energy-efficient HVAC systems such as
geothermal and ice storage should be
evaluated.
Building Insulation
If insulation of wall surfaces is necessary, materials
that provide the greatest R-value with the least
impact should be used. In projects where plaster
or sheetrock must be removed, it is possible to
install rolled insulation. Where insulation must be
installed, it is critical that the relationship between
wall surfaces and historic wood work not be
altered.
The introduction of blown-in insulation into the
wall cavities of historic frame buildings has the
potential to cause short- and long-term damage
to historic fabric. Heated air inside a building
supports more moisture than cold, outside winter
air. This warm air passes through un-insulated wall
cavities and the moisture vapor then reaches dew
point on the back side of exterior sheathing. Air
movement within an un-insulated cavity causes
this condensation to evaporate and helps prevent
the rotting of wood.
When wall cavities are insulated, moisture can
become trapped within the insulation as it travels
from interior to exterior. A vapor barrier on
the inside warm side of the wall is necessary to
prevent such moisture from getting into the wall.
Without a vapor barrier or air movement within
the wall cavity, moisture within the wall can cause
insulation to become wet, which yields no insulation
value and begins to rot framing members. Such
long-term damage is unseen until it causes serious
deterioration. For this reason, blown in insulation
is never recommended for walls because of the lack
of a vapor barrier. In buildings where aluminum
or vinyl siding has been added the problem is
exacerbated because the symptoms are hidden.
To avoid moisture damage and insure maximum
thermal efficiency, a proper vapor barrier must
be provided on the warm side of all insulation
materials, whether it is applied under flooring, in
the attic or in the walls. The barrier prevents the
passage of moisture through a wall and prevents
its accumulation in the insulation. There are
several ways to achieve a vapor barrier: foil facing
material on fiberglass insulation; Kraft paper facing
when it is backed with a bituminous or tar-like
coating (the paper alone does not work as a vapor
barrier); polyethylene sheeting placed between the
insulation and new plaster or sheetrock; or “vapor
barrier” paints or primers which provide a perm
rating of 1.0 or less, applied to plaster or sheetrock
surfaces.
Recommendations for Sustainable
Design
Adaptive Use vs. Demolition
All too often buildings are viewed as disposable
or obsolete rather than a renewable resource.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has
taken the position that “the greenest building is the
one already built.” The organization supports this
position with some eye-opening statistics:
• It takes about 65 years for an energy efficient
new building to equal the amount of energy lost
in demolishing an existing building of the same
size.
• Building a 50,000 square foot commercial
building requires the same amount of energy
needed to drive a car 20,000 miles a year for
730 years.
• By 2030 it is estimated that 82 billion square
feet of current building stock in the United
States will be demolished and replaced, 27% of
total available indoor space in the nation.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 324

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
• The energy needed to demolish and reconstruct
82 billion square feet of building space would
power the entire state of California (36.5
million people and the 10th largest economy
in the world) for 10 years (National Trust for
Historic Preservation 2009).
The long-term preservation of historic buildings
is often dependent upon whether the buildings
continue to have a vital, active role in campus life.
As uses and the physical requirements needed
to support uses change, buildings are in danger
of becoming obsolete unless new uses can be
found. The development of a new use for an
existing building originally designed for a specific
purpose is called adaptive use. Adaptive use is a
fundamental strategy in preserving buildings in an
historic community.
Creative solutions and alternatives for adaptive use
should be considered in the retrofit of any building
on campus that can no longer serve its current use.
Demolition of an existing campus building should
be considered only as a last resort solution. The
purchase of buildings adjacent to campus with the
intent of demolition should also be minimized. Such
activity also weakens bordering neighborhoods
when the college should be looking to strengthen
these transitional districts
Green Building Design
The United States Green Building Council (USGBC)
defines Green Building Design as “design and
construction practices that significantly reduce or
eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the
environment and occupants [through] sustainable
site planning, safeguarding water and water
efficiency, energy efficiency and renewable energy,
conservation of materials and resources [and]
indoor environmental quality.” The USGBC has
developed specific standards for new construction
projects and major renovations of existing buildings
along with general standards for neighborhoods.
The mission of the USGBC is to transform the way
buildings and communities are designed enabling
social and environmental responsibility and
improving the quality of life. Construction projects
that incorporate the principles of Green Building
Design are anticipated to maintain value and meet
environmental, health and safety measures over
the long term. Green Building Design should be
considered in new construction and the adaptive
use of existing buildings. policy at the University
might include a discussion of sustainable design
practices and examine existing buildings as possible
case studies.
LEED – Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design
Aware of the growing need for national design and
construction guidelines, the USGBC developed
LEED, the Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design rating system. The program’s purpose is
to establish a common standard of measurement;
promote comprehensive, integrated building design
practices; recognize environmental leadership
within the building industry; stimulate competition
with sustainable construction; and raise consumer
awareness as to the benefits of green buildings and
construction.
LEED provides owners and designers with a
point-based system for evaluating potential project
performance and sustainability. Criteria address
site development and transportation provisions;
water efficiency in the building and landscape;
renewable energy use and ozone protection; waste
management and materials selection; air quality,
day lighting, and views; and systems maintenance.
Successfully completed projects may be registered
with USGBC and nominated for one of four levels
of LEED Certification, which nationally recognizes
exemplary projects.
Since its inception, LEED standards have been
customized and developed for special application
to a number of different project types, including
new construction (NC) and existing buildings (EB).
LEED-NC guidelines apply to new construction
and major renovations to existing buildings,
covering all aspects of design implementation and
the construction process. The LEED-EB guidelines
apply to buildings of two years’ age or more and
focus primarily on post-construction building
system performance, upgrades, and maintenance,
in addition to ecological site planning and general
materials selection.
LEED in Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
Historic buildings are by their very nature
excellent candidates for Green Building Design
projects when work is undertaken in accordance
with The Secretary for the Interior’s Standards.
The preservation of existing historic fabric and
landscapes; reuse of structural elements, building
materials, and building envelopes; and adaptation
of historic buildings to new uses are not only
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 325

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
key components of historic preservation but also
characteristic of sustainable design.
Building owners may go a step further by examining
those portions of the building which are not vitally
historic and may be upgraded to increase the
long-term sustainability of the project. Specific
project considerations recommended for existing
buildings by the USGBC include the following:
Sustainable Sites – Projects involving historic
buildings are typically associated with a specific,
permanent site which may or may not allow for
reasonably sustainable site design. However,
exterior building cleaning, site maintenance, pest
management, fertilizer application, and power
equipment use can all be adapted to conform to
more environmentally-safe procedures. Installing
appropriate plantings, managing stormwater,
minimizing impervious surfaces, controlling
development density, providing alternative
methods of transportation, reducing heat islands
and light pollution, and protecting natural
habitats can also reduce detrimental effects to the
surrounding environment and increase the “green
value” of the project.
Water Efficiency – Although increasing water
efficiency may imply the removal of potentially
historic fixtures and plumbing systems, appropriate
installation of ultra high efficiency or dry fixtures
and water flow controls are integral to creating a
sustainable building. Adaptive use projects that call
for the replacement of non-historic fixtures open
the door to a potential sustainable design approach
in the selection of new, more efficient fixtures.
Furthermore, minimizing site irrigation and
implementing innovative, ecological wastewater
treatment technologies can also increase a project’s
water efficiency.
Energy & Atmosphere – Energy modeling can
prove to be an invaluable tool for ensuring that an
existing building’s systems are running efficiently
in accordance with energy code mandates. A study
of this type provides an early indication of what
system components should be upgraded and to
what extent, as well as aid in long-term monitoring
of the system’s operation. Installation of energysaving
retrofits and elements such as insulation,
weather-stripping, and storm windows may
improve the efficiency of an existing building over
the long term. Special consideration should be given
to the potential for implementation of renewable
energy systems, such as solar or wind power.
Maintenance staff should be thoroughly trained in
the appropriate operation, monitoring, and repair
of building systems to ensure better efficiency over
the life of the building. Inappropriate retrofits and
complex new mechanical systems should not be
installed at the risk of destroying or diminishing
the historic character of the building. Any proposed
additions or renovations to a historic building
should conform to the guidelines set forth in The
Secretary for the Interior’s Standards.
Materials & Resources – The least invasive method
for controlling materials waste is simply enforcing
a waste reduction strategy for the building during
and after construction, which should include
guidelines for reducing, salvaging, recycling, or
composting refuse and organic matter, to divert
material from landfills. When building materials
must be replaced, require new materials meet any
of the USGBC’s sustainability criteria, including the
use of certified wood, products made of recycled
content or rapidly renewable materials, or locally
grown or manufactured products. Use only those
cleaning products that conform to the appropriate
specified sustainability criteria.
Indoor Environmental Quality – Adequately
maintain outside air dampers and louvers and
monitor air flow regularly. Provide effective airflow
paths and natural ventilation. Install CO2 monitors
and increase the controllability of heating, cooling,
and lighting systems. Prohibit smoking and use
of materials or finishes that create a high level of
off-gassing within the building or near building
openings. Implement PCB and asbestos testing
and management programs and maintain accurate,
up-to-date records of remediation efforts. Utilize
natural daylight and views to retain a visual
connection between interior and exterior spaces.
Few historic buildings allow for the total
implementation of every sustainable design
recommendation outlined above. Formal LEED
Certification requires a minimum of these standards.
However, all designers and building owners can
choose to be good stewards of the environment
and achieve sustainable design practices without
pursuing formal certification. The goal of the Green
Building movement is to support a more holistic
approach to building design and renovation, wherein
long-term uses, environmental and community
impacts, existing building systems, and potential
increases in building efficiency are thoroughly
analyzed prior to commencement of the work. Each
project will have its own specific characteristics
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 326

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
that allow for more or less sustainable design to be
implemented according to its historic significance,
existing conditions, and historic integrity. All
new work should be compatible with the existing
historic conditions and guidelines outlined by The
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Additional information about the USGBC and
LEED is available on their website at www.usgbc.
org.
Recommendations for Barrier-Free
Access
With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA), basic levels of accessibility
became a responsibility and obligation for all
owners of properties open to and used by the public.
ADA is a comprehensive civil rights legislation
that applies to employment, telecommunication,
public transportation, government, and privatecommercial
property owners.
Buildings existing prior to the passage of the Act are
required to comply depending on their use. Existing
buildings that provide public accommodations,
such as lodging, food service, or public gathering
spaces, are required to comply when it is “readily
achievable” to do so. New construction and
alterations to existing buildings are required to
comply at the time of construction work. Standards
for the design of accessible facilities are defined in
the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG), as well as in the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the
International Building Code (IBC).
Section 4.1.7 of the ADAAG states that “qualified
historic buildings” are allowed certain exemptions
from the design standards relative to the
protection of existing historic fabric. This section
prevents undesirable modifications to historic
building elements judged to have historical or
architectural significance. Flexibility with respect
to the preservation of historic building features
has been integrated into recent building codes and
ADA standards. In cases where accessibility is not
possible without degrading the historic character
of a building, alternative solutions are considered
acceptable and should be developed.
destroying the historic character and significance of
the structure. The historic character of the building
must be considered and should not be sacrificed. In
such cases, alternative accommodations, applying
the principal of “equivalent facilitation”, should be
implemented. The final treatment chosen for any
specific building feature or space must be based on
a number of factors including integrity, significance,
physical condition, proposed use, mandated code
and accessibility requirements, management
objectives, and operational issues. Designs should
provide barrier-free access, promote independence
for the disabled to the highest degree practicable,
and preserve significant features, materials, and
finishes. ADA-related work should be consistent
with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
General design guidelines to follow include:
• New construction should provide
barrier-free access under the provisions of
the American Disability Act (ADA).
• When undertaking work required by
life safety or accessibility codes, features
should be designed to be functional, but as
unobtrusive as possible.
• Ramps should be located on secondary
elevations whenever possible. The diagonal
slope of the ramp should not interfere with
the existing horizontal/vertical rhythm and
design of the façade or any elevation of the
building.
• When new stair towers or elevators are
required to be installed on a historic
building outside of the existing building
footprint, the additions should comply
with the guidelines outlined in this chapter
for new construction projects.
• Accessibility improvements should not
be highly-visible design statements that
overwhelm or detract from the existing
building.
• The best designs will provide barrier-free
access that promotes independence for
disabled persons while also preserving
significant features, materials, and
finishes.
Acceptable ways of accommodating barrier-free
access can almost always be found. However, full
accessibility is sometimes not possible in a historic
building or part of a building without potentially
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Chapter 10 • New Construction • 327

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
References Cited
A. B. Hampson Agency
1947 Fire Insurance Survey. Moravian Seminary and College for Women, 28-99 West Church Street,
Bethlehem, PA.
Bethlehem Book Committee
1976 Bethlehem in Pennsylvania: The Golden Years. Bethlehem Book Committee, Bethlehem, PA.
Bethlehem Steel Soccer Club
2005 1924-1925 team photo. Available online at , accessed October 30, 2008.
Birnbaum, Charles (ed.) and Christine Capella Peters
1996 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ith Guidelines for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
City of Bethlehem
1975 Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. City of Bethlehem, PA. Available online at < http://
www.bethlehem-pa.gov/pdf/SALDO.pdf>.
2008a
2008b
Codified Ordinances of the City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. City of Bethlehem, PA. Available
online at .
City of Bethlehem Comprehensive Plan 2008. Available online at .
2009 Building Code Enforcement. City of Bethlehem, PA. Available online at .
Downing, A.J.
1850 A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening Adapted to North America. Reprint,
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.
Gerhardt, Juliette, Tod L. Benedict, and Wade P. Catts (Gerhardt et al.)
2008 Archeological Investigation of Three Root Cellars, Proposed Hurd Campus Residence Hall,
Moravian College, Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Moravian
College by John Milner Associates, Inc., West Chester, PA.
Groenfeldt, John
1976 Becoming a Member of the Moravian Church: A Handbook for Members. Interprovincial Board of
Christian Education, Moravian Church of America, Bethlehem, PA and Winston-Salem, NC.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • References • 329

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Hamilton, Kenneth G.
1988 Church Street in Old Bethlehem. Bernard E. Michel, ed. Moravian Congregation of Bethlehem,
Bethlehem, PA.
Historic American Building Survey
1968 Documentation of the Single Brethren’s House, Bethlehem, PA. HABS PA-1141. Library of
Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C.
Historic Bethlehem, Inc.
2007 Home webpage, accessed online at < http://www.historicbethlehem.org/.> on September 26,
2008. Historic Bethlehem, Inc., Bethlehem, PA.
International Dark Sky Association
2009 Home webpage, accessed online at on April 21, 2009.
Jordan, John
1896 “The Military Hospitals at Bethlehem and Lititz During the Revolution” Pennsylvania
Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XX, No. 2, 1896. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA.
Kane, Thomas J.
1963 Master Plan for Historic Bethlehem. Typed manuscript. Historic Bethlehem, Inc., Bethlehem,
PA.
Levering, Joseph Mortimer
1971 A History of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. AMS Press Inc., New York. Reprint of 1903 edition,
Bethlehem, PA.
Moravian College
2003 Main Street to Open Today as Pedestrian Island Nears Completion. News release, May 2003.
Copy courtesy of Sue Schamberger, Moravian College Office of Development and Foundation
Relations.
2007 History section (pp. 1-25) of Request to the J. Paul Getty Trust for Campus Heritage Grant.
Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA.
[2008] “About Johnston Hall.”
2009 Preparing Moravian for Future Generations. College mission statement and Strategic Plan
2008-2015, available online at < http://www.moravian.edu/about/mission.htm>.
Moravian College (Moravian College RFP)
2007 Abbreviated Campus Heritage Grant Narrative, Request for Proposals for Campus Heritage
Grant. Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA.
Moravian Seminary and College for Women (Moravian Viewbook)
[1929] Views. Moravian Seminary and College for Women, Bethlehem, PA. On file in Moravian
Seminary and College for Women file folder, Moravian Church Archives, Bethlehem, PA.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • References • 330

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies
1874 Catalogue of the Officers, Teachers and Students of the Moravian Seminary for Young Ladies at
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1874-1875. Moravian Publication Office, Bethlehem, PA. Available
at the Bethlehem Public Library or online at < http://bdhp.moravian.edu/education/1875femse
mcat/1875femsemcatC1.htm> through the Bethlehem Digital History Project.
Moravian Souvenir
1856 Series of engravings of Bethlehem and environs. Images shown in this report were published
in William C. Reichel’s Present Condition of the Bethlehem Female Seminary with a Catalogue of its
Pupils, 1785-1758. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA. Courtesy of Moravian College.
Morris, Andrew J.
2002 Postcard Dating Guide: Styles and Types. Available online at < http://www.ajmorris.com/roots/
photo/postcard/style.htm>, accessed October 15, 2008.
Murtagh, William J.
1957 Bethlehem and Environs. Society of Architectural Historians August Tour. 16-19 August,
Bethlehem, PA.
1967 Moravian Architecture and Town Planning. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Myers, Richmond E.
1981 Sketches of Early Bethlehem. Moravian College Alumni Association, Bethlehem, PA.
National Heritage Corporation
1977 Bethlehem Pottery and Force: An Archeological Investigation. Prepared to the City of Bethlehem
Bureau of Planning, Bethlehem, PA, by National Heritage Corporation, West Chester, PA.
National Register of Historic Places
1972 Nomination of the Central Bethlehem Historic District, Bethlehem, PA. Published May 5, 1972.
National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
1988 Boundary Increase for the Central Bethlehem Historic District, Bethlehem, PA. Published
November 7, 1988. National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U. S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Nuss, J. Robert
n.d. “A Guide for Selecting Shrubs for Pennsylvania Landscapes.” Special Circular 241, Penn State
College of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension.
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
[2009] Invasive Plants in Pennsylvania. Available online at .
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC)
1971- Central Bethlehem Historic District and Historic Subdistrict “A” in the Historic District of
1992 Bethlehem as defined by City Ordinance #1728. National Register of Historic Places nomination
and appended additional information. On file at PHMC, Harrisburg, PA and at the National
Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • References • 331

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Reker, Les, and Martha Reid, eds.
1992 Moravian College 1742-1992: A Celebration. Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA.
Roberts, Daniel G., and Betty J. Cosans
1982 A Report on Archeological Monitoring and Testing at the Luckenbach Grist Mill and Sun
Inn, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Bethlehem Civic Human Resources Center,
Bethlehem, PA, by John Milner Associates, Inc., West Chester, PA.
Schwarze, Rev. William Nathaniel
1910 History of Moravian College and Theological Seminary. Times Publishing Co., Bethlehem, PA.
Shepherd, William
1926 Map of Central Europe about 1847. Perry-Castaneda Map Collection, University of Texas-Austin.
Available online at .
Siegel, Peter E., Tod L. Benedict, and Robert G. Kingsley
1999 Archeological Data Recoveries at the Fahs II and Oberly Island Sites: Structure, Function,
and Context in the Lower Lehigh Valley. Prepared for URS Woodward Clyde by John Milner
Associates, Inc., West Chester, PA.
Smaby, Beverly Prior
1988 The Transformation of Moravian Bethlehem. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Steers, Edward, Jr.
2007 Don’t You Know There’s a War On? Life on the Home Front During World War II. Lehigh Valley
Heritage Museum, Allentown, PA.
U. S. Department of the Interior
1990 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
National Park Service, Washington, D.C. The 1995 Web-based version is available online at
.
Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer
1995 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Available online at .
Weinlick, John R.
1977 Twentieth Century Moravian College: Challenge and Response. Alumni Association of Moravian
College, Bethlehem, PA.
Whilden, James G., Jr., and William Sisson
1988 Central Bethlehem Historic District (Boundary Increase). National Register of Historic Places
nomination. On file at PHMC, Harrisburg, PA and at the National Register of Historic Places,
Washington, D.C.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • References • 332

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Yates, W. Ross
1976 Bethlehem of Pennsylvania: the Golden Years, 1840 to 1920. Bethlehem Book Committee, Bethlehem,
PA.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • References • 333

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Appendix A
1968 HABS Documentation of the Single
Brethren’s House
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 335

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 336

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 337

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 338

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 339

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 340

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 341

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 342

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 343

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 344

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 345

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 346

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 347

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 348

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 349

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 350

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 351

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 352

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 353

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 354

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 355

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 356

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 357

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 358

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 359

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 360

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 361

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 362

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 363

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 364

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 365

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 366

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 367

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 368

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 369

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 370

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 371

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 372

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 373

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 374

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 375

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 376

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 377

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 378

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 379

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 380

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix A • HABS Documentation • 381

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Appendix B
National Park Service Technical Publications
As part of its mission, the National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a series of technical publications
on broad issues important for the preservation of historic buildings in the United States. It is strongly
encouraged that maintenance staff, project managers, design consultants, contractors and vendors in any
way affiliated with projects involving historic buildings at Moravian College familiarize themselves with
and abide by the guidelines, procedures and practices outlined in these publications. The Preservation Briefs
series covers a broad range of topics and is written for a general audience. The Preservation Tech Notes series
is intended for design and conservation professionals and maintenance specialists, providing detailed
technical information on specific historic preservation issues and challenges. Much of this great wealth
of knowledge is available for free, and can be found online through the Technical Preservation Services
portion of the NPS website. These and other relevant hardcopy publications are also available for purchase
through the Government Printing Office.
Preservation Briefs
The Preservation Briefs series currently totals 47 publications. Written by national experts and staff of the
Technical Preservation Services section of NPS, the Preservation Briefs serve as an excellent resource for
historic building owners and developers. The body of work represents an introduction to a “best practices”
approach for preservation treatments. Titles accompanied by descriptions for all issues published to date
are provided below. More than half are topics relevant to the maintenance and preservation of historic
buildings owned by Moravian College. The entire Preservation Briefs series is available for free online at
. Hardcopy versions are available for a cost through
the Government Printing Office. Printed editions may not be as up to date as the web-based versions, and
have black and white illustrations that may differ from online editions.
Preservation Briefs #1-14 are sold only as a set, but are individually available for free online at the NPS
website. The last hardcopy edition was printed in 1998. GPO stock number: 024-005-01026-2 ($18.00 per
set).
Preservation Brief 1
Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings
Robert C. Mack, FAIA, and Anne E. Grimmer. Surveys a variety of cleaning methods and materials and
provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate method and the gentlest means possible. Discusses
water-repellent coatings and waterproof coatings together with the purpose of each, the suitability of their
application to historic masonry buildings, and possible consequences of their inappropriate use. 16 pages.
27 illustrations. 2000.
Preservation Brief 2
Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings
Robert C. Mack, FAIA, and John P. Speweik. Provides general guidance on appropriate materials and
methods for repointing historic masonry buildings. This publication revises the 1980 edition of Preservation
Briefs 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Brick Buildings, and includes guidance for all types of historic
masonry. 16 pages. 36 illustrations. 1998.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 383

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Preservation Brief 3
Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings
Baird M. Smith, AIA. Provides information on materials and techniques to consider or avoid when
undertaking weatherization and energy conservation measures in historic buildings. 8 pages. 8 illustrations.
1978.
Preservation Brief 4
Roofing for Historic Buildings
Sara M. Sweetser. Provides a brief historic overview of the most commonly used roofing materials in
America. Presents a sound preservation approach to roof repair, roof replacement, and the use of alternative
roofing materials. 8 pages. 1978.
Preservation Brief 5
The Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings
Provides information on the traditional materials and construction of adobe buildings, and the causes
of adobe deterioration. Makes recommendations for preserving historic adobe buildings. 8 pages. 15
illustrations. 1978.
Preservation Brief 6
Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings
Anne E. Grimmer. Cautions against the use of sandblasting to clean various buildings and suggests
measures to mitigate the effects of improper cleaning. Explains the limited circumstances under which
abrasive cleaning may be appropriate. 8 pages. 10 illustrations. 1979.
Preservation Brief 7
The Preservation of Historic Glazed Architectural Terra-Cotta
de Teel Patterson Tiller. Discusses deterioration problems that commonly occur with terra-cotta and provides
methods for determining the extent of such deterioration. Makes recommendations for maintenance and
repair, and suggests appropriate replacement materials. 8 pages. 11 illustrations. 1979.
Preservation Brief 8
Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings: The Appropriateness of Substitute Materials for Resurfacing
Historic Wood Frame Buildings
John H. Myers, revised by Gary L. Hume. Discusses the appearance of various types of historic wood
siding and makes recommendations for repair and replacement. Outlines the very limited instances under
which substitute siding may be an acceptable alternative. 7 pages. 5 illustrations. Revised 1984.
Preservation Brief 9
The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows
John H. Myers. Provides useful information on evaluating and repairing historic wooden windows found
in typical rehabilitation projects. Emphasizes practical methods for homeowners or developers. 8 pages. 10
illustrations. 1981.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 384

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Preservation Brief 10
Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork
Kay D. Weeks and David W. Look, AIA. Identifies and describes common types of paint surface conditions
and failures. Provides guidance on preparing historic woodwork for repainting, including limited and total
paint removal. 12 pages. 14 illustrations. 1982.
Preservation Brief 11
Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts
H. Ward Jandl. Explores the role of the storefront in historic buildings and provides guidance on rehabilitation
techniques for historic storefronts as well as compatible storefront designs. 12 pages. 12 illustrations. 1982.
Preservation Brief 12
The Preservation of Historic Pigmented Structural Glass (Vitrolite and Carrara Glass)
Provides information on the early manufacture, installation, and use of this decorative building product
commonly found in twentieth century buildings; reasons for its damage; and a general approach for its
maintenance, repair, and replacement. 8 pages. 16 illustrations. 1984.
Preservation Brief 13
The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows
Sharon C. Park, AIA. Presents brief historical background on the development, use, and styles of rolled
steel windows popular in the first half of the twentieth century. Explains steps for cleaning and repairing
damaged steel windows; also provides information on appropriate methods of weatherstripping and
options for storm panels or the installation of thermal glass. 12 pages. 10 illustrations. 1984.
Preservation Brief 14
Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns
Kay D. Weeks. Uses a series of examples to suggest ways that attached additions can successfully serve
contemporary uses as part of a rehabilitation project while preserving significant historic materials and
features and the building’s historic character. 12 pages. 30 illustrations. 1986.
Preservation Briefs #15-23 are sold only as a set, but are individually available for free online at the NPS
website. The last hardcopy edition was printed in 2007. GPO stock number: 024-005-01256-7 ($17.00 per
set).
Preservation Brief 15
Preservation of Historic Concrete
Paul Gaudette and Deborah Slaton. Discusses the characteristics of concrete and causes of deterioration.
Includes information on cleaning, maintenance, and repair, and on protective systems. 16 pages. 37
illustrations. 2007.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 385

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Preservation Brief 16
The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors
Sharon C. Park, AIA. Includes a discussion of when to use substitute materials, cautions regarding their
expected performance, and descriptions of several substitute materials together with advantages and
disadvantages. Summary charts included. 16 pages. 34 illustrations. 1988.
Preservation Brief 17
Architectural Character - Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their
Character
Lee H. Nelson, FAIA. Essential guidance to help property owners and architects identify those features of
historic buildings that give the building its visual character so that their preservation can be maximized in
rehabilitation. 12 pages. 27 illustrations. 1988.
Preservation Brief 18
Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings - Identifying Character-Defining Elements
H. Ward Jandl. Assists building owners in identifying significant interior spaces, features, and finishes so
they may be preserved in rehabilitation work. The guidance applies to all building types and styles, from
eighteenth century churches to twentieth century office buildings. 8 pages. 11 illustrations. 1988.
Preservation Brief 19
The Repair and Replacement of Historic Wooden Shingle Roofs
Sharon C. Park, AIA. Discusses historic wooden roofing, expectations for longevity, and repair and
replacement options. Identifies roofing material that duplicates the appearance of a historic roof, offers
guidance on proper installation, and provides information on coatings and maintenance procedures to
help preserve the roof. 12 pages. 16 illustrations. 1989.
Preservation Brief 20
The Preservation of Historic Barns
Michael J. Auer. Identifies historic barn types, helps owners understand the historic character of their barns,
and offers advice on the maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of old and historic barns. 12 pages. 30
illustrations. 1989.
Preservation Brief 21
Repairing Historic Flat Plaster--Walls and Ceilings
Marylee MacDonald. Guides building owners on repairing historic plaster using traditional materials (wet
plaster) and techniques. Suggests replacement options if the historic plaster is severely deteriorated. Useful
chart on various plaster bases and compatible basecoats and finish coats. 14 pages. 17 illustrations. 1989.
Preservation Brief 22
The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco
Anne E. Grimmer. Describes the evolution of stucco as a popular building material, beginning with a brief
history of how stucco is applied, and how its composition, texture, and surface patterns have changed.
Includes guidelines for the historic property owner or manager on how to plan for and carry out repair of
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 386

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
historic stucco, with sample mixes for eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century stucco types. 12 pages.
33 illustrations. 1990.
Preservation Brief 23
Preserving Historic Ornamental Plaster
David Flaharty. Discusses ornamental plaster production, explaining the processes of run-in-place and
cast ornamentation using three common decorative forms as examples: the cornice, ceiling medallion, and
coffered ceiling. Guidance will help an owner identify deterioration causes and better understand complex
restoration techniques. Useful advice on selecting and evaluating a restoration contractor is included. 12
pages. 34 illustrations. 1990.
Preservation Briefs #24-34 are sold only as a set, but are individually available for free online at the NPS
website. The last hardcopy edition was printed in 1994. GPO stock number: 024-005-01147-1 ($15.00 per
set).
Preservation Brief 24
Heating, Ventilating, and Cooling Historic Buildings: Problems and Recommended Approaches
Sharon C. Park, AIA. Underscores the importance of careful planning in order to balance preservation
objectives with the interior climate needs of the building. Useful charts included. 14 pages. 28 illustrations.
1991.
Preservation Brief 25
The Preservation of Historic Signs
Michael J. Auer. Discusses the history of sign types pre-1800 to the twentieth century, including symbol signs,
flat signs, fascia signs, hanging signs, goldleaf signs, rooftop signs, and neon signs. Makes recommendations
for their repair and reuse. 12 pages. 29 illustrations. 1991.
Preservation Brief 26
The Preservation and Repair of Historic Log Buildings
Bruce. L. Bomberger. Focuses on horizontally laid or vertically positioned logs, but the preservation and
repair treatments are essentially the same for all log structures. Discusses traditional splicing-in techniques,
the use of epoxies, and replacement, as well as guidance on the repair and replacement of chinking and
daubing. 14 pages. 32 illustrations. 1991.
Preservation Brief 27
The Maintenance and Repair of Architectural Cast Iron
John G. Waite; historical overview by Margot Gayle. Discusses the role of cast iron in the industrial
development of our country during the nineteenth century and the resulting advances in building design
and technology and ornamental detailing. Provides essential guidance on maintaining and repairing
architectural cast iron within rehabilitation projects. 12 pages. 30 illustrations. 1991.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 387

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Preservation Brief 28
Painting Historic Interiors
Sara B. Chase. Discusses wall paint and decorative surface treatments from the late 17th century to the
1950s. Describes the usefulness of a complete paint investigation for preservation and restoration projects.
Provides guidance on the common causes of interior paint failure and preparing surfaces for repainting.
Makes recommendations about paint with health and safety factors in mind. 16 pages. 22 illustrations.
1992.
Preservation Brief 29
The Repair, Replacement, and Maintenance of Slate Roofs
Jeffrey S. Levine. Describes the causes of slate roof failures and provides comprehensive guidance on
their sensitive repair and, when necessary, their appropriate replacement. A useful Repair/Replacement
Guideline is included to assist property owners prior to work. 16 pages. 42 illustrations. 1992.
Preservation Brief 30
The Preservation and Repair of Historic Clay Tile Roofs
Anne E. Grimmer and Paul K. Williams. Reviews the history of clay roofing tiles and describes many types
and shapes of historic tiles, as well as their method of attachment. Provides general guidance for historic
property owners on how to plan and carry out a project involving the repair and selected replacement of
historic clay roofing tiles. 16 pages. 33 illustrations. 1992.
Preservation Brief 31
Mothballing Historic Buildings
Sharon C. Park, AIA. Describes process of protecting a deteriorating historic building from weather as well
as vandalism when funds are not currently available to begin a preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration
project. 14 pages. 27 illustrations. 1993.
Preservation Brief 32
Making Historic Properties Accessible
Thomas C. Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA. Introduces the complex issue of providing accessibility at historic
properties, and underscores the need to balance accessibility and historic preservation. Provides guidance
and many examples of successful projects. 14 pages. 43 illustrations. 1993.
Preservation Brief 33
The Preservation and Repair of Stained and Leaded Glass
Neal A. Vogel and Rolf Achilles. Gives a short history of stained and leaded glass in America. Surveys
basic preservation and documentation issues and addresses common causes of deterioration and presents
protection, repair, and restoration options. 16 pages. 25 illustrations. 1993, updated 2007.
Preservation Brief 34
Applied Decoration for Historic Interiors: Preserving Historic Composition Ornament
Jonathan Thornton and William Adair, FAAR. Describes the history, appearance, and characteristics of this
uniquely pliable material. Provides guidance on identifying compo and suggests appropriate treatments,
depending upon whether the project goal is preservation or restoration. 16 pages. 52 illustrations. 1994.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 388

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Preservation Briefs #35-42 are sold only as a set, but are individually available for free online at the NPS
website. The last hardcopy edition was printed in 2004. GPO stock number: 024-005-01219-2 ($19.00 per
set).
Preservation Brief 35
Understanding Old Buildings: The Process of Architectural Investigation
Travis C. McDonald, Jr. Explains architectural investigation as the critical first step in planning an appropriate
treatment--understanding how a building has changed over time and assessing levels of deterioration.
Addresses the often-complex investigative process in broad, easy-to-understand terminology. 12 pages. 23
illustrations. 1994.
Preservation Brief 36
Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment, and Management of Historic Landscapes
Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA. Describes cultural landscapes as special places that reveal aspects of our
country’s origins and development through their form and features and the ways they were used. Provides
a step-by-step process for preserving historic designed and vernacular landscapes to ensure a successful
balance between historic preservation and change. 20 pages. 50 illustrations. 1994.
Preservation Brief 37
Appropriate Methods of Reducing Lead-Paint Hazards in Historic Housing
Sharon C. Park, AIA, and Douglas C. Hicks. Updated with current standards, provides a methodology
for planning and implementing measures to reduce lead-paint hazards. Explains how to strike a balance
between preserving significant materials and features and protecting human health, safety, and the
environment. 16 pages. 35 illustrations. 1995, updated 2006.
Preservation Brief 38
Removing Graffiti from Historic Masonry
Martin E. Weaver. Focuses on cleaning methods that can be used to remove surface-applied graffiti without
damaging historic masonry. Emphasizes prompt removal as the key to preventing recurrence of graffiti,
as well as the importance of developing a maintenance program in advance to be prepared when graffiti
occurs. Includes “tips” for successful graffiti removal, a discussion of barrier coatings, and useful charts
designed to guide the graffiti-removal process. 15 pages. 23 illustrations. 1995.
Preservation Brief 39
Holding the Line: Controlling Unwanted Moisture in Historic Buildings
Sharon C. Park, AIA. Outlines a way to diagnose moisture problems and choose remedial treatments within
a historic preservation context. Considers the five major sources of moisture, including the exterior building
envelope, ground moisture infiltration, interior condensation, leaking pipes, and moisture from cleaning or
construction. Provides guidance on managing moisture deterioration, repairing and maintaining historic
building materials, and correcting common problem areas. Includes charts on types of diagnostic tools,
recommended treatments and treatments that should always be avoided. 16 pages. 30 illustrations. 1996.
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 389

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Preservation Brief 40
Preserving Historic Ceramic Tile Floors
Anne E. Grimmer and Kimberly A. Konrad. Summarizes the historical use of glazed and unglazed ceramic
tiles as a traditional flooring material, and describes different types of tiles, including quarry tiles, encaustic
tiles, geometric tiles, and mosaic tiles. Provides useful guidance for maintaining and preserving historic
ceramic tile flooring, on cleaning treatments, and on protective and code-required slip-resistant coatings.
Also contains information on various repair options, as well as the selective replacement of damaged tiles
and useful sources for replacement tiles. 16 pages. 25 illustrations. 1996.
Preservation Brief 41
The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation in the Forefront
David Look, AIA, Terry Wong, and Sylvia Rose Augustus. Discusses the issues of protecting historic
buildings in seismic areas from earthquake damage. Stresses the importance of working with a team of
specialists familiar with historic building construction and the alternative approaches to seismic retrofit
that make a building safe without destroying significant historic materials. Provides essential guidance on
evaluating historic buildings, the extent of strengthening to consider, design approaches, and the visual
impact of these changes. 16 pages. 37 illustrations. 1997.
Preservation Brief 42
The Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement of Historic Cast Stone
Richard Pieper. Defines cast stone as a building material and provides a brief history of its manufacture and
use. Discusses the causes of its deterioration, repairable conditions, and methods of repair. Also addresses
the replication and replacement of historic cast stone installations, and the use of cast stone as a substitute
replacement material for natural stone. 16 pages. 26 illustrations. 2001.
The following Preservation Briefs are available in hardcopy form for individual purchase at the price
indicated. They are also available for free online at the NPS website.
Preservation Brief 43
The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports
Deborah Slaton. Defines the historic structure report and provides a historical overview of its use. Outlines
an entire procedure for preparing it taking a team approach. Topics in the Brief include historical/archival
research, site inspection, evaluation, and treatment recommendations, the organization and contents of the
report itself, and how the report is applied to the development of design and construction documents and
implementation of work. 16 pages. 25 illustrations. 2004. GPO stock number: 024-005-01191-9 ($2.50 per
copy).
Preservation Brief 44
The Use of Awnings on Historic Buildings: Repair, Replacement and New Design
Chad Randl. Provides a comprehensive overview of the practical and aesthetic use of various types of
awnings over time. Presents guidance for their maintenance, preservation and repair. Discusses the
circumstances under which awning replacement is appropriate, as well as how to achieve a compatible
design for new awnings on historic buildings. 16 pages. 25 illustrations. 2004. GPO stock number: 024-005-
01222-2 ($2.75 per copy).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 390

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Preservation Brief 45
Preserving Historic Wooden Porches
Aleca Sullivan and John Leeke. Explains how to assess the condition of historic porches; provides detailed
procedures for proper maintenance and repair, and includes measures to address code issues. Provides a
range of information from the selection of materials to guidance on contemporary alterations. 20 pages. 30
illustrations. 2006. GPO stock number: 024-005-01240-1 ($3.00 per copy).
Preservation Brief 46
The Preservation and Reuse of Historic Gas Stations
Chad Randl. Provides guidance on assessing the significance of historic gas stations and encourages their
preservation by providing information on the maintenance and repair of existing structures. Describes
appropriate Rehabilitation treatments, including conversions for new functions when the historic use is no
longer feasible. 16 pages. 27 illustrations. 2008. GPO stock number: 024-005-01264-8 ($4.50 per copy).
Preservation Brief 47
Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings
Sharon Park, FAIA. Discusses the benefits of regular inspection, monitoring, and seasonal maintenance
work for historic buildings. Provides guidance on maintenance treatments for historic building exteriors.
16 pages. 18 illustrations. 2006. GPO stock number: 024-005-01252-4 ($3.25 per copy).
Preservation Tech Notes
Intended for practitioners in the preservation field such as architects, contractors, and maintenance
personnel, the Preservation Tech Notes series provides practical information on traditional practices and
innovative techniques for successfully maintaining, restoring and preserving historic buildings. The
reports are categorized by significant architectural features or preservation issues. Each report identifies a
specific preservation problem, recommends innovative solutions and includes one or more relevant case
studies. Some of the Preservation Tech Notes titles are available for free online at and are indicated by underline in the list below. The online versions differ
somewhat from the printed editions. Illustrations are in color, captions are simplified, and some complex
charts have been omitted.
Doors
No. 1: Historic Garage and Carriage Doors: Rehabilitation Solutions. Bonnie Halda, AIA (1989).
Exterior Woodwork
No. 1: Proper Painting and Surface Preparation. Sharon Park, AIA. (1986).
No. 2: Paint Removal from Wood Siding. Alan O’Bright (1986).
No. 3: Log Crown Repair and Selective Replacement Using Epoxy and Fiberglass Reinforcing Bars.
Harrison Goodall (1989).
No. 4: Protecting Woodwork Against Decay Using Borate Preservatives. Ron Sheetz and Charles Fisher
(1993).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 391

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Finishes
No. 1: Process-Painting Decals as a Substitute for Hand-Stenciled Ceiling Medallions. Sharon Park,
FAIA (1990).
Historic Glass
No. 1: Repair and Reproduction of Prismatic Glass Transoms. Chad Randl (2002).
No. 2: Repair and Rehabilitation of Historic Sidewalk Vault Lights. Cas Stachelberg and Chad Randl
(2003).
Historic Interior Spaces
No. 1: Preserving Historic Corridors in Open Office Plans. Christina Henry (1985).
No. 2: Preserving Historic Office Building Corridors. Thomas Keohan (1989).
No. 3: Preserving Historic Corridor Doors and Glazing in High-Rise Buildings. Chad Randl (2001).
Masonry
No. 1: Substitute Materials: Replacing Deteriorated Serpentine Stone with Pre-Cast Concrete. Robert M.
Powers (1988).
No. 2: Stabilization and Repair of a Historic Terra Cotta Cornice. Jeffrey Levine and Donna Harris
(1991).
No. 3: Water Soak Cleaning of Limestone. Robert M. Powers (1992).
No. 4: Non-destructive Evaluation Techniques for Masonry Construction. Marilyn E. Kaplan, Marie Ennis
and Edmund P. Meade (1997).
Mechanical Systems
No. 1: Replicating Historic Elevator Enclosures. Marilyn Kaplan, AIA (1989).
Metals
No. 1: Conserving Outdoor Bronze Sculpture. Dennis Montagna (1989).
No. 2: Restoring Metal Roof Cornices. Richard Pieper (1990).
No. 3: In-kind Replacement of Historic Stamped-Metal Exterior Siding. Rebecca A. Shiffer (1991).
No. 4: Rehabilitating a Historic Iron Bridge. Joseph P. Saldibar, III (1997).
No. 5: Rehabilitating a Historic Truss Bridge Using a Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Deck. Chad Randl (2003).
No. 6: Repair and Reproduction of Metal Canopies and Marquees with Glass Pendants. Lauren Van
Damme and Charles E. Fisher (2006).
Museum Collections
No. 1: Museum Collection Storage in a Historic Building Using a Prefabricated Structure. Don
Cumberland, Jr. (1985).
No. 2: Reducing Visible and Ultraviolet Light Damage to Interior Wood Finishes. Ron Sheetz and Charles
Fisher (1990).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 392

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
Site
No. 1: Restoring Vine Coverage to Historic Buildings. Karen Day (1991).
Temporary Protection
No. 1: Temporary Protection of Historic Stairways During Rehabilitation Work. Charles Fisher (1985).
No. 2: Specifying Temporary Protection of Historic Interiors During Construction and Repair. Dale H.
Frens (1993).
No. 3: Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction. Chad Randl (2001).
Windows
The first seventeen publications of the Tech Notes series for windows are available as a set entitled The
Window Handbook: Successful Strategies for Rehabilitating Windows in Historic Buildings, Charles Fisher, Editor.
Note that Window Tech Notes Nos. 1-9 are only available for purchase in The Window Handbook.
Prepared in partnership with the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the Historic Preservation Education
Foundation, the set is compiled in a sturdy loose-leaf notebook and can be purchased for $32.00 per copy,
including postage and handling. Orders and payment should be sent to: Historic Preservation Education
Foundation, P.O. Box 77160, Washington, DC, 20013-7160.
Tech Notes in The Window Handbook include:
No. 1: Planning Approaches to Window Preservation. Charles Fisher (1984).
No. 2: Installing Insulating Glass in Existing Steel Windows. Charles Fisher (1984).
No. 3: Exterior Storm Windows: Casement Design Wooden Storm Sash. Wayne Trissler and Charles
Fisher (1984).
No. 4: Replacement Wooden Frames and Sash. William Feist (1984).
No. 5: Interior Metal Storm Windows. Laura Muckenfuss and Charles Fisher (1984).
No. 6: Replacement Wooden Sash and Frames with Insulating Glass and Integral Muntins. Charles
Parrott (1984).
No. 7: Window Awnings. Laura Muckenfuss and Charles Fisher (1984).
No. 8: Thermal Retrofit of Historic Wooden Sash Using Interior Piggyback Storm Panels. Sharon Park,
AIA (1984).
No. 9: Interior Storm Windows: Magnetic Seal. Charles Fisher (1984).
No. 10: Temporary Window Vents in Unoccupied Historic Buildings. Charles Fisher and Thomas Vitanza
(1985).
No. 11: Installing Insulating Glass in Existing Wooden Sash Incorporating the Historic Glass. Charles
Fisher (1985).
No. 12: Aluminum Replacements for Steel Industrial Sash. Charles Fisher (1986).
No. 13: Aluminum Replacement Windows with Sealed Insulating Glass and Trapezoidal Muntin Grids.
Charles Parrott (1985).
No. 14: Reinforcing Deteriorated Wooden Windows. Paul Stumes, P. Eng. (1986).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 393

Moravian College • Preservation Master Plan
No. 15: Interior Storms for Steel Casement Windows. Charles Fisher and Christina Henry (1986).
No. 16: Repairing and Upgrading Multi-Light Wooden Mill Windows. Christopher Closs (1986).
No. 17: Repair and Retrofitting Industrial Steel Windows. Robert Powers (1989).
Other Tech Notes in the Windows series include:
No. 18: Aluminum Replacement Windows with True Divided-Lights, Interior Piggyback Storm Panels,
and Exposed Historic Wooden Frames. Charles Parrott (1991).
No. 19: Repairing Steel Casement Windows. Chad Randl (2002).
No. 20: Aluminum Replacement Windows for Steel Projecting Units with True Divided Lights and
Matching Profiles. Chad Randl (2003).
No. 21: Replacement Wood Sash Utilizing True Divided Lights and an Interior Piggyback Energy Panel.
Charles E. Fisher (2008).
No. 22: Maintenance and Repair of Historic Aluminum Windows. Kaaren R. Staveteig (2008).
John Milner Associates • October 2009 • Appendix B • NPS Technical Publications • 394