Latrobe's Bank of Pennsylvania (1798-1801) was his first major work in Philadelphia and the first example of Greek Revival architecture in America. The marble-faced building featured Ionic columns and a domed rotunda inspired by classical Greek architecture. Latrobe designed the interior with a unique circular plan and domed ceilings to emphasize simplicity and openness. The symmetrical exterior and carefully proportioned elements established Latrobe as an expert in Greek Revival styles and influenced later municipal architecture in the city.

1. REVISUALIZING LOST PHILADELPHIA:
The Municipal, Infrastructural, and Private Architecture of America’s First Architect
Ethan Traveny Skaggs
Submitted 12 May 2015
Advised by Lothar Haselberger
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts
in Architecture: History, Theory, and Criticism
University of Pennsylvania

2. ii
Table of Contents
Cover Page........................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iii
Introduction and Theoretical Framework ........................................................................... 1
Latrobe’s Municipal Architecture: the Bank of Pennsylvania............................................ 2
Latrobe’s Infrastructural Architecture: the Waterworks Engine House ............................. 7
Latrobe’s Private Architecture: the Sedgley Villa............................................................. 11
Conclusions: A New Past for America’s Future............................................................... 13

3. iii
Acknowledgements
I would first and foremost like to acknowledge the continued support of my wonderful
advisor, Professor Lothar Haselberger of the University of Pennsylvania. Lothar has been
incredibly helpful in not only helping conceive this project, but also with his willingness
to continue challenging my skills within architectural visualization. His dedication to his
students, mastery in many fields of academic interest, and eccentric personality make him
not only a dear friend, but also a true champion of education.
I would also like to thank Professor Richard Wesley, Dean of the Undergraduate
Architecture program, and Dr. Tanya Jung, my academic advisor in the College of Arts
and Sciences. It is through their continued support that I even had the opportunity to
design this project, and for that, I am ever thankful. I look forward to seeing more
students in architecture choose to complete a thesis in this manner, as the research is
unique and discerning of my own design.
I am thankful to have had the opportunity to present my research to architects and art
historians alike; even more integral to this project is its perception among individuals
outside of these fields. I would like to thank my various peers who have been
instrumental in shaping my presentation of this newly visualized material: Sara Diaz,
Julie Roland, Naomi Stark, Caroline Woods, and Daniel Zuvia.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Michelle and Stoney Skaggs, for everything
that they have done for me. I look forward to graduation and celebrating my various
accomplishments with them in the coming week.
All my best,
Ethan Skaggs
Candidate for Bachelor of Arts in Architecture
Concentration in History, Theory, and Criticism
Class of 2015

4. 1
Introduction and Theoretical Framework
The process of defining American architecture at the end of the eighteenth century
brought an influx of revived Classical and Gothic forms to the New Republic. Led by
Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764-1820), America’s first professional architect, 1
this
revolution in the field of architecture further informed the cultural, civic, and social
realms of the recently established United States. Philadelphia, US Capitol from 1790-
1800 and one of the fastest-growing cities of the time due to technological and industrial
advancements, serves as a case study for Latrobe’s idealized architectural typologies thus
defining uniquely American architecture.2
As the population of Philadelphia continued to
grow, the majority of these buildings were ultimately destroyed. This paper aims to
identify selected examples of Latrobe’s use of authentic revived architectural forms
through the revisualization of three of these lost buildings, each existing in their
respective contexts: municipal, infrastructural, and private. This revisualization of
buildings that have previously been left unseen will inform better the development of
Philadelphia as it was originally intended and inhabited. Additionally, understanding the
impact of the formation of architectural vocabulary at this time—and the changes within
the field that accompanied this evolution—will facilitate further studies concerning the
future of architecture as analyzed through the lens of these forgotten masterworks.
“Many of the master builders of this century have held passionate convictions regarding
the philosophic and social basis of their art.”3
Prior to the eighteenth century, however,
architecture and master building have been two individual trades, yet “[sharing] the
design and construction of all kinds of structures.”4
Scholarly research regarding the
social and political differences between the two crafts suggests that primitive architects
were typically more cultured and integrated within official establishments, while the
master builder belonged to a broader, more vague social sphere.5
Initially, this was not a
task-based delineation between social classes; rather, this stratification depended on the
organizations in which they associated with. High-ranking officials—or royalty—
typically commissioned architects, while corporations contracted master builders. 6
1
Latrobe is repeatedly referred to as “first professional architect,” “first great architect,” and “first
American architect” throughout literature. Carter, Donaldson, and Mearns reflect these sentiments (ref.).
2
From 1770-1783, a large effort to define aspects of the emerging American culture came from discussions
concerning the design and “presentation” of America’s cities, as outlined in Blumin, Stuart M., Harold M.
Mayer, Richard C. Wade, Glen E. Holt, and Sam Bass Warner. "In Pursuit of the American City." Journal
of Interdisciplinary History 2.1 (1971): 245-50.
3
Frampton, Kenneth, and Yukio Futagawa. Modern architecture. ADA Edita, 1983.
4
Cerasi, Maurice. "Late-Ottoman Architects and Master Builders." Muqarnas5 (1988): 87-102. Ottoman
reference used to display the extensive history related to the two crafts. As defined by Cerasi, it was within
Ottoman society in which primary differences between the two crafts—which would ultimately separate
them into their modern equivalents—were made clearer.
5
Ibid. 87.
6
Ibid. 93.

5. 2
Architects became the only individuals with the skills necessary to make the possibilities
of engineering and construction technologies experiential through visual representation.
This difference is relevant to Latrobe’s work due to his emergence and prominence as
“America’s architect,”7
as he recognized the necessity of visualizing products (buildings)
to consumers (patrons or the state) in the American market.8
Latrobe’s first major work, the Bank of Pennsylvania (1798-1801), signifies municipal
architecture that is credited with inciting the birth of the Greek Revival movement in the
United States, propelling Latrobe’s return to classical forms within architecture.9
The
Waterworks Engine House (1799-1801) lay in the footprint of what would become the
contemporary Philadelphia City Hall (1871-1901), representing Latrobe’s work within
infrastructure and city planning, designed with elements of the Roman Imperial
movement. Latrobe was responsible for developing an interdisciplinary design strategy,
interfacing emerging industrial technologies while boasting his prowess as an engineer.10
Finally, the Sedgley Villa (1799-1802) complex epitomizes Latrobe’s endeavors within
private architecture, succeeding as the first two-story revived Gothic house built in the
United States. These three projects—and their respective contexts: municipal,
infrastructural, and private—will be examined as case studies for this paper’s
revisualization effort. Both past and contemporary architectural programs will be
assessed in an attempt to reverse the damaging effects of lost architectural history as an
unaccounted cultural loss. Additionally, final conclusions will be drawn concerning
Latrobe’s movement among Greek Revival, Roman Imperial, and Neogothic styles
depending on the contexts of the site and commission.
Latrobe’s Municipal Architecture: the Bank of Pennsylvania (1798-1801)
Latrobe’s primitive professional career began in Britain, as an engineer working on the
completion of the Basingstoke Canal (1794). This project led to Latrobe’s increased
knowledge of city planning and infrastructural development. Latrobe soon decided to
immigrate to America in 1795, arriving in Norfolk in 1796. After completing the Virginia
7
Once again, Latrobe’s prominence displayed in the literature of Whiffen, Marcus, and Frederick
Koeper. American Architecture 1607-1976. Routledge, 1980.
8
It is reported that Latrobe, a British immigrant, chose to come to America due to a necessity for a great
architect and planner. Latrobe was aware of this, and came to America to assume the titles and
acclamations now attributed to him. Formwalt, Lee W. "Benjamin Henry Latrobe and the Development of
Transportation in the District of Columbia, 1802-1817." Records of the Columbia Historical
Society Washington.D.C., Vol. 50, The Fiftieth Volume (1980): 36-66. JSTOR. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
9
Hamlin, Talbot. "Some Greek Revival Architects of Philadelphia." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History
and Biography 65.2 (1941): 121-44. JSTOR. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.
10
Latrobe was responsible for developing the two steam engines that served the majority of individuals
within Philadelphia proper. Sokol, David M. "Latrobe's View of America, 1795-1820: Selections from the
Watercolors and Sketches Edward C. Carter, II John C. Van Horne Charles E. Brownell Benjamin Henry
Latrobe." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 45.4 (1986): 425-26.

6. 3
Figure 1 (left): The Bank of Pennsylvania situated on the corner of Lodge Alley and Second Street (no name provided
for the street directly south of the Bank). Site plan revisualized by E. Skaggs April 2015 based on historical documents
found at the Library of Congress as well as the Philadelphia City Archives.
Figure 1a (right): The Bank revisualized in contemporary context with notable landmarks (as of May 2015).
State Penitentiary in 1797, Latrobe made his way to Philadelphia, the current “federal
capital and a city universally acknowledged as the Athens of America.”11
Coincidentally,
Latrobe’s first project in Philadelphia, the Bank of Pennsylvania, became the “first
American example of Greek Revival architecture,”12
and ultimately controlled currency
and credit for the entire state of Pennsylvania.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the Bank was situated on the corner of 2nd
Street and Lodge
Alley. While no trace of the alley exists in contemporary Philadelphia, this location
would ultimately be redeveloped into Sansom Walk. With the majority of the
Philadelphian population concentrated on Front, 2nd
, and 3rd
Streets between Market and
Spruce Streets (decreasing in density from east to west), the site of the Bank was prime
locale for servicing the financial needs of the ever-increasing urban population.13
The marble-faced façades of the Bank (the front of which is revisualized in Figure 2) are
reminiscent of the ionic porticoes found in the Greek Erechtheion, as published in the
second volume of Stuart and Revett’s Antiquities of Athens (1787). In full form with six
11
Italicization added for emphasis. Baatz, Simon. "Review: The Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers
of Benjamin Henry Latrobe. Volume 1: 1784–1804." Pennsylvania History 53.3 (1986): 243-44. JSTOR.
Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
12
Ibid. 243.
13
This imbalance of population density led to the area of “urban” Philadelphia being centralized far east
from Centre Square; the area west of the Square—near the eastern bank of the Schuylkill River—was
relatively undeveloped and considered “rural.” Paul, Sivitz, and Smith G. Billy. "Philadelphia and Its
People in Maps: The 1790s." Philadelphia and Its People in Maps: The 1790s. Encyclopedia of Greater
Philadelphia, 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

7. 4
Ionic columns, the space comprising the main entryway of the Bank is increased,
accentuating both accessibility and circulation. This technique also elevates the
building’s political and social perception, expressing architectural rarity in both taste and
design. The rotunda of the main banking room, a flat stone dome forty-five feet in
diameter, was expressed externally with a stepped lantern. This roof treatment and cupola
is similar to that of the Pantheon, which, although lacking a lantern, was also stepped
externally. These various classical architectural elements—new to America—would have
impressed distinction and prominence, both of which existed as projected ideals of the
New Republic. Latrobe’s design was the first to use archeologically correct details, such
as columnar form and proportion, from Stuart and Revett’s Antiquities of Athens that was
published only decades before.14
“Besides this, the Diameters of the Columns are in a
smaller Proportion to their Height, than the Diameters of any that are found in the ancient
Temples of this Order now extant.”15
This authenticity in detailing transposes the ancient
temple into the modern-day ethos.
14
Ken, Finkel. "Benjamin Henry Latrobe's "First Great Structure"" Philly History: Discoveries from the
City Archives. PhillyHistory.org, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
15
Stuart, James, and Nicholar Revett. The antiquities of Athens. 1787. Print. 9.
Figure 2: The east-facing façade of the Bank, revisualized by E. Skaggs April 2015 through analysis of historical
documents found in the Philadelphia City Archives and the Library of Congress.

8. 5
Figure 3: Longitudinal section of the Bank revisualized in approximation by E. Skaggs May 2015.
While the exterior of the Bank had several elements of ancient architectural classicism,
Latrobe developed a unique interior plan to define the functional form of the space based
on the necessities and program of the building. Figure 3 demonstrates this strategy,
which emphasized the simplicity and openness reflective of the ancient temples that
Latrobe references within his design. The inclusion of this vaulted interior makes the
Bank the most technically ambitious building in America at the time.16
With the
exception of the western corridors, each room of the Bank reiterates the circular nature of
the rotunda with domed ceilings. These domes are again repeated on the mid-floor,
between the ground and first floors, expressing in formal architectural language the
importance of these circular, or arched, elements to Latrobe’s overall design.
Additionally, the ceilings of the second floor rooms are cut several feet short of the true
height of the architrave (illustrated as a callout in Figure 3A), causing a forced
perspective when viewing the stepped roof and lantern from second floor rooms with
cupolas of their own. One would typically expect top floor ceilings to follow a height
closer to the level of the roof rather than several feet below. This strategy further
accentuates the extraordinary verticality of the central rotunda. Arched windows, in
combination with regularly arranged square windows and the large cupola, allowed for
the maximum amount of light to enter the main banking room. In its original context, the
Bank would have existed as a freestanding structure, allowing for full exposure to these
ambient conditions.
16
Ibid.

9. 6
Figure 3a: Callout from longitudinal section of Bank illustrating differences in true architrave height and the ceiling of
second floor rooms, by E. Skaggs May 2015.
Latrobe’s implementation of symmetry between both sets of façades is also reminiscent
of classical stylization. As defined by Vitruvius, translated by Morgan, symmetria is “the
proper arrangement between the members of the work itself.”17
Understanding this
characterization of symmetry, the Bank utilizes these properties to define the general
aesthetic of Greek Revival architecture through the spatial relationships among the
various building elements. If the Bank is considered a system, each aspect of the
longitudinal façade is reflected about the central rotunda. This agreement in proportion
adds to the pleasing visual qualities of the building, a strategy that would be represented
(read: re-presented) in Latrobe’s future work.
Figure 1A shows the original site plan with contemporary overlay. Redistribution of
street patterns, in an effort to center the population density from the Delaware westward
as William Penn’s original plan for Philadelphia intended, is the major change within this
area’s urban fabric. Nearby monuments include the Merchants’ Exchange Building
(Strickland, 1834) and City Tavern (original: 1773, replica: 1976).18
The Exchange was
completed with elements of Greek architecture similar to the Bank, as Strickland was an
associate of Latrobe. The Exchange was completed nearly thirty years prior to the
destruction of the Bank. The two would have been sister buildings, as one controlled
currency and credit and the other was a brokerage house. The rotunda façade of
Strickland’s building falls in axial orientation to the rear façade of the Bank, their
arrangement representing this relationship formally.
17
Morgan, Morris Hicky. "Vitruvius." The ten books on architecture. Dover New York, 1960.
18
"Philadelphia Architects and Buildings." Philadelphia Architects and Buildings. Web. 05 May 2015.
http://www.philadelphiabuildings.org/.

10. 7
Latrobe’s Infrastructural Architecture: the Waterworks Engine House (1799-1801)
While originally developing the plans for the Bank of Pennsylvania, Latrobe also began
his first engineering project in the United States. Having been trained in infrastructural
engineering in Britain, working on the aforementioned Basingstoke Canal, Latrobe was
awarded the commission for the original Waterworks Engine House in 1799 after a
citywide competition. Following a succession of yellow fever epidemics in the late
eighteenth century, city planners wanted to increase accessibility to clean water.19
This
initial “Watering Committee” chose Latrobe’s designs to develop the two steam engines
that would ultimately pump and purify unclean water from the Schuylkill River to
Philadelphia’s Centre Square—the contemporary location of City Hall at the intersection
of Broad and Market Streets, the site plan of which illustrated in Figure 4.20
As
Philadelphia grew, this focus on sanitation and the opening of space to improve public
health started to shape and redefine the urban fabric—from colonial to modern.
This considered “brainchild” of Latrobe was a feat of architectural and engineering
expertise, as “other earlier attempts to use the power of steam newly harnessed by British
engineers had not been permanently successful.”21
As clarified in Latrobe’s own
technical drawing, labeled Figure 5, a high-pressure engine allowed for the purification
of water that would then ascend to the main reservoir. Other pumps carried water to
holding tanks atop city buildings, using gravity to distribute water to individual
consumers. Architecturally, the Waterworks project was inspired in part by the Roman
Pantheon; however, the primary rotunda and oculus were adapted to suit internal
functionality. Rather than a mediator of light or other ambient conditions, the oculus
emitted smoke generated by the steam engine inside.
Glazed in white marble at the center of Philadelphia’s city plan, Waterworks served as a
social and cultural landmark (Figure 6). The adaptation of Greek Doric columns—the
first seen in America—reflected a younger America inheriting the prominence of past
civilization. The engineering aspect of the system increases this validity of this concept:
ideologically, the project provided a foundation for continued urban growth through its
system of water renewal, a metaphor for the cleansing and development of Philadelphia.
Once again, the repetition of façade layouts and the circular qualities of the main
chamber work in combination to pattern an aesthetic similar to that of the Bank. The
inclusion of the towering rotunda adds to the building’s significance and prominence. As
19
Maass, Eleanor A. "A Public Watchdog: Thomas Pym Cope and the Philadelphia
Waterworks." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society(1981): 134-154.
20
Ibid. 134.
21
Ibid. 134.

11. 8
Figure 4: Site plan from ~1815, demonstrating the axial
arrangement of the Waterworks project with Philadelphia’s Centre
Square, E. Skaggs May 2015.
a case study for uniquely infrastructural architecture as opposed to the Bank’s municipal
qualities, Waterworks becomes a formal temple with ancient ideologies dedicated to the
modern, industrial age.
Although this pumping station was demolished in 1828, Latrobe’s design redefined the
development of infrastructure across the nation. The Waterworks project was a landmark
system for water purification and engineering; Latrobe was eventually commissioned to
design similar “waterworks” projects in other cities, most notably New Orleans.
Latrobe’s commission in New Orleans came a mere ten years following the completion
of the Philadelphia Waterworks system.22
Ultimately, both Latrobe and his eldest son
(Henry Sellon Boneval Latrobe, 1792-1817) died of the same sickness that Latrobe’s
infrastructural architecture served to eradicate—yellow fever.23
Waterworks is an example of Roman Imperial architecture in the United States that
represents Latrobe’s synthesis of British Neoclassicism and Jeffersonian Neoclassicism,
22
Donaldson, Gary A. "Bringing Water to the Crescent City: Benjamin Latrobe and the New Orleans
Waterworks System." Louisiana history (1987): 381-396.
23
Ibid.
Figure 5: Latrobe’s technical drawings of the engineering
required to pump water with two steam engines, taken
from Philadelphia City Archives April 2015.

12. 9
Figure 6: The east-facing façade of the Waterworks project, revisualized by E. Skaggs April 2015 through analysis of
historical documents found in the Philadelphia City Archives.
marrying principles of proportion and symmetria to express American ideals of
democracy that were less apparent in Britain. While W. Barksdale Maynard considers
this revival of ancient forms as an international phenomenon rather than a uniquely
American crusade,24
architectural theorist and critic John Summerson asserts “from
[Latrobe’s first designs], the classical revival in America took on a national form.”25
This
juxtaposition further obscures the direct link between Latrobe’s domestic architecture and
ideals of American democracy, though “democracy,” of Greek origin demos (the people)
and kratia (power, rule), does relate to the practice and principles of equality similar to
the visual principles expressed through symmetria.
24
The following two references relate differences in opinion on the Greek Revival movement as “American
Greek Revival.” Maynard asserts that the classification of “American” Greek Revival is inappropriate;
rather, designs within the category of Greek Revival were popular throughout the world at this time.
Summerson acknowledges Latrobe as the originator of this phenomenon in the United States. Due to the
absence of primary evidence behind Latrobe’s design intentions, the author applies conjecture to relate
architectural principles of proportion and symmetria to the ideals expressed by American politics at the
time—specifically democracy. This sentiment will later be called into question when analyzing Latrobe’s
synthesis of architectural elements (from different styles) as the defining architecture of a nation. W.
Barksdale Maynard, "The Greek Revival: Americanness, politics, and economics," in Eggener, American
Architectural History: A Contemporary Reader, 2004.
25
Summerson, John (1993). Architecture in Britain, 1530 to 1830: 1530–1830. Yale University Press.
ISBN 0-300-05886-1.

13. 10
With this in mind, it is curious to
consider why Roman Imperial was
chosen as the specific style
representative within Waterworks.
Due to the building’s context, an
infrastructural building exhibiting
feats of both architecture and
engineering, Latrobe relies primarily
on Roman references rather than
reviving Greek forms. It follows that
Latrobe would mimic the Roman
Pantheon in his design, as the
Pantheon was also the world’s
premiere example of engineering
prowess in the ancient world.
Situated at the center of the
Philadelphian city plan, Waterworks
served as a reminder of the city
government’s ever-growing
technologies and unquestionable
presence within the lives of its citizens, perhaps a reference to the Romans juxtaposed
with the growing American empire. However, while the architectural elements presented
in Waterworks are primarily Roman, Latrobe still manages to include an allusion to the
Greeks with his column choice and placement. Both the Bank and Waterworks projects
fuse Greek and Roman influences to form Latrobe’s own unique neoclassical style.
Waterworks was ultimately replaced with a similar project that utilized new
developments in engineering technology at Fairmount Park. As the population of the city
reorganized itself westward, the blocks surrounding Centre Square became the epicenter
of urbanization. Notes from the city planners at the time state that “The buildings now
occupied are utterly insufficient for the transaction of accumulating public business of
our increasing city.”26
As historian Michael McCarthy notes, “It was [William] Penn’s
design and intention that this ‘crowning Square’ would become the ‘ultimate business
center of Philadelphia.’”27
The contemporary site plan, shown in Figure 4A, references
this expansion with the ultimate approval of the site for the contemporary Philadelphia
City Hall, which was the tallest habitable building in the world from 1894-1908.28
26
Reference from the city planners’ statement published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 16, 1838.
27
McCarthy, Michael P. "Traditions in Conflict: The Philadelphia City Hall Site
Controversy." Pennsylvania History (1990): 301-317.
28
"Philadelphia City Hall, Philadelphia | 117972 | EMPORIS." Philadelphia City Hall. EMPORIS GMBH,
n.d. Web. 05 May 2015.
Figure 4a: The contemporary site plan of Penn Square (Centre
Square), with Philadelphia City Hall footprint. Locator indicates
former position of Waterworks, E. Skaggs May 2015.

14. 11
Latrobe’s Private Architecture: the Sedgley Villa (1799-1802)
Around the same time he received the award to build the Waterworks project, Latrobe
was privately commissioned to design a villa typically regarded as the first American
two-story house consisting of elements from the formal Greek Revival architectural
language.29
However, through the fusing of architectural forms, Latrobe was able to
create a building treatment closely related to the Neogothic style. Defined in Latrobe’s
1798 Essay on Landscape, the primary Villa building focused on generating picturesque
imagery of the park through the redesign of the domestic architectural language. The
delicate and often whimsical application of architectural details—in a modern manner, in
order to achieve this scenic divinity—causes Sedgley to fall under the Neogothic
subgenre. Visualized in Figure 7, the Sedgley Villa was a private mansion designed and
built for the eastern bank of the Schuylkill River—the contemporary site of Fairmount
Park. Porticoes of eight columns each and a two-story entrance foyer, producing an effect
similar to the maximization of space and circulation expressed in the Bank project,
characterize the Villa’s front and rear façades. The building’s edges were flanked by
corner pavilions, connecting the column arcades in a grand manner.
Latrobe’s interest in “landscape architecture” (designing structure amidst nature, as
opposed to more modern definitions of the term) led him to the bluff that overlooked the
Schuylkill River. On top of this hill, Latrobe laid the footprint of Sedgley. As observed by
Thompson Westcott in 1850, “The natural advantages of Sedgley Park are not frequently
equaled, even upon the banks of the Romantic Schuylkill. From the height upon which
the mansion is erected, it commands an interesting and extensive view. The scenery
around is of unusual beauty. The country is covered in every direction with gentle
hills…the river, after winding in its fanciful and rugged path between mountains and
beneath precipices, here assumes the nature of everything around, and flows silently
beneath, while the busy passage of the canal boats on the opposite banks gives an
agreeable variety to the scene.”30
Latrobe reiterated these romanticized qualities of the site within the formal design of the
Villa itself. While no plans or elevational drawings exist of the Villa, and research
suggests that historians contested for years over the property’s mere existence, Figure 8
illustrates a tentative elevation of the primary Sedgley Villa façade, constructed with
information from Sedgley documents and various site recordings.
29
This incorrect attribution is noted in two separate references: Whiffen, Marcus; Frederick Koeper
(1981), American Architecture 1607-1976, Routledge | Woods, Mary N. (2004), "Chapter 6, The First
Professional: Benjamin Henry Latrobe", in Eggener, Keith, American Architectural History, Routledge
30
Westcott, Thompson. The Historic Mansions and Buildings of Philadelphia: With Some Notice of Their
Owners and Occupants. No. 1365. Porter & Coates, 1877.

15. 12
Figure 7: “Southeast View of Sedgley Park, the Country Seat of James Cowles Fisher, Esq.” Oil on canvas
painting circa 1819, Thomas Birch. Acquired via Google Cultural Institute, May 2015.
Figure 8: The tentative elevation for the Sedgley Villa, reconstructed based on historical writing and paintings.
E. Skaggs, May 2015.

16. 13
The four corner pavilions accentuated the obscurity between the natural surroundings and
the manmade structure. This area served as a threshold between spaces, a combination of
architectural traditions that most closely resemble Elizabethan mansions with elements of
French villas: pointed arches are used in combination with a hipped roof and a round
central bay that formed the main outdoor and semipublic spaces of the complex. While
Sedgley is not explicitly “Gothic” in traditional terms, Latrobe’s delicate application of
fanciful architectural detailing reflects the American modernization of this formal
language. These specifics reflect feelings of authenticity when related to the quest for a
national American architectural movement. As opposed to colonial houses of the former
British colonies, houses of the New Republic were more specialized: form took shape
through function. Both the number and variety of specific rooms of these new-age
mansions were increased, with important elements within rooms containing features of
modern convenience.
Latrobe assigned various Neogothic elements to the pavilions, including north and south
upper windows with pointed arches. The half-glass, half-masonry infill accentuates the
verticality of the pavilions, opening to light and air at the top while maintaining structural
integrity at its base; this condition is reminiscent of the removal of masonry elements in
Gothic cathedrals to deny weight and accentuate verticality. Lacelike tracery appears as
ornament and decoration. Once again, this obscurity between the threshold of park and
villa exhibits elements of modern architectural cultivation and taste. The mansion’s
various incorporated details are complementarily shaded with the native trees and vibrant
landscape of the neighboring countryside, concluding fully Latrobe’s intervention within
this divine space.
A New Past for America’s Future
The interesting nature in which Latrobe fluctuates among architectural styles—Greek
Revival, Roman Imperial, and Neogothic—is representative of his attentiveness to
program and context. The Bank of Pennsylvania represents Latrobe’s desire to fabricate a
past separate from British colonialism. Through referencing classical Greek forms,
Latrobe has architectural freedom to define space beyond an architectural movement. As
a municipal structure, the Bank design utilized the revival of authentic Greek forms to
define a space of order and grandeur. Its impressive qualities as a freestanding structure,
and the first to use archaeologically correct details, make the use of Greek elements
appropriate in expressing—and impressing—the ideals of the New Republic. Democracy
in the application of architectural elements, through the understanding of proportion and
symmetria, makes the Bank a modern temple dedicated to an ancient past that was absent
in the recently founded culture of America. Latrobe also references Roman Imperial

17. 14
design through the implementation of a stepped roof, expressing externally the grand
nature of the rotunda below.
The transcendental nature of Latrobe’s designs is continued in his Waterworks Engine
House project, which most closely resembles the Pantheon. This Roman Imperial
stylization seemingly has no place in Latrobe’s “Greek Revival” architecture; instead,
Latrobe alludes to the Romans when designing for the new, American empire.
Waterworks takes this notion one step further, elevating the central rotunda. In doing so,
Latrobe’s infrastructural architecture defines the style of the New Republic within the
scope of the Romans, referencing an ancient masterwork and the Empire associated with
it. Latrobe furthers his neoclassical stylization with the inclusion of Greek Doric
columns, marrying elements from both ancient civilizations similar to that of the Bank,
successfully integrating the two into the modern urban landscape of our own growing
civilization.
The Sedgley Villa represents Latrobe’s further synthesis of styles, introducing Gothic
elements such as the pointed arch and vaulted ceilings to redefine private domestic
architecture of the New Republic. Because the commissions for all three aforementioned
projects were awarded to Latrobe around roughly the same time, we cannot attribute
personal maturity (or major advancements within the field of architecture) to Latrobe’s
movement among Greek Revival, Roman Imperial, Neogothic styles. Rather, it is through
the proper assessment of each project’s program that Latrobe’s true intentions are
ultimately defined.
Latrobe was an American by conviction, faced early on with the task of designing the
architecture of a nation of immigrants. Latrobe, an immigrant himself, was able to
become America’s first architect through the understanding of the ever-changing
architectural landscape. His idealization of architectural typologies—referencing Greek,
Roman, and Gothic forms—led to the redesign of cities as American centers of
urbanization rather than areas representative of past colonial oppression. Various aspects
of the American city—blocks as thinned rectangles with as many houses facing south as
possible—in addition to the needs of the community—a growing interest in public health
and sanitation, cities on the western shores of rivers—circumscribed the programmatic
functionality of urban America. Latrobe modified the use of his varied architectural
references through an understanding of the municipal, infrastructural, and domestic
contexts in which these projects existed. Ultimately, Latrobe was able to marry ideals of
British Neoclassicism and Jeffersonian Neoclassicism to impress political ideals of
democracy, reflecting the principles of the country’s forefathers upon which we achieved
our freedom.

18. 15
This revisualization effort provides a glimpse into just some of Philadelphia’s lost
architecture, in addition to an understanding of Latrobe’s prowess as America’s first
architect. Revisualizing Latrobe’s synthesis of various stylistic elements provides us with
only part of his architectural relevance and significance, facilitating studies concerning
the future of architecture as evaluated through the lens of these forgotten masterworks.
Now that these buildings have been made visual once again, further analysis into the
influence and implication of Latrobe’s work is necessary to provide a better
understanding of the development of Philadelphia’s urban fabric.