The Progressive Architecture Of Frederick G. Scheibler, Jr

3. Old Heidelberg

3 fis Old Heidelberg T 0 ALL IMMEDIATE APPEARANCES, the Old Heidelberg apartment building (fig. 22) sprang full-blown and with great suddenness from the mind of the architect in the spring of 1905. There had been intimations of a new direction in Scheibler's previous work, but nothing to indicate the thorough transformation represented by the Old Heidelberg.1 According to one published report, clients Robinson and Bruckman wanted "something unique, and of a worthy appearance to occupy [the site] in one of the most aristocratic [sic] neighborhoods of the city [i.e., Fig. 22. Old Heidelberg apartment building, 1905. Open space in front of the building is foreshortened by the photograph. rLOOR. PL-"N 01.0 tfcionaCRG /IP.IfRTMENT Prrr~•v~c,tp"' Fig. 23. Old Heidelberg apartment building, 1905, first floor plan. Park Place]."2 Fred Bruckman provided the name Old Heidelberg because his family had emigrated from Heidelberg, Germany. This Germanic theme would have found sympathy with Scheibler as well. A published announcement of the project, written prior to construction, stated that the building was to be "of the old Dutch [Deutch?] type," built of "bright red pressed brick, tastefully trimmed with gray brick, terra cotta, and stone," with great porches, gables, and dormers.1 Since only the "great porches" characterize the executed building, a preliminary version of the design must have been significantly altered in the course of the design process. Scheibler's moment of progressive realization may indeed have been sudden. Robinson and Bruckman must have monitored this process and approved the final design, taking comfort in the building's Old World flavor while sanctioning its more unconventional aspects. In plan the Old Heidelberg consists of two Tshaped halves joined along a shared a party wall (see Old Heidelberg 29 30 Old Heidelberg fig. 23). Each half has its own entry and stair hall and could theoretically stand alone. There are four Lshaped apartments on each of three floors-each apartment occupying half of aT. The T-shaped forms afford a continuous street front, permit light and air to penetrate into courts at the rear, and allow for a more centralized arrangement of rooms. Each apartment has a living room, dining room, and two bedrooms that radiate from a reception room that is entered from the public stair hall. A kitchen, a bathroom , and a maid's room are logically subordinate in the plan. This layout was not in itself particularly innovative , but it was a step removed from the linear long-hall plan, and Scheibler took maximum advantage by creating axes and cross-axes from room to room to foster an open feeling. The main elevation (fig. 22) belies the dichotomy of the overall plan. The facade is bilaterally symmetrical , focused not at the twin backbones of the Ts but at a central axis corresponding to the party wall. Scheibler obtained a single unified image by subordinating the dual entrances and manipulating two key elements: the roof and porches. The roof accounts for a full one-third of the height of the elevation, and Scheibler gave it a central focus by raising it at the center and accenting it with a small dormer. Four three-story porch towers are paired A-B-B-A. The outer ones stand independently and are largely of openwork timber; the inner ones are combined into a single masonry unit, at one with the fabric of the building. By their respective materials and positions, the porches bracket and accent the center of the facade . A name panel on the central axis forms a visual link with the dormer directly above. Previously, Scheibler might have chosen a neoclassical means to this same end. In fact, the tripartite compositional scheme is rooted in Scheibler's classical training, and the mass of the central porch towers acts not unlike a portico, as at Hawkins School. The classical analogy breaks down quickly, however, and even formal aspects depart significantly from classical precedent. Symmetry, for example, though present in gross forms, is disturbed in detail. The outer porch towers differ in both plan--one is polygonal and one is rectangular-and detailing, and fenestration includes a wide variety of window types, sizes, and placements differing both from side to side and floor to floor. If the twelve units were to be broken out of the facade and viewed independently, nearly every one would differ in elevation. Van Trump noted that the...