Report of the Mohawk-Hudson Area Survey

Abstract

This report, a composite publication, has been prepared with two main objectives in view. Part One constitutes a description of the Mohawk-Hudson Area Survey itself: an account of its rationale, its organization, and the mechanics of its conduct. These matters, some of which may appear obvious and others trivial, when taken together should be a useful guide for future surveys, as well as constitute a record of the summer's activities. Part Two contains the records of the fifteen structures that were covered by the Survey: copies of the measured drawings of the six primary structures that were measured and drawn, selected photographs of all the structures and the historical accounts of each. These accounts are not intended, in most cases, to be the final word on the development of the particular structure, but rather to be “skeleton” histories serving as a starting point for further research. Exceptions to this are the accounts of the Delaware Aqueduct, the Troy Gaslight Company Gasholder House, and the Watervliet Arsenal Cast-Iron Storehouse, which are believed to be as complete as possible on the basis of known sources. Although several histories of Troy, Albany, and some of the other immediate areas exist, most were written in the nineteenth century and treat industry and technology only incidentally. An all-inclusive history of the Mohawk-Hudson area's industrial development to the present day is bady needed. Nothing would be more gratifying to the Survey's participants than to have this study inspire an analytical project of that nature. In a seizure of optimism, I began the preparation of this report anticipating that it could be completed in two or three weeks. The grossness of this miscalculation soon became clear, particularly to R. Carole Huberman of the Historic American Engineering Record staff, who undertook the editing and reconciling of the historical accounts. That unrewarding task occupied her for the entire summer and fall of 1970. Further, there appeared many gaps in the collected information, requiring her to conduct a substantial amount of additional research. Ms. Huberman has also contributed heavily to the general arrangement of the report, which, with her other contributions, has added enormously to its clarity and usefulness. I owe an especial debt of gratitude to two members of the Smithsonian Institution Press staff: Joan Horn, the <i>Report</i>'s copy editor, and Series Production Manager Charles L. Shaffer, its designer. The manuscript put into their able hands was so complex, so far from being the routine bundle of copy with a few neat illustrations, that only their quite extraordinary talents have made possible its translation from what would otherwise have been an editorial disaster into what I hope and trust is a cohesive, intelligible publication. If it is neither of these, the fault certainly is not theirs. Robert M. Vogel Smithsonian Institution City of Washington November 1972